**** Elections thread *****

[Poopadoop]

Many have made excellent points on both sides of this in the recent posts, but I don't think this one's gotten the credit it deserves.

There can be reasons to go against this, but I don't recall any good ones being posited for this specific case.

@poop:
Do you agree with the quoted bit. At least vis-a-vis the integrity of democracy?

If not... care to show me how I'm being stubborn and not seeing your reasons?

If so... what are the outstanding circumstances that we should consider in making an exception for this specific issue?

We (or at least our elected reps) have tried repeatedly (and failed repeatedly) to action the vote of the referendum. From this, one must ask why not? If it were clearly the will of the people to have a no-deal referendum, then it should have been done. The issue, however, is more nuanced than this, as I don't beleive all Leavers are like Ong and all 'arrrrrrugghgghg no deal is better than remain'. If they were so headstrong, the government would have wanted their votes and gone ahead with a no deal. That it didn't happen suggests that the government thinks the consensus (such as there was) was to achieve a Brexit with a proper deal in place.

Or, one could argue the gov't realises how bad virually any deal would be for the country and is simply waffling in the hopes that the country will come to its senses and stop supporting Brexit. Don't know.

But in principle, if a referendum has a clear majority (and I don't think this one does) then the gov't should fulfill it. That this referendum was so close is probably one reason the gov't doesn't feel compelled to push it through no matter what. They probably feel it's better to piss off a few Ongs than to ruin the country, dunno.

Edit: I would add that, given the outcome was so close, the gov't should also accept that the will of the people may have changed by now. Further, there's all sorts of problems with the referendum question being ill-posed as yes/no, when the issue is so much more nuanced than this. This is why you don't let the general population run the gov't. Most people don't have enough expertise to make informed judgments on the future of their country.

[Poopadoop]

No, I googled it to be reasonably accurate. You seem to think it means "substantial" or words to that effect. It doesn't. I literally copy/pasted the google definition. You're the one defining words to suit you, not me.

Oh fuck off.

Decisive - clearly providing a definite result

Definite - clearly stated or decided, not vague or doubtful

The result was 52/48. Plenty of doubt there.

[OngBonga]

At least dwarfman accepts we shouldn't have another vote or revoke the last one. We can disagree on the benefits and costs of Brexit all day long, but the integrity of democracy is another matter altogether. dwarfman seems to recognise democracy is more important than economics. Good for him.

[OngBonga]

Oh fuck off.

Decisive - clearly providing a definite result

Definite - clearly stated or decided, not vague or doubtful

The result was 52/48. Plenty of doubt there.

Haha. If we recount, it might be 1,399,974

There's your doubt.

"Clearly providing a definite result".

The result was clearly definite.

[Poopadoop]

Haha. If we recount, it might be 1,399,974

There's your doubt.

"Clearly providing a definite result".

The result was clearly definite.

I'm not disputing 52% is greater than 48% if that's what you mean. I'm disputing whether that difference means the population as a whole was decisively in favour of Brexit. Clearly it was not.

[OngBonga]

I'm not disputing 52% is greater than 48% if that's what you mean. I'm disputing whether that difference means the population as a whole was decisively in favour of Brexit. Clearly it was not.

"population as a whole".

Nice shifting of goalposts. I'm only taking into account legal votes, and the result was...

clearly definite, or to use a better word, decisive.

[Poopadoop]

At least dwarfman accepts we shouldn't have another vote or revoke the last one. We can disagree on the benefits and costs of Brexit all day long, but the integrity of democracy is another matter altogether. dwarfman seems to recognise democracy is more important than economics. Good for him.

This is really your only argument, rah rah democracy. I'm all for democracy except when it comes to letting uninformed people make major policy decisions. That's why we elect representatives.

If you really want democracy, we should be allowed to vote on everything, every bill that comes before parliament, every budget, etc. It could all be set up online and done really cheap.

So why don't we do that? It's because a large number of people are idiots and if you let them vote on everything soon the country would be a shambles because idiots who dont understand anything would collectively be running the country.

[Poopadoop]

"population as a whole".

Nice shifting of goalposts. I'm only taking into account legal votes, and the result was...

clearly definite, or to use a better word, decisive.

So your arguments are:

1. Arrrrggh democracy!

2. Arrrgggh semantics!

Well spoken.

[OngBonga]

It's not my only argument, it's just my most powerful one. Democracy is extremely important. Being given a vote, and then having that vote annulled because "people change their minds" or "people die" or "the result is stupid" is a direct challenge to the principles of democracy. Something you don't seem to think is important.

[OngBonga]

And you're the one playing semantics. I'm saying "decisive" means what it means. You're trying to argue it means something else.

