|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On August 08 2017 21:53 kollin wrote:
I also strongly believe there should be a second referendum on the terms of leaving - the absolute worst way to conduct referendums in a parliamentary system is having them infrequently. You should either have them frequently over particular issues, or not at all. I think Leavers opposed to it are mostly opposed to it because they're worried they'll lose.
Or maybe they just respect democracy.
|
On August 08 2017 21:57 Reaps wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 21:53 kollin wrote:
I also strongly believe there should be a second referendum on the terms of leaving - the absolute worst way to conduct referendums in a parliamentary system is having them infrequently. You should either have them frequently over particular issues, or not at all. I think Leavers opposed to it are mostly opposed to it because they're worried they'll lose. Or maybe they just respect democracy.
Yeah, i dislike the idea of constantly having referenda, exactly until you get the "right" result, and then stopping. That seems like a silly exercise and makes a sham out of the whole procedure.
I still think that the brits have made the wrong decision to leave, and i don't think that a one time simple majority referendum is the right way to do this thing. However, changing the rules after you have done it and have had the wrong result is not the way of dealing with this. The correct way would have been to have a reasonable setup in the first place. Now you are basically stuck with it with not way out, and have to deal with that shit.
I guess unless you have another single majority referendum to rejoin the EU. That would make the whole process a complete waste of anyones time. But until then, i guess the UK will have to deal with the consequences of their shortsightedness and weird decision making processes.
|
On August 08 2017 22:08 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 21:57 Reaps wrote:On August 08 2017 21:53 kollin wrote:
I also strongly believe there should be a second referendum on the terms of leaving - the absolute worst way to conduct referendums in a parliamentary system is having them infrequently. You should either have them frequently over particular issues, or not at all. I think Leavers opposed to it are mostly opposed to it because they're worried they'll lose. Or maybe they just respect democracy. Yeah, i dislike the idea of constantly having referenda, exactly until you get the "right" result, and then stopping. That seems like a silly exercise and makes a sham out of the whole procedure. I still think that the brits have made the wrong decision to leave, and i don't think that a one time simple majority referendum is the right way to do this thing. However, changing the rules after you have done it and have had the wrong result is not the way of dealing with this. The correct way would have been to have a reasonable setup in the first place. Now you are basically stuck with it with not way out, and have to deal with that shit. I guess unless you have another single majority referendum to rejoin the EU. That would make the whole process a complete waste of anyones time. But until then, i guess the UK will have to deal with the consequences of their shortsightedness and weird decision making processes.
Agreed, Cameron should have set the rules before the vote took place, he took a massive gamble thinking he would win, now we have to pay for it. Changing rules after the vote is just not how democracy works. I wish my fellow remain voters would accept this.
|
Just to restore balance: I don't think it was a shortsighted decision. It was a risky decision to avoid the inevitable problems that the EU is sleepwalking towards along the path of least possible resistance. In that sense it was rather far-sighted. The EU in its current state cannot solve the problems which are building month on month, and at the same time the EU refuses to be reformed. I think it's really a shame that Leave voters have been scapegoated by vested interest groups, not just because it's an attack on the character of normal people with normal concerns, but also because this should have been a wake up call to the EU to give it some political will to address its accumulating mass of problems.
|
United States43545 Posts
On August 08 2017 21:53 kollin wrote:
I also strongly believe there should be a second referendum on the terms of leaving - the absolute worst way to conduct referendums in a parliamentary system is having them infrequently. You should either have them frequently over particular issues, or not at all. I think Leavers opposed to it are mostly opposed to it because they're worried they'll lose.
Shall we have a second referendum on Scotland too? And what if the referendums disagree? Should we then have a tiebreaker best out of 3 referendum? What if the loser of that says "best out of 5?"?
The government asked the British people for their input on this single issue, and they got it. We're not a direct democracy and we shouldn't be.
|
I don't agree of disagree with multiple referendums in particular, but shouldn't UK be a direct democracy? It appears to work well for Switzerland. In essence the referendum was direct democracy, as opposed to the usual system, so I'm not sure what is the argument against direct democracy you are persuing here.
|
The only reason folk want a second referendum is because they want the result they didn't get to be gotten. It almost goes without saying that if the Remainers won we wouldn't be using any convoluted logic to say that there needs to be another one.
Referendum, not neverendum, in the words of the overconfident gambling PM.
|
What if all referendums are bad unless they involve really basic concepts like “should we keep the design of our flag”? Direct democracy does not mix well with complex issues.
|
I don't think any country should be like Switzerland aside from Switzerland itself, save for maybe Singapore and a hypothetically independent Hong Kong. The downsides of direct democracy once a country grows beyond a certain population/geographic limit outweigh the benefits in that it becomes much harder to guarantee that every citizen has baseline access to basic necessities enough to inform a vote powerful enough to directly influence policy on a routine basis. In other words, without solid (although still usually implicit) guarantees as to access to education, shelter, and a means of living, direct democracy is a recipe for tyranny of the majority-type situations.
