This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Apparently this is the third national referendum in our history. Let’s hope it is the last. I know many people think it’s the ultimate form of democracy, but it has never been our way, and I hope it never will. Our system of representative democracy, although it is weakened by our absurd voting system, has much to recommend it.
We elect MPs to do more than merely support our views in Parliament. We expect them to give a lot of consideration to important issues, to argue over them and perhaps change their voting intention in Parliament as a result. It is unreasonable to expect us ordinary people to do this – we elect MPs to do it while we get on with our work and family life. How come it’s thought a good idea when a complex issue with many facets and possibly momentous consequences comes along that they should abdicate these responsibilities and call a referendum? If they aren’t up to the challenge how can they expect us to be?
When it comes to Parliamentary elections we the voters have to make compromises. Hardly any of us who think at all about political issues can say we approve of everything that a particular party in power does, but we should vote for the least-worst option. That’s just realism. When a referendum comes along it is by definition a single binary choice. This makes it appear simple when in fact it is anything but. Such an issue as whether we continue our membership of the EU becomes reduced to LEAVE or REMAIN. How many times have we seen on TV prospective voters pleading for the facts when all the relevant facts (even if they’re agreed as facts) would be so many and so complex that very few would have time or inclination to study them fully?
This apparent simplification of the issue is a heaven sent opportunity for newspapers owned by wealthy people who have ambitions to pull the levers of power in secret such as Murdoch and the Barclay Brothers. They can reduce the issues to the degree that it seems to make sense to their readers by the use of downright lies and sloganising, and by appealing to the worst instincts of human nature such as xenophobia. This has been the stock-in-trade of the demagogue throughout history, and Farage and Johnson know it still works. Remember Oswald Moseley. Fortunately, the British population in the 1930s had the sense to dismiss him. Empty and vacuous slogans, if repeated often enough, such as “Take back control” can be made to seem common sense and patriotic, whereas in reality they are meaningless and a substitute for thought and careful consideration.
One of the most shocking aspects of the recent OUT campaign has been the rubbishing of expert opinion. While some pronouncements can be seen as self-serving the overwhelming majority were against leaving, but in one jaw-dropping moment Gove, until recently Minister of Education, came out with something along the lines of “We’ve had enough of expert opinion”. I’d wager he’d not have such a cavalier attitude if he found himself in an oncology waiting room or even if he was having his car serviced. This of course, chillingly parallels the buffoonery being played out now in Trump’s presidential campaign. I wonder how long it will be before our government is denying climate change? Maybe even the Holocaust was all trumped up (deliberate choice of word there) by so-called experts.
But still, you may say, the people have spoken. Well, less than half of them have (an argument for compulsory voting?). The logic of referendums would, of course, bring back corporal and even capital punishment, in spite of all “expert” opinion. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were a majority for having child abusers hung drawn and quartered in public, especially after a campaign by the gutter press.
We elect MPs to do more than merely support our views in Parliament. We expect them to give a lot of consideration to important issues, to argue over them and perhaps change their voting intention in Parliament as a result. It is unreasonable to expect us ordinary people to do this – we elect MPs to do it while we get on with our work and family life. How come it’s thought a good idea when a complex issue with many facets and possibly momentous consequences comes along that they should abdicate these responsibilities and call a referendum? If they aren’t up to the challenge how can they expect us to be?
When it comes to Parliamentary elections we the voters have to make compromises. Hardly any of us who think at all about political issues can say we approve of everything that a particular party in power does, but we should vote for the least-worst option. That’s just realism. When a referendum comes along it is by definition a single binary choice. This makes it appear simple when in fact it is anything but. Such an issue as whether we continue our membership of the EU becomes reduced to LEAVE or REMAIN. How many times have we seen on TV prospective voters pleading for the facts when all the relevant facts (even if they’re agreed as facts) would be so many and so complex that very few would have time or inclination to study them fully?