[OngBonga]

If you really want democracy, we should be allowed to vote on everything, every bill that comes before parliament, every budget, etc. It could all be set up online and done really cheap.

This is a different argument, but if we're given a vote on how much bread costs, well that result had better be respected.

[Poopadoop]

It's not my only argument, it's just my most powerful one. Democracy is extremely important. Being given a vote, and then having that vote annulled because "people change their minds" or "people die" or "the result is stupid" is a direct challenge to the principles of democracy. Something you don't seem to think is important.

I never said we should annul the vote. I'm saying we should have another vote.

[OngBonga]

I never said we should annul the vote. I'm saying we should have another vote.

That would effectively be annulling the previous vote.

[Poopadoop]

This is a different argument, but if we're given a vote on how much bread costs, well that result had better be respected.

lol, what if only a few people bother to vote on that and the vote says bread should cost £1k/loaf? Should we respect the democratic will of idiots? Should bread immediately become enormously expensive?

Have you heard about the little drama going on the US right now, with the impeachment hearings? Some people there are saying that's going against the democratic will of the people. Would you agree with that too?

[Poopadoop]

That would effectively be annulling the previous vote.

Not annulling, updating.

[OngBonga]

poop, how exactly do you think democracy should work?

As for the Trump bullshit, I don't care. I haven't been following it because it's very probably politically motivated. If it's politically motivated, then yes, it's a challenge to democracy. If he has broken the law, then no, it is not, because the law is clear about what happens to presidents that break the law.

[OngBonga]

Not annulling, updating.

But it's me playing semantics.

You're funny.

[Poopadoop]

What exactly makes you think the collective will of people is always the best thing? Apart from masturbating to the word 'democracy', surely you can see that the people can collectively be wrong about some things?

[OngBonga]

What exactly makes you think the collective will of people is always the best thing? Apart from masturbating to the word 'democracy', surely you can see that the people can collectively be wrong about some things?

I don't think I ever suggested the will of the people is a "good thing". I just argue that democracy is important, largely because the alternatives are far worse.

The people can make stupid decisions. See Tony Blair. But if we wish to avoid living in a very shit country under authoritarian rule, then it's important to respect the will of the people when they are asked.

[Poopadoop]

poop, how exactly do you think democracy should work?

As for the Trump bullshit, I don't care. I haven't been following it because it's very probably politically motivated. If it's politically motivated, then yes, it's a challenge to democracy. If he has broken the law, then no, it is not, because the law is clear about what happens to presidents that break the law.

lol, "politically motivated". He's on the phone bribing the president of the Ukraine, gets caught, and somehow that isn't enough to impeach him, it has to be "politically motivated".

But anyways, shouldn't the people be allowed to decide what rules he can and can't bend/break? Why should elected representatives decide? Why not hold a referendum?

Also, fwiw, in the US the president doesn't have to break a law to be impeached. Technically at least, the representatives can just decide they don't like him anymore and kick him out.

[Poopadoop]

But if we wish to avoid living in a very shit country under authoritarian rule, then it's important to respect the will of the people when they are asked.

It's not an either democracy or a dictator situation. I guess nuance is a challenge for you, but really try to see that there's shades of grey everywhere.

[OngBonga]

But anyways, shouldn't the people be allowed to decide what rules he can and can't bend/break?

No. However, if they're asked, then the result should be respected.

But let's not get sidetracked with something I don't give a shit about.

[OngBonga]

It's not an either democracy or a dictator situation. I guess nuance is a challenge for you, but really try to see that there's shades of grey everywhere.

Ok, what alternatives are there to democracy?

[Poopadoop]

Anyways will be interesting to see what happens. I kinda suspect Brexit will be a no-go regardless, and it will be fun to watch Ong screeching about democracy for another ten years.

[Poopadoop]

Ok, what alternatives are there to democracy?

We live in one.

[OngBonga]

Anyways will be interesting to see what happens. I kinda suspect Brexit will be a no-go regardless, and it will be fun to watch Ong screeching about democracy for another ten years.

It won't be fun, because I won't be the only one screeching, and there will be more motivated people than myself who do more than screeching. It will result in civil unrest. Would that really be that fun?

Brexit will happen eventually. At worst, it'll be when Scotland becomes independent.

We live in one.

Incorrect. We're drifting away from one, and you're a cheerleader.

[Poopadoop]

It won't be fun, because I won't be the only one screeching, and there will be more motivated people than myself who do more than screeching. It will result in civil unrest. Would that really be that fun?

I thought that was going to happen Oct. 31. Nice fearmongering though.