There also huge problems with ballot initiatives, though they're different and implicate bait-and-switch tactics like those seen here in the states.
|
United States43545 Posts
On August 08 2017 23:55 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I don't agree of disagree with multiple referendums in particular, but shouldn't UK be a direct democracy? It appears to work well for Switzerland. In essence the referendum was direct democracy, as opposed to the usual system, so I'm not sure what is the argument against direct democracy you are persuing here.
Direct democracy has a poor track record compared to representative democracy. The layman can't have an informed opinion on everything that is required to govern, the idea of representative democracy is that the people appoint people whose full time job is to try and have informed opinions on the issues.
|
On August 08 2017 22:34 bardtown wrote:
Just to restore balance: I don't think it was a shortsighted decision. It was a risky decision to avoid the inevitable problems that the EU is sleepwalking towards along the path of least possible resistance. In that sense it was rather far-sighted. The EU in its current state cannot solve the problems which are building month on month, and at the same time the EU refuses to be reformed. I think it's really a shame that Leave voters have been scapegoated by vested interest groups, not just because it's an attack on the character of normal people with normal concerns, but also because this should have been a wake up call to the EU to give it some political will to address its accumulating mass of problems.
No, Cameron called the referendum because of conservative party politics. He gambled, and we lost.
|
On August 09 2017 02:29 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 22:34 bardtown wrote:
Just to restore balance: I don't think it was a shortsighted decision. It was a risky decision to avoid the inevitable problems that the EU is sleepwalking towards along the path of least possible resistance. In that sense it was rather far-sighted. The EU in its current state cannot solve the problems which are building month on month, and at the same time the EU refuses to be reformed. I think it's really a shame that Leave voters have been scapegoated by vested interest groups, not just because it's an attack on the character of normal people with normal concerns, but also because this should have been a wake up call to the EU to give it some political will to address its accumulating mass of problems. No, Cameron called the referendum because of conservative party politics. He gambled, and we lost.
Won.* Also, UKIP drew 4 million votes, making them the 3rd largest party, after Cameron had promised a vote. Imagine how many votes they might have taken from the Tories if they didn't offer it. There was more than Conservative party politics involved, and it's not infeasible that promising the referendum won Cameron the election in the first place. It was the reason that I preferred them over Labour in 2015.
It doesn't really add anything to the discussion to just repeat your opinion that the referendum/result was good/bad over and over again.
|
On August 09 2017 02:49 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 02:29 Deleuze wrote:On August 08 2017 22:34 bardtown wrote:
Just to restore balance: I don't think it was a shortsighted decision. It was a risky decision to avoid the inevitable problems that the EU is sleepwalking towards along the path of least possible resistance. In that sense it was rather far-sighted. The EU in its current state cannot solve the problems which are building month on month, and at the same time the EU refuses to be reformed. I think it's really a shame that Leave voters have been scapegoated by vested interest groups, not just because it's an attack on the character of normal people with normal concerns, but also because this should have been a wake up call to the EU to give it some political will to address its accumulating mass of problems. No, Cameron called the referendum because of conservative party politics. He gambled, and we lost. Won.* Also, UKIP drew 4 million votes, making them the 3rd largest party, after Cameron had promised a vote. Imagine how many votes they might have taken from the Tories if they didn't offer it. There was more than Conservative party politics involved, and it's not infeasible that promising the referendum won Cameron the election in the first place. It was the reason that I preferred them over Labour in 2015. It doesn't really add anything to the discussion to just repeat your opinion that the referendum/result was good/bad over and over again.
Won/lost is a matter of opinion.
Cameron clearly called the ref to assert leadership over the party.
|
In Switzerland referendums over "the same things" happen from time to time, but normally like 10 years later under another title.
Directly revoting is just a big no-no, why even bother to have one if you immediately revote.
Young people or whoever didnt show up isn't an excuse.
|
On August 08 2017 23:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 21:53 kollin wrote:
I also strongly believe there should be a second referendum on the terms of leaving - the absolute worst way to conduct referendums in a parliamentary system is having them infrequently. You should either have them frequently over particular issues, or not at all. I think Leavers opposed to it are mostly opposed to it because they're worried they'll lose. Shall we have a second referendum on Scotland too? And what if the referendums disagree? Should we then have a tiebreaker best out of 3 referendum? What if the loser of that says "best out of 5?"? The government asked the British people for their input on this single issue, and they got it. We're not a direct democracy and we shouldn't be.