This apparent simplification of the issue is a heaven sent opportunity for newspapers owned by wealthy people who have ambitions to pull the levers of power in secret such as Murdoch and the Barclay Brothers. They can reduce the issues to the degree that it seems to make sense to their readers by the use of downright lies and sloganising, and by appealing to the worst instincts of human nature such as xenophobia. This has been the stock-in-trade of the demagogue throughout history, and Farage and Johnson know it still works. Remember Oswald Moseley. Fortunately, the British population in the 1930s had the sense to dismiss him. Empty and vacuous slogans, if repeated often enough, such as “Take back control” can be made to seem common sense and patriotic, whereas in reality they are meaningless and a substitute for thought and careful consideration.
One of the most shocking aspects of the recent OUT campaign has been the rubbishing of expert opinion. While some pronouncements can be seen as self-serving the overwhelming majority were against leaving, but in one jaw-dropping moment Gove, until recently Minister of Education, came out with something along the lines of “We’ve had enough of expert opinion”. I’d wager he’d not have such a cavalier attitude if he found himself in an oncology waiting room or even if he was having his car serviced. This of course, chillingly parallels the buffoonery being played out now in Trump’s presidential campaign. I wonder how long it will be before our government is denying climate change? Maybe even the Holocaust was all trumped up (deliberate choice of word there) by so-called experts.
But still, you may say, the people have spoken. Well, less than half of them have (an argument for compulsory voting?). The logic of referendums would, of course, bring back corporal and even capital punishment, in spite of all “expert” opinion. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were a majority for having child abusers hung drawn and quartered in public, especially after a campaign by the gutter press.
35
2
In reply to Rog Wilko:
They are 'objects of ill omen and their use comes with perils' I can see a place in a democracy for referenda but they have to be buttressed with a whole host of other democratic practices, respect and legal protection for minorities, human rights and distinct roles for various forms of expertise that are only accessible through standards set out by professional bodies or peer review to name but a few. The alternative is the sort of rank democracy that you describe and I fear we are in the process of experiencing the fallout of.
By its very nature a binary question divides and to allow huge decision based on a simple numeric majority is hugely divisive. Personally I don't think it would be democratic for 51% of the population to decide to enslave the other 41% although to hear some of the triumphant Brexiteers, Dan Hannah MEP, you would think that this is all fine and dandy.
I feel this referendum has unleashed no end of hatred and bile and I think whilst there were huge flaws in the Remain campaign and the general lack of meaningful democracy I think that the Leave campaign has been much worse and is quite frankly despicable. The electorate was gerrymandered from the start (EU citizens and under 18's) excluded, unlike in the Scottish referendum. However what was unconscionable was the appeal to xenophobia and hatred of the other. At a time when fascism and intolerance are on the rise across Europe even the 'moderate' and intellectual Brexiteers have been happy to benefit from this to further their own aims.
And now it comes to the personal bit. The referendum has been wielded like a weapon against nearly half of the country. As a Southerner a Brit (I literally have no idea what being English is) and more importantly a European, living in an admittedly affluent city with very high levels of immigration but which is happy with it, in the past few days and weeks I have read and heard no end of bile and hatred directed towards 'them'. 'They' are my friends 'they' are my family, the people who have helped me out in times of crisis and one of 'them' is the mother of my daughter and I am frightened about what the future holds for us. What disgusts me is that so much of that bile is from people who until the 23rd I believed I shared something with. As a progressive I hated a system that leaves some parts of the country struggling whilst amassing great wealth and privilege in other parts. What is more I have always used what limited democratic powers I have to support a fairer society and yet now I find myself asking of these people who the f*ck are you to me. If you force me to decide about my identity and where I fit in the world why should I choose you?
They are 'objects of ill omen and their use comes with perils' I can see a place in a democracy for referenda but they have to be buttressed with a whole host of other democratic practices, respect and legal protection for minorities, human rights and distinct roles for various forms of expertise that are only accessible through standards set out by professional bodies or peer review to name but a few. The alternative is the sort of rank democracy that you describe and I fear we are in the process of experiencing the fallout of.
By its very nature a binary question divides and to allow huge decision based on a simple numeric majority is hugely divisive. Personally I don't think it would be democratic for 51% of the population to decide to enslave the other 41% although to hear some of the triumphant Brexiteers, Dan Hannah MEP, you would think that this is all fine and dandy.