Brexit will happen eventually. At worst, it'll be when Scotland becomes independent.

Ok then.

Incorrect. We're drifting away from one, and you're a cheerleader.

You're right, Boris is acting a bit like a dicator. I'm hardly cheering him on though.

[OngBonga]

I thought that was going to happen Oct. 31. Nice fearmongering though.

It should've happened last March. The patience of the people has its limits.

You're right, Boris is acting a bit like a dicator. I'm hardly cheering him on though.

No, but you're cheering on the noise regarding calls for a second referendum, which is, in my book, cheerleading against democracy. You only want democracy when you win.

[OngBonga]

At least we agree about Boris. Don't worry, I won't be voting him.

That said, when he inevitably wins, I'll respect the fact he won fairly, and won't cry about it.

[Poopadoop]

At least we agree about Boris. Don't worry, I won't be voting him.

That said, when he inevitably wins, I'll respect the fact he won fairly, and won't cry about it.

I'll sleep well tonight knowing these things. Thanks.

[Poopadoop]

It should've happened last March. The patience of the people has its limits.

Sounds like you want it to happen. Nice.

No, but you're cheering on the noise regarding calls for a second referendum, which is, in my book, cheerleading against democracy.

"In your book", exactly.

You only want democracy when you win.

The referendum was specifically put out there as not a legally binding vote, so ignoring it is not undemocratic actually.

[OngBonga]

Sounds like you want it to happen. Nice.

Of course I don't. I want us to leave, not have a democratic crisis.

"In your book", exactly.

It's my opinion. There's no hard evidence that you are in fact cheerleading against democracy, not like there's hard evidence that "leave" won a decisive referendum.

In your book, dead people don't count, implying we need daily analysis to figure out who has died since the vote. So don't sit there and mock my "book".

The referendum was specifically put out there as not a legally binding vote, so ignoring it is not undemocratic actually.

This is a tired argument. There is no point in having a referendum if the result is "advisory" or whatever jargon you wish to use to justify ignoring the will of the people.

[dwarfman3]

*sigh*

I try to pay attention to both sides, but it's hard to find intelligent voices on either side.
It doesn't help that my voice is not very intelligent on political topics, and so I'm seeking something that is hard to know when I see it.
Do they disagree with me because they're wrong and stubborn? Or because I am?

Those intelligent voices don't seem to be attracting much media attention, and are going largely unheard by people seeking them.

You wrote this as a response to my comment about how shocked I was to see Leave win in 2016. Did you quote the wrong thing? Apologies in advance if I'm being stupid and missing something, but this doesn't seem at all relevant to the post of mine you quoted

[Poopadoop]

This is a tired argument. There is no point in having a referendum if the result is "advisory" or whatever jargon you wish to use to justify ignoring the will of the people.

Not at all. If you hold a vote and tell people 'but we're not necessarily going to fulfill the outcome' then that's no different from running a national poll. If you ignore a poll result,that's not going against democracy.

[OngBonga]

I specifically remember Cameron saying in 2015 that the result would be respected.

full speech - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVjhs3gVtJE

"If we vote to leave, then we will leave".

clip - https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/90...erendum-latest

[dwarfman3]

At least dwarfman accepts we shouldn't have another vote or revoke the last one. We can disagree on the benefits and costs of Brexit all day long, but the integrity of democracy is another matter altogether. dwarfman seems to recognise democracy is more important than economics. Good for him.

I think that's kind of where I'm at, yes - but I think this might inaccurately paint my position to be of someone who is shouting RESPECT THE REFERENDUM!!!11!!1!! from the rooftops, and that's not what I'm doing.

My view is simply that both the basis and the actual process of undertaking the referendum was flawed. The issue at hand simply isn't something that ever should have been considered appropriate for a referendum, for a whole host of reasons.

For those reasons alone it is fairly obvious that a second referendum, even if it were to return a Remain majority, would help nothing. As for an active revocation of the Article 50 process, that has a firm potential to cause a great deal of turmoil and really is a struggle to justify.

The best case scenario is for the country to elect a majority government that is purposely ambivalent on the issue and ultimately allow the Brexit process to fall in on itself organically 4 or 5 years from now. This is fairly unlikely as I don't see any major party taking that approach.

The worst case scenario, which in all likelihood is going to happen, is for the country to elect a Boris Johnson majority gov't who will force through no deal. Whilst that will ultimately kill right wing politics in the UK for a generation, it will cause immense economic distress that will similarly take a generation to recover from.

My vote in December will be a tactical vote against Boris (which in my constituency is for Labour). However, I don't feel a great deal of affinity towards any major political party at the moment.

