EPTPretending that young generations are worthless idiots and forcing your traditions on them is as old as humanity itself.
European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 1195
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
Pretending that young generations are worthless idiots and forcing your traditions on them is as old as humanity itself. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On October 21 2018 00:31 Gorsameth wrote: Brexit is happening. The question is what will be left after, if no deal is agreed upon then its a hard exit, not no exit. Which is also why a referendum about the deal makes no sense. So many people will not understand it and vote against the agreement thinking it will mean no exit, rather then a worse exit. If your looking for someone to blame for the mess don't so much look at the government. Look at the people who led the Brexit campaign and then ran away when they 'won'. (tho there is plenty to blame on May for how the negotiations have gone and the completely unrealistic proposals) idk, I could see European politicians being stupid enough to give the UK an extension and allowing the UK to undo Brexit resulting in UK staying in the EU. However, I'd also say that if that happens people will be marching on the streets of the UK with pitchforks yelling about how UK&EU government are ignoring their vote (innitial Brexit that is) and it would probably be the worst of all ends. I don't see any possible ways in which a undo-Brexit move would work out reasonable. From people screaming vote manipulation to just keep voting until you get the result you wanted after a year or fearmongering. Just to make it absolutely clear, that's not my stance on the issue at all but I do think that's what we'd hear. And I think politicians (would?) underestimate that risk and let it happen if a 2nd referendum happens. | ||
|
HolydaKing
21254 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21966 Posts
But you can't keep holding referendums until you get the result you want. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
solidbebe
Netherlands4921 Posts
| ||
Godwrath
Spain10132 Posts
On October 22 2018 23:11 Gorsameth wrote: The margin was narrow to begin with and the clusterfuck will have made people less in favor. It would fail if held now. But you can't keep holding referendums until you get the result you want. Meh, referendums should be a bo7 anyways. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On October 23 2018 04:40 Plansix wrote: Being able to end hundreds of treaties and international agreements with a single referendum might be a bit of a flaw in the UK system. Here in the US some states tried to let citizens write and vote for laws to be put on the books and it was a disaster. But even in the super dumb US, with our very weird government, we cannot put leaving NATO to the popular vote. It isn’t even an option. Having to obey hundreds and thousands of laws that no living person has ever voted on shouldn't be the case to begin with. It's what makes old jurisdicitve systems like the US and the UK such a clusterfuck that you are basically just paying lawyers to bullshit each other with laws and special cases that everyone has to read up on. A system that isn't rational in the sense, that it provides the information about its laws by itself will necessarily end in oligarchy/dictatorship. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On October 23 2018 05:41 Plansix wrote: Just elect candidates that will question an alliance or treaty. Referendums just seem like a way for politicians get elected proposing stupid things and then passing the responsibility for the outcome to the voters. The problem is that candidates come with all their program, while you might just want to solve a specific question. In 2005 the French people voted no to a referendum; yet two years later, in the presidential, the same people placed ahead 3 candidates (gathering 75% of the votes) who had supported the yes. The programs of the main parties and the popular will at a given time may mismatch for a few themes. Now for the Brexit, the "amusing" part is that it was just an internal maneuver of the right who completely blew out of control; and obviously the crooks who led the Exit campaign had no real clue how to implement it afterwards. Most of them probably did not even expect to win in the first place. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On October 23 2018 06:43 Nyxisto wrote: there is no need for referendums in a parliamentary system. The reason Brexit got blown out of proportion is precisely because Cameron let a crazy, unmediated idea loose on the political system. Leaving NATO would be exactly the same and would be weaponised by extremists. This is the sort of thing that you should leave to people who understand the 30 year geopolitical consequences of such a decision, not anyone at the ballot box. "I am Mr. Moderate, only people like me are worthy of deciding, you peasants have the right to vote only as long as you vote right, otherwise you're an extremist" | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On October 23 2018 06:43 Nyxisto wrote: there is no need for referendums in a parliamentary system. The reason Brexit got blown out of proportion is precisely because Cameron let a crazy, unmediated idea loose on the political system. Leaving NATO would be exactly the same and would be weaponised by extremists. This is the sort of thing that you should leave to people who understand the 30 year geopolitical consequences of such a decision, not anyone at the ballot box. That's all nice on a theoretical level. And surely the people with the greater expertize are there. Now how do we TECHNICALLY find those people to give them the power to make such decisions? By elections? That's how you got Cameron into power in the first place, whose decisions on that matter you don't find sufficiently good. What is the mechanism you are proposing? Bolshevism? Feuderalism? Where in the world do you find those angels, who are going to build society for us? There is technically no better mechanism to find a common ground on the topic of general laws than to make a collective decision. If you want to make those decisions better you have to enlighten everybody. You are running fullsteam in the bolshevist/conservative elite trap, where you stop questioning HOW you get to good decisions, and only want to jump to the finish line. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 23 2018 07:05 TheDwf wrote: "I am Mr. Moderate, only people like me are worthy of deciding, you peasants have the right to vote only as long as you vote right, otherwise you're an extremist" Considering that referendums are not votes on the law itself, but a desired outcome that may or may not be clear, having the legislature voting means the people know what the outcome is. There is a requirement for and open discussion of the proposed legislation and its outcome. Referendum lack that requirement and don’t need the full legislation to be finalized before people vote on them. And of course, there is the tyranny of the majority. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10812 Posts
| ||
|
Neneu
Norway492 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On October 23 2018 15:51 Neneu wrote: Whenever the parlament in Norway is changing, removing or adding stuff to the constitution, it needs to have a majority vote of at least 2/3 of the parliament, in two successive election periods. I dont understand why referendums like brexit, which brings extreme changes, are not held to the same standard In Austria there are different types of laws for that purpose: Constitutional laws Laws in the rank of constitutional laws Simple laws Simple laws can be changed by parliamentary majority or plebescite, laws in the rank of constitutional laws or small changes to constitutional laws by 2/3 of the parliament or plebescite. If you want to make a greater change to constitutional laws, like joining or leaving the EU, you must hold a plebescite about it. I guess in Britain they need to go through some referendum process as well for the courts to acknowledge such a grave decision. But you never know for sure with Britain's lack of constitution, unless you went through 25-years of Oxford. It would probably be much harder to leave the EU for Austria, because we would have to vote on the actual changes to the constitution and not some populist bullshit claims, as I understand it. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On October 23 2018 12:40 Velr wrote: Having a direct vote on something like Brexit with a populus that isn't used to direct democracy is stupid. Brits used this vote to say fuck you to their goverment for a wide variety of reasons, many had nothing to do with the EU Says who, on what basis? On October 23 2018 15:51 Neneu wrote: Whenever the parlament in Norway is changing, removing or adding stuff to the constitution, it needs to have a majority vote of at least 2/3 of the parliament, in two successive election periods. I dont understand why referendums like brexit, which brings extreme changes, are not held to the same standard Yeah, indeed there should be heavier majorities required for massive changes | ||
| ||