I feel this referendum has unleashed no end of hatred and bile and I think whilst there were huge flaws in the Remain campaign and the general lack of meaningful democracy I think that the Leave campaign has been much worse and is quite frankly despicable. The electorate was gerrymandered from the start (EU citizens and under 18's) excluded, unlike in the Scottish referendum. However what was unconscionable was the appeal to xenophobia and hatred of the other. At a time when fascism and intolerance are on the rise across Europe even the 'moderate' and intellectual Brexiteers have been happy to benefit from this to further their own aims.
And now it comes to the personal bit. The referendum has been wielded like a weapon against nearly half of the country. As a Southerner a Brit (I literally have no idea what being English is) and more importantly a European, living in an admittedly affluent city with very high levels of immigration but which is happy with it, in the past few days and weeks I have read and heard no end of bile and hatred directed towards 'them'. 'They' are my friends 'they' are my family, the people who have helped me out in times of crisis and one of 'them' is the mother of my daughter and I am frightened about what the future holds for us. What disgusts me is that so much of that bile is from people who until the 23rd I believed I shared something with. As a progressive I hated a system that leaves some parts of the country struggling whilst amassing great wealth and privilege in other parts. What is more I have always used what limited democratic powers I have to support a fairer society and yet now I find myself asking of these people who the f*ck are you to me. If you force me to decide about my identity and where I fit in the world why should I choose you?
9
2
In reply to Rog Wilko:
I'm afraid I rather skimmed your comments
But I think that this was not appropriate question for a referendum.and I said so well before the result. I think that there were 2 problems. Leave was not and is not a defined positions. It covers far too many options and is not clear who then decides exactly which options we will end up taking.
A weakness of all referendum is that you might as well lie. It's not like a general election where your lies can come back to haunt you. Once it is done it is done.
I'm afraid I rather skimmed your comments
But I think that this was not appropriate question for a referendum.and I said so well before the result. I think that there were 2 problems. Leave was not and is not a defined positions. It covers far too many options and is not clear who then decides exactly which options we will end up taking.
A weakness of all referendum is that you might as well lie. It's not like a general election where your lies can come back to haunt you. Once it is done it is done.
7
In reply to Rog Wilko:
Possibly only people who have been to Uni or maybe have a certain wealth should vote, or maybe only men. It is rather repugnant that people only like democracy when it goes their way.
Possibly only people who have been to Uni or maybe have a certain wealth should vote, or maybe only men. It is rather repugnant that people only like democracy when it goes their way.
13
5
2
1
In reply to Lenin:
You don't tend to get people moaning after general elections that there shouldn't have been a vote. The reasons for calling the referendum were weak and disingenuous, the information provided for people in the campaign was largely false, and the outcome of the vote is likely to be negative for the young people who didn't even vote that way, and the next generation who had no say.
The position that referendum= democracy = good is not very well considered. But I suppose it's coming from the same camp who think that handing Boris Johnson the keys to number 10 is an act of rebellion against the establishment.
> Possibly only people who have been to Uni or maybe have a certain wealth should vote, or maybe only men. It is rather repugnant that people only like democracy when it goes their way.
You don't tend to get people moaning after general elections that there shouldn't have been a vote. The reasons for calling the referendum were weak and disingenuous, the information provided for people in the campaign was largely false, and the outcome of the vote is likely to be negative for the young people who didn't even vote that way, and the next generation who had no say.
The position that referendum= democracy = good is not very well considered. But I suppose it's coming from the same camp who think that handing Boris Johnson the keys to number 10 is an act of rebellion against the establishment.
9
4
In reply to Lenin:
People knowing what they're actually voting for would be nice.
> Possibly only people who have been to Uni or maybe have a certain wealth should vote, or maybe only men. It is rather repugnant that people only like democracy when it goes their way.
People knowing what they're actually voting for would be nice.