[Poopadoop]

Whilst that will ultimately kill right wing politics in the UK for a generation, it will cause immense economic distress that will similarly take a generation to recover from.

But, but... we'll just eat more fish!

[Poopadoop]

I specifically remember Cameron saying in 2015 that the result would be respected.

full speech - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVjhs3gVtJE

"If we vote to leave, then we will leave".

clip - https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/90...erendum-latest

Doesn't matter what he says. He's no longer PM. It matters how the referendum was worded, as to whether it was legally binding or not.

[OngBonga]

@dwarf

The issue at hand simply isn't something that ever should have been considered appropriate for a referendum, for a whole host of reasons.

I'm not really interested in challenging this argument. But it was put to the people, which makes the whole debate a matter about the integrity of democracy, and not a simple "in/out" debate.

The worst case scenario, which in all likelihood is going to happen, is for the country to elect a Boris Johnson majority gov't who will force through no deal.

This is the best case scenario. Shit state of affairs, to be honest.

Whilst that will ultimately kill right wing politics in the UK for a generation, it will cause immense economic distress that will similarly take a generation to recover from.

It might, or it might not. I think way too many non-economists are getting caught up in a subject they have no hope of ever fully understanding. Myself included.

[OngBonga]

Doesn't matter what he says. He's no longer PM. It matters how the referendum was worded, as to whether it was legally binding or not.

He was PM when he said it, and it's amusing how you dismiss what the then PM was telling us about the referendum and what it meant, considering you're arguing "but we're not necessarily going to fulfill the outcome".

He directly contradicts you.

[Poopadoop]

He was PM when he said it, and it's amusing how you dismiss what the then PM was telling us about the referendum and what it meant, considering you're arguing "but we're not necessarily going to fulfill the outcome".

He directly contradicts you.

He was making a promise, not describing whether or not the referendum was legally binding. Two different things. And since he's no longer PM, he failed to fulfill that promise and therefore you should write him a strongly -worded letter.

I can promise to buy you a beer when we meet. If I break that promise, you can't take me to court and say I broke a contract.

[Poopadoop]

I think way too many non-economists are getting caught up in a subject they have no hope of ever fully understanding. Myself included.

Maybe they're simply listening to what a lot of economists are saying rather than applying their own uninformed analysis as you seem to imply.

[OngBonga]

He was making a promise, not describing whether or not the referendum was legally binding. Two different things. And since he's no longer PM, he failed to fulfill that promise and therefore you should write him a strongly -worded letter.

I can promise to buy you a beer when we meet. If I break that promise, you can't take me to court and say I broke a contract.

Maybe he should've put such a promise on the side of a bus, maybe then you'd be outraged about broken promises and utter bullshit.

Do you not see a problem with the PM saying "here's a referendum, this will decide our fate and there won't be another one", and then abandoning that claim and holding another referendum? Do you not see how this is a "democratic crisis", a direct challenge to the principles that all western societies hold in high regard?

It's like lies are only a problem to you when they mean you lose.

[OngBonga]

Maybe they're simply listening to what a lot of economists are saying rather than applying their own uninformed analysis as you seem to imply.

If by "economists" you mean "businessmen and politicians with a vested interest" then sure, good point.

[Poopadoop]

If by "economists" you mean "businessmen and politicians with a vested interest" then sure, good point.

Sorry, I'm confused. Are you saying professional economists who work at universities are businessmen and politicians?

[MadMojoMonkey]

You wrote this as a response to my comment about how shocked I was to see Leave win in 2016. Did you quote the wrong thing? Apologies in advance if I'm being stupid and missing something, but this doesn't seem at all relevant to the post of mine you quoted

It was a tangent, but I quoted the right quote.

I lament the fact that it's all too easy to find an echo chamber and all too hard to find an intelligent discussion between people who disagree without getting or taking it personally.

I think I deleted the first part of my response because I was implying you are one of the people in an echo chamber, but I didn't really mean that or want to imply it. I pivoted into the difficulty of finding a non-echoic chamber. I lost track of the fact the my response lacked continuity without that, and so...

my bad.

It was never my intent to point a finger at anyone but myself.
I apologize if what inspired my introspection was in fact me thinking something ignorant and wrong about you.
(I mean... kinda... I'm not really that sorry, as I feel I recovered pretty well, but it would be nice if I didn't start from a place of being a jerk, ya know.)

[Poopadoop]

Maybe he should've put such a promise on the side of a bus, maybe then you'd be outraged about broken promises and utter bullshit.

Do you not see a problem with the PM saying "here's a referendum, this will decide our fate and there won't be another one", and then abandoning that claim and holding another referendum? Do you not see how this is a "democratic crisis", a direct challenge to the principles that all western societies hold in high regard?