It is absolutely insane to have infrequent referendums on issues in this way. I fully accept people voted to leave the EU, but on what terms? Is leaving the single market a step too far, are we happy with no deal? A referendum on the terms of the exit deal seems to make complete sense to me, I don't understand why that's controversial - it's not even on whether or not we should leave, but whether the terms we are leaving by are acceptable. If remain had won I think it would be entirely acceptable to have another referendum on the issue in X number of years (I'm not sure how many is ideal). Infrequently holding referendums on issues leads to a populace that is not very educated on the issue that can use the referendum to express their view on whatever grievances they have - be that immigration, sovereignty or just a dislike of the establishment regardless of whether leaving the EU addresses those grievances.
|
We had a referendum on the terms of brexit. It was the general election. Granted only the Lib Dems actually told us what they were going to do about Brexit, but at least the tories defined Brexit as Brexit.
|
On August 09 2017 07:05 Jockmcplop wrote:
We had a referendum on the terms of brexit. It was the general election. Granted only the Lib Dems actually told us what they were going to do about Brexit, but at least the tories defined Brexit as Brexit.
You could just as easily say we had a referendum on whether or not we should leave, and it was every election ever where a party not committed to leaving won. Besides that, all the parties just promised 'the best deal possible' and gave very vague commitments to what they'd do. That is not the same as people being presented a final deal that the government and the EU have agreed upon, and voting whether or not to accept it. The reality is we are in a representative democracy, and the Conservatives for better or worse chose to use a referendum to settle a highly contentious issue. I don't see how it's undemocratic or unreasonable in any way for people to vote on the final deal.
|
Actually both Labour and the Conservatives committed to leaving the single market and ending free movement. Between them they got over 80% of the vote. The Conservatives went one step further and said they would leave the customs union. The only parties that wanted a second referendum lost votes.
|
On August 09 2017 07:26 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 07:05 Jockmcplop wrote:
We had a referendum on the terms of brexit. It was the general election. Granted only the Lib Dems actually told us what they were going to do about Brexit, but at least the tories defined Brexit as Brexit.
You could just as easily say we had a referendum on whether or not we should leave, and it was every election ever where a party not committed to leaving won.
Not really. We voted to leave, it was the first time the question was asked, and if people really, really wanted to stay they could have voted for lib dems. Hell they could have voted for Labour if they were confused, because so were labour.
On August 09 2017 07:26 kollin wrote:
Besides that, all the parties just promised 'the best deal possible' and gave very vague commitments to what they'd do. That is not the same as people being presented a final deal that the government and the EU have agreed upon, and voting whether or not to accept it. The reality is we are in a representative democracy, and the Conservatives for better or worse chose to use a referendum to settle a highly contentious issue. I don't see how it's undemocratic or unreasonable in any way for people to vote on the final deal.
I don't think its undemocratic but I do think its unreasonable.
Referendum followed by general election seemed the best way to get this done, if only any of the parties had the bollocks to actually try and formulate some kind of plan.
Its shit, I wish people hadn't voted for us to leave, but more voting would end up being more of the same I'm afraid. Leave the single market? Yes, and probably by more votes than brexit won by.
No government would ever allow a referendum on a final deal anyway. What if people voted no? That's years of wasted negotiating and financial uncertainty for nothing.
|
On August 09 2017 07:40 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 07:26 kollin wrote:On August 09 2017 07:05 Jockmcplop wrote:
We had a referendum on the terms of brexit. It was the general election. Granted only the Lib Dems actually told us what they were going to do about Brexit, but at least the tories defined Brexit as Brexit.
You could just as easily say we had a referendum on whether or not we should leave, and it was every election ever where a party not committed to leaving won. Not really. We voted to leave, it was the first time the question was asked, and if people really, really wanted to stay they could have voted for lib dems. Hell they could have voted for Labour if they were confused, because so were labour. Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 07:26 kollin wrote:
Besides that, all the parties just promised 'the best deal possible' and gave very vague commitments to what they'd do. That is not the same as people being presented a final deal that the government and the EU have agreed upon, and voting whether or not to accept it. The reality is we are in a representative democracy, and the Conservatives for better or worse chose to use a referendum to settle a highly contentious issue. I don't see how it's undemocratic or unreasonable in any way for people to vote on the final deal. I don't think its undemocratic but I do think its unreasonable. Referendum followed by general election seemed the best way to get this done, if only any of the parties had the bollocks to actually try and formulate some kind of plan. Its shit, I wish people hadn't voted for us to leave, but more voting would end up being more of the same I'm afraid. Leave the single market? Yes, and probably by more votes than brexit won by. No government would ever allow a referendum on a final deal anyway. What if people voted no? That's years of wasted negotiating and financial uncertainty for nothing.
Every election ever has been a judgement on whether or not to leave, that's what a representative democracy entails. By injecting this element of direct democracy into our politics, it is absolute insanity to not carry it to a logical conclusion where people not only have a say in whether we should remain or leave, but whether the terms presented to us in leaving are acceptable. The assumption that I'm some embittered remainer desperately trying to reverse the result ignores the fact that it doesn't make sense not to extend the will of the people to the consequence of their decision. Even with the Conservatives and Labour offering broadly similar plans and getting a huge portion of the vote, that doesn't really give anyone an idea of the deal we are going to get in the end - therefore the election is not a judgement on the type of Brexit people get, but the one they want. When the details are hammered out, I don't see why they shouldn't give their verdict on it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