18
2
In reply to Rog Wilko:
The origins of democracy were in ancient Athens, when all the enfranchised citizens (male, not slaves) were able to assemble in the Theatre of Dionysus to debate the issues of the day. This was democracy in the purest form in which it has ever been exercised - no building ever created could hold an electorate of more than 33 million voters. So the referendum format is the closest that can be devised to the original democratic system. The whole point of a referendum is that the people are given the opportunity to express their opinion - extremists on either side will cancel each other out. You'd rather be governed by elected professionals who have one eye on what their constituents want and another (or maybe rather more than one other) on the advancement of their careers?
The origins of democracy were in ancient Athens, when all the enfranchised citizens (male, not slaves) were able to assemble in the Theatre of Dionysus to debate the issues of the day. This was democracy in the purest form in which it has ever been exercised - no building ever created could hold an electorate of more than 33 million voters. So the referendum format is the closest that can be devised to the original democratic system. The whole point of a referendum is that the people are given the opportunity to express their opinion - extremists on either side will cancel each other out. You'd rather be governed by elected professionals who have one eye on what their constituents want and another (or maybe rather more than one other) on the advancement of their careers?
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
I think the point is many people are just fed up with an elite who constantly lie and treat with total disdain the people they are supposed to serve. The EU is just one layer of this. Obviously there are others. Personally I would skin alive a few MPs and upholster the Commons with their skin, possibly extreme but worth a try https://mydailyartdisplay.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/judgement-of-cambyses-an...
I think the point is many people are just fed up with an elite who constantly lie and treat with total disdain the people they are supposed to serve. The EU is just one layer of this. Obviously there are others. Personally I would skin alive a few MPs and upholster the Commons with their skin, possibly extreme but worth a try https://mydailyartdisplay.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/judgement-of-cambyses-an...
Post edited at 20:41
5
2
In reply to Lenin:
I'm fed up with them too, but I don't think siding with the worse of them is the answer. We've got rid ofCameron and we're getting Johnson and Gove. I'd like to see them forensically interviewed now to tell us what their plans are, how it's all going to work. I suspect they don't have the faintest idea.
> I think the point is many people are just fed up with an elite who constantly lie and treat with total disdain the people they are supposed to serve. The EU is just one layer of this. Obviously there are others. Personally I would skin alive a few MPs and upholster the Commons with their skin, possibly extreme but worth a try https://mydailyartdisplay.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/judgement-of-cambyses-an...
I'm fed up with them too, but I don't think siding with the worse of them is the answer. We've got rid ofCameron and we're getting Johnson and Gove. I'd like to see them forensically interviewed now to tell us what their plans are, how it's all going to work. I suspect they don't have the faintest idea.
6
2
In reply to John2:
Exhibit 1 - Boris Johnson. You don't think he's just led us into this for the advancement of his career? If things get as bad as they could as a result of his hubris and mendacity he should be lynched.
> The origins of democracy were in ancient Athens, when all the enfranchised citizens (male, not slaves) were able to assemble in the Theatre of Dionysus to debate the issues of the day. This was democracy in the purest form in which it has ever been exercised - no building ever created could hold an electorate of more than 33 million voters. So the referendum format is the closest that can be devised to the original democratic system. The whole point of a referendum is that the people are given the opportunity to express their opinion - extremists on either side will cancel each other out. You'd rather be governed by elected professionals who have one eye on what their constituents want and another (or maybe rather more than one other) on the advancement of their careers?
Exhibit 1 - Boris Johnson. You don't think he's just led us into this for the advancement of his career? If things get as bad as they could as a result of his hubris and mendacity he should be lynched.
4
3
In reply to Lenin:
My pet theory is that is the fault of FPTP.
The Tories can ignore the Tory voters and all other voters in Sunderland because the Tories are never going to win.
Labour can neglect the Labour voters in Sunderland because Labour are always going to win.
The Tories can neglect the Tory voters in Tunbridge Wells because the Tories are always going to win.
Labour can ignore the Labour voters and all other voters in Tunbridge Wells because Labour are never going to win.
That sort of logic applies to most* of the 650 constituencies so there are large reserves of disenchanted voters.
A referendum is the first opportunity for maybe half of the electorate to feel their vote has an equal value. A small but decisive fraction of the leave vote may have been "screw the politicians" vote.
*There are 359 "safe" seats with majorities greater than 10,000
> I think the point is many people are just fed up with an elite who constantly lie and treat with total disdain the people they are supposed to serve.