It's like lies are only a problem to you when they mean you lose.

I don't really care what promises he made or broke. He's not in charge any more, so it's not my problem lol.

If the next PM says he's going to wipe out unemployment and then doesn't, does that destroy democracy? I mean surely some people would be dumb enough to believe that promise and vote for him/her.

[Poopadoop]

Anyways, we've been through this all before. The referendum was politically binding not legally binding. So therefore if the promise to uphold the result is broken the consequences are wholly political for whoever breaks that promise. You can't take them to court and say "But you promised Brexit, so Brexit has to happen. arrgghggghgh!!!"

[MadMojoMonkey]

Sounds like poop has no faith in or love for a direct democracy. Poop prefers a republic, or representative democracy.

Sounds like, at least in the abstract, ong believes that all democracy is great. Since there was a direct democratic vote, that vote should be "gospel" at least until the result is achieved.

***
I'm actually now interested in what was the legal standing of the referendum.

Was it an "advisory" directive, or a legally binding directive?
It occurs to me that I assumed the latter, but that's not typically how laws are made, so my assumption is probably bad.

What, specifically, legally, does a referendum of this sort imply as consequence?

A quick google search tells me that in the UK, referendums of the Brexit sort are not typically legally binding, and when a referendum of the sort is legally binding, there is verbage in the referendum which clearly states the exact nature of the legal binding.

The Brexit referendum was a cultural thermometer, not a legally binding directive.


Am I wrong? Please source.

[Poopadoop]

It's a pretty unequivocal 'no, not legally binding'

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ign-parliament

You're right, in order for it to have any legal weight, it has to include words to that effect. Brexit didn't.

Edit: Interestingly, they could have included the wording to make it legally binding, but didn't. Make of that what you will.

[Poopadoop]

Sounds like poop has no faith in or love for a direct democracy. Poop prefers a republic, or representative democracy.

The only problem I have with democracy is that people often get what they deserve rather than what's best for them. The current POTUS is a prime example of that.

I'd like to see some version of democracy where you have to pass a certain knowledge test before you're allowed to vote, as in you have to have some idea what's going on. It'd be a very small voter pool. Basically I don't want uninformed idiots deciding my future.

[Poopadoop]

I shouldn't use the word 'deserve' as if stupid people deserve bad outcomes. They don't. My point was more that not everyone is qualified to take part in all decision-making processes. They have very simple rules for who can and can't vote, so in that sense we are already away from true democracy.

The average sixteen year old arguably has more of a grasp on (and definitely more of a stake in) what's going on in the world than the average geriatric person.

Back to the question of qualifications, I am not qualified to take part in a lot of decisions that affect me to a greater extent than which gang of crooks gets voted into office. Things like what direction my uni takes affects my livelihood. Yet the people who make those decisions don't ask me to input or vote on those issues because I'm not an expert on business, and I accept that. Yet, we celebrate the idea that every ignoramus 18 and over has an equal say in who runs our government because fap fap democracy.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'd like to see some version of democracy where you have to pass a certain knowledge test before you're allowed to vote, as in you have to have some idea what's going on. It'd be a very small voter pool. Basically I don't want uninformed idiots deciding my future.

The problem with that is it inevitably leads to the disenfranchisement of the constituency.

Put IQ tests as a requirement to get a voter registration and you just discriminated against people who can't go to school, not people who don't want to go to school.
Make a driver's license a requirement to be a registered voter and you just discriminated against elderly and handicapped people.

Whoever is in charge will inevitably put restrictions in place that keep people "like them" in charge.

At least, I find it impossible to believe that humans are capable of creating and maintaining a system where a limited number of people constitute a ruling class and that ruling class does not become corrupt as all hell. Even the American system seems to be showing cracks.


Maybe Heinlein had it right. We need a Bureau of Sabotage. A gov't agency whose sole purpose is to combat and take down other gov't agencies. Constantly at war with itself from within.
lol.

[Poopadoop]

Actually I think it'd have the opposite effect. Certain people are more qualified to recognize corruption and self-serving in gov't and vote it out than others. Generally, that would be high IQ people, but some high IQ people don't give a shit, so they'd be out. You could have a lower than average IQ and still pass the 'informed' test. You basically just have to demonstrate some political savvy. Not sure how that would work in practice though or what the test would look like.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The average 16 yo will vote Mrs. Tiddies into any office she runs for, regardless of qualifications.
I'm not sure that's the group we want making the big decisions.

18 yo's are not too much better, but there's gotta be a line and while 35 makes more sense, it's just not practical. People get fired up into politics long before that and if they're marrying and having babies, then it's hard to justify them not having a say in the gov't, IMO.

I'll take whatever age society wants to call "adult," but the "you can fight and die for (y)our beliefs, but can't be trusted with alcohol" is stupid.

It's a huge problem. People are highly corruptible, especially people whom seek positions of power. At the same time, people will fight corruption to their deaths, and never seek positions of power. At the same time, people will overthrow corrupt politicians only to immediately become just as corrupt as the people they ousted. People want to be left alone, but at the same time, want to tell each other what to do.

We're a hot mess.

[boost]

Many have made excellent points on both sides of this in the recent posts, but I don't think this one's gotten the credit it deserves.

There can be reasons to go against this, but I don't recall any good ones being posited for this specific case.

@poop:
Do you agree with the quoted bit. At least vis-a-vis the integrity of democracy?

If not... care to show me how I'm being stubborn and not seeing your reasons?

If so... what are the outstanding circumstances that we should consider in making an exception for this specific issue?

It's asymmetrical. Imagine the referendum resulted in a remain win. When exactly would it be ok to have another vote? Because of this, it makes Ong's stance a assertion that leave is to have infinite swings and remain only gets the one.

I agree that some sort of cooling off period needs to take place before a vote to keep the losing side from continually rolling until they come up on top. Unfortunately I just don't think that there's an obvious clear cut rule of thumb that works. In the case of remain winning, I think if the EU further eroded British sovereignty, there's a clear case to be made that the board has changed and a new vote may make sense. In the case of leave winning, significant and unforeseen (or at least not commonly understood to exist) hurdles and probably knock on effects have been revealed-- these are things that the average voter does not seem to have understood.

This isn't a perfect analogy, but imagine if a convict, sentenced to death, could only mount an appeal after their sentence had been carried out. I get the appeal of "we do the thing we decided to do first, then we can regroup." But the British are not deciding which VHS to rent from the local =MegaVideo= in 1996. There are significant consequences to leaving and staying,

You only want democracy when you win.

The ironing is delicious.

[boost]

Look, I should say that I understand your point Ong. Having given the vote to the people, whether legally binding or not, it subverts a very important pillar of western civilization to not carry out their will. Of course I am not convinced and don't think you can be so sure that the will of the people is to leave with no deal, but nonetheless you Brits are caught in a bind that belies the important veil of democracy.

This is going to sound hyperbolic, but I think a blood sacrifice is in order. David Cameron should be tried and hanged (or however you lot get on with it) for treason, or gross misconduct, or whatever makes the legal scholars happy. Then the people should be told that their representatives will represent them, and that should they wish to leave the EU, even in a no deal situation, they should elect the necessary number of representatives to see to it.

[boost]

dipping back into "the will of the people":

Poop made a really good point that I want to reiterate. You guys over there are in a situation where direct democracy seems to be at odds with representative democracy. My conclusion is that either you, Ong, have misinterpreted the results of the referendum to mean the will of the people was to leave no matter what, or the will of the people has shifted, as exampled in the action of their representatives. Either way, it seems imprudent for you to argue you're arguing for the execution of the will of the people.

[OngBonga]

The only problem I have with democracy is that people often get what they deserve rather than what's best for them. The current POTUS is a prime example of that.

This isn't a problem to me. I'd rather make my own stupid mistakes than have someone in a privileged position tell me what's best for me. Maybe that's the difference between us both. Maybe that's why you're happy working in a country you don't respect.

Basically I don't want uninformed idiots deciding my future.

Try North Korea. Certainly don't live somewhere where independence, democracy and equality are important.

I shouldn't use the word 'deserve' as if stupid people deserve bad outcomes. They don't.

Sure they do. People become less stupid by learning from their mistakes. Maybe in ten years I'll admit it was a mistake to vote to leave. In your opinion, I became less stupid. If someone else is making my "correct" decision for me, I'm always going to remain stupid.

The average sixteen year old arguably has more of a grasp on (and definitely more of a stake in) what's going on in the world than the average geriatric person.

Bullshit. The average 16 y/o is interested in sex, drinking and socialising. Old people are more interested in their legacy... leaving their children and their grandchildren with a heritage.

Yet, we celebrate the idea that every ignoramus 18 and over has an equal say in who runs our government because fap fap democracy.

Like I say, try North Korea.

When your argument is basically "fuck democracy", you're fighting a losing battle.

[OngBonga]

The ironing is delicious.

Dude I've already said I'd respect the result if we lost. If you don't believe me, fine. But I'm not a cheerleader for democracy because I like winning. I prefer democracy to any other system because I'm unconvinced there is a better system. I know democracy has its flaws, but every other system I'm aware of has much more serious flaws.

If I vote for the losing side, I'm happy that I had the chance to vote in the first place. So no ironing here, it's all in your imagination.

[OngBonga]

My conclusion is that either you, Ong, have misinterpreted the results of the referendum to mean the will of the people was to leave no matter what, or the will of the people has shifted, as exampled in the action of their representatives. Either way, it seems imprudent for you to argue you're arguing for the execution of the will of the people.

No, I didn't misinterpret the referendum as the "will of the people". I correctly interpreted it as such. That's the point of referendums and elections... to determine the "will of the people".

And it really doesn't matter if opinion has shifted. We made our choice. We don't get to make another before the first vote is actioned.

[boost]

Dude I've already said I'd respect the result if we lost. If you don't believe me, fine. But I'm not a cheerleader for democracy because I like winning. I prefer democracy to any other system because I'm unconvinced there is a better system. I know democracy has its flaws, but every other system I'm aware of has much more serious flaws.

If I vote for the losing side, I'm happy that I had the chance to vote in the first place. So no ironing here, it's all in your imagination.

You've completely missed my point. Having another referendum would be democratic. My point is that direct democracy is flawed. Representative democracy has clearly defined terms, and therefore the will of the people is carried out, and at regular intervals they are able to revist the issue (of who represents them.) There are no regular intervals in a direct democracy, and your instance that we should adhere to the ones that suit you is undemocratic.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It's asymmetrical. Imagine the referendum resulted in a remain win. When exactly would it be ok to have another vote? Because of this, it makes Ong's stance a assertion that leave is to have infinite swings and remain only gets the one.

I agree that some sort of cooling off period needs to take place before a vote to keep the losing side from continually rolling until they come up on top. Unfortunately I just don't think that there's an obvious clear cut rule of thumb that works. In the case of remain winning, I think if the EU further eroded British sovereignty, there's a clear case to be made that the board has changed and a new vote may make sense. In the case of leave winning, significant and unforeseen (or at least not commonly understood to exist) hurdles and probably knock on effects have been revealed-- these are things that the average voter does not seem to have understood.

This isn't a perfect analogy, but imagine if a convict, sentenced to death, could only mount an appeal after their sentence had been carried out. I get the appeal of "we do the thing we decided to do first, then we can regroup." But the British are not deciding which VHS to rent from the local =MegaVideo= in 1996. There are significant consequences to leaving and staying,

As usual, I agree with all you've said.

At the time of that post, I was under the misunderstanding that it was a legally binding referendum, when it wasn't.
That changes my support thereof. Asking what your partner wants for dinner isn't promising them any specific meal.



=Mega Video= ... more like =Kilo Video=, amirit?

[OngBonga]

David Cameron should be tried and hanged

Tony Blair first. His criminal actions cost lives. Cameron gave people a vote.

I'm far from a fan of Cameron, but trying people for treason for giving the masses a democratic choice is, quite frankly, fucking ridiculous.

Jesus, what is wrong with you people? Why is democracy so worthy of contempt?

[boost]

No, I didn't misinterpret the referendum as the "will of the people". I correctly interpreted it as such. That's the point of referendums and elections... to determine the "will of the people".

And it really doesn't matter if opinion has shifted. We made our choice. We don't get to make another before the first vote is actioned.

Again, you've misunderstood me. I agree that a referendum represents the will of the people, what I think you're misinterpreting is what the will of the people is, not whether they voiced their will.

[OngBonga]

There are no regular intervals in a direct democracy, and your instance that we should adhere to the ones that suit you is undemocratic.

You might have a point here, though it's not "undemocratic". It's just impractical to vote over and over again on this at regular intervals, and I am having to remind you once again that we still haven't actioned the first result.

[OngBonga]

Again, you've misunderstood me. I agree that a referendum represents the will of the people, what I think you're misinterpreting is what the will of the people is, not whether they voiced their will.

I conclude the will of the people is to leave the EU because we had a referendum on the issue and decided to leave.

What am I misinterpreting?

[boost]

Tony Blair first. His criminal actions cost lives. Cameron gave people a vote.

I'm far from a fan of Cameron, but trying people for treason for giving the masses a democratic choice is, quite frankly, fucking ridiculous.

Jesus, what is wrong with you people? Why is democracy so worthy of contempt?

It's not, direct democracy is.

[Poopadoop]

This isn't a problem to me. I'd rather make my own stupid mistakes than have someone in a privileged position tell me what's best for me.

I'd rather mistakes weren't made at all. If I go 'hurr durr, I'm gonna fix my boiler myself even though I'm not qualified', I don't then go 'hey good for me, I made my own mistakes' when the thing blows up.

Maybe that's why you're happy working in a country you don't respect.

Ad bananum me all you want. I don't even know what this means lol.

Try North Korea. Certainly don't live somewhere where independence, democracy and equality are important.

Independence from what? I'd like independence from stupid people's decisions. I'm not getting it. The promise here has been broken.

Democracy in its current form doesn't always work for the reasons I've stated ad nauseum.

Equality is a liberal myth. There's a reason I don't ask a retard to do my investing, and it's not because I don't respect him, I just don't respect his ability to handle money. Just like I don't respect the average person's ability to answer an ill-formed question in a reasoned way.

Maybe in ten years I'll admit it was a mistake to vote to leave.

Why does this strike me as unlikely.

The average 16 y/o is interested in sex, drinking and socialising. Old people are more interested in their legacy... leaving their children and their grandchildren with a heritage.

For a guy who never leaves the house you sure have a deep understanding of how everyone else thinks and acts.

When your argument is basically "fuck democracy", you're fighting a losing battle.

Well, my argument is more nuanced than that, but never mind go on with your ad bananums if it makes you happy.

[OngBonga]

It's not, direct democracy is.

I assume by "direct democracy" you mean referendums vs elections?

I don't have a problem with direct democracy, it works for Switzerland. It's more ideal than the bullshit we have at election time, I would call it "pure democracy".

[Poopadoop]

Tony Blair first. His criminal actions cost lives.

Woah, back up. We have to go back at least to Churchill if we're going to start impeaching former PMs for causing unnecessary deaths.

[Poopadoop]

The average 16 yo will vote Mrs. Tiddies into any office she runs for, regardless of qualifications.
I'm not sure that's the group we want making the big decisions.

Most of them wouldn't vote in my Poopocracy though, because they'd still have to pass the 'informed voter test'.

[OngBonga]

I'd rather mistakes weren't made at all.

Hello poop, welcome to the real world where everyone makes mistakes.

Independence from what?

Dictators. Tyrants. Other people making decisions on our behalf. People who claim to "know what's best for me" when really they know what's best for them and don't give a fuck about me.

Democracy in its current form doesn't always work for the reasons I've stated ad nauseum.

It works better than tyranny.

Equality is a liberal myth.

I'll admit it, this made me laugh. I consider you a liberal, so it's amusing I'm the one championing for equality. But you have a point... that equality is not something we truly have, nor should strive towards. That said, when it comes to the matter of democracy, then equality has to exist, otherwise we find ourselves in a position where corruption plays a role. Let's say a minimum IQ of 120 is required. Let's say I have an IQ of 115 and happen to be a millionaire. I'm sure I can pay for my IQ to be 120. This is just the first problem I see with a system that gives democratic rights to some but not others.

Why does this strike me as unlikely.

Because deep down you know in ten years time we'll be just fine.

For a guy who never leaves the house you sure have a deep understanding of how everyone else thinks and acts.

I was 16 once, so where my sisters, and I do have access to social media.

Well, my argument is more nuanced than that, but never mind go on with your ad bananums if it makes you happy.

So it's ok for you to break my argument down into "democracy aaarrrrggghhhh" but I can't break yours down to "fuck democracy"?

I can see why you don't like equal standards applied to all.

[OngBonga]

Woah, back up. We have to go back at least to Churchill if we're going to start impeaching former PMs for causing unnecessary deaths.

pfftt I'm not getting into this. I was being flippant with my Blair comment. Churchill was a long time ago and any "evidence" is going to be easily challenged in court.

[Poopadoop]

Hello poop, welcome to the real world where everyone makes mistakes.

Hi Ong, welcome to my world where I let other people more qualified than I make some of my decisions.

People who claim to "know what's best for me" when really they know what's best for them and don't give a fuck about me.

Isn't this pretty much every politician?

I'll admit it, this made me laugh. I consider you a liberal, so it's amusing I'm the one championing for equality.

It is funny when someone with a black-and-white view of the world notices a shade of grey.

But you have a point... that equality is not something we truly have, nor should strive towards. That said, when it comes to the matter of democracy, then equality has to exist, otherwise we find ourselves in a position where corruption plays a role. Let's say a minimum IQ of 120 is required. Let's say I have an IQ of 115 and happen to be a millionaire. I'm sure I can pay for my IQ to be 120. This is just the first problem I see with a system that gives democratic rights to some but not others.

You can also pay to be 18 if you're not.

Because deep down you know in ten years time we'll be just fine.

Like how were 'just fine' after WWII? 'Cause I'd prefer a better standard of 'just fine' than that if possible.