My pet theory is that is the fault of FPTP.
The Tories can ignore the Tory voters and all other voters in Sunderland because the Tories are never going to win.
Labour can neglect the Labour voters in Sunderland because Labour are always going to win.
The Tories can neglect the Tory voters in Tunbridge Wells because the Tories are always going to win.
Labour can ignore the Labour voters and all other voters in Tunbridge Wells because Labour are never going to win.
That sort of logic applies to most* of the 650 constituencies so there are large reserves of disenchanted voters.
A referendum is the first opportunity for maybe half of the electorate to feel their vote has an equal value. A small but decisive fraction of the leave vote may have been "screw the politicians" vote.
*There are 359 "safe" seats with majorities greater than 10,000
Post edited at 21:22
7
In reply to Lenin:
Where does Boris Johnson and the Leave campaign fit into this?
> I think the point is many people are just fed up with an elite who constantly lie and treat with total disdain the people they are supposed to serve.
Where does Boris Johnson and the Leave campaign fit into this?
4
1
In reply to Rog Wilko:
Are referendums a good thing? Good question. Don't know the answer.
Perhaps we should have a vote on it?
T.
Are referendums a good thing? Good question. Don't know the answer.
Perhaps we should have a vote on it?
T.
6
In reply to Rog Wilko:
The biggest problem with referendums, is that even people who haven't mastered how to shit in a bucket, can vote in them.
The biggest problem with referendums, is that even people who haven't mastered how to shit in a bucket, can vote in them.
4
2
In reply to John2:
Sorry you are totally wrong people were not given a chance to express their opinions, they were given a binary choice. I don't see that extremists have cancelled each other out or that some middle ground has been reached, rather the country has been divided almost down the middle.
Sorry you are totally wrong people were not given a chance to express their opinions, they were given a binary choice. I don't see that extremists have cancelled each other out or that some middle ground has been reached, rather the country has been divided almost down the middle.
2
1
In reply to Rog Wilko:
No, referendums are not a good thing. If you wanted to solve a complex engineering problem you would not go and ask a group of historians what to do.
The reason we elect a parliament is so that the people who take in interest in politics and spend their lives gaining experience and knowledge of the complex issues are the ones who have the debates and make the decisions on our behalf.
Also, I definitely agree with you that the media has abused this referendum.
No, referendums are not a good thing. If you wanted to solve a complex engineering problem you would not go and ask a group of historians what to do.
The reason we elect a parliament is so that the people who take in interest in politics and spend their lives gaining experience and knowledge of the complex issues are the ones who have the debates and make the decisions on our behalf.
Also, I definitely agree with you that the media has abused this referendum.
Post edited at 23:20
12
1
In reply to Goucho:
Voting should be limited to owners of property worth at least forty shillings, do you think?
> The biggest problem with referendums, is that even people who haven't mastered how to shit in a bucket, can vote in them.
Voting should be limited to owners of property worth at least forty shillings, do you think?
3
3
In reply to Big Ger:
Such a flippant response fails to address the fact that there are issues with our interpretation of democracy. In particular in the idea of framing important questions as a binary choice which utterly fails to capture any nuance of the issue, and putting them to a group of people who as individuals are more or less all ill-qualified to answer the question.
How do you reconcile the fact that some people are voting following a careful consideration of the facts and with the greater good of society in mind, while others are voting for their own selfish interest or simply to raise a middle finger up to society, and these peoples opinions are counted equally? How also do explain to intelligent and outward looking 16 and 17 year-olds that they're not allowed a say on an issue that affects them far more than people who own a home and draw a pension who do get a vote?
> Voting should be limited to owners of property worth at least forty shillings, do you think?
Such a flippant response fails to address the fact that there are issues with our interpretation of democracy. In particular in the idea of framing important questions as a binary choice which utterly fails to capture any nuance of the issue, and putting them to a group of people who as individuals are more or less all ill-qualified to answer the question.
How do you reconcile the fact that some people are voting following a careful consideration of the facts and with the greater good of society in mind, while others are voting for their own selfish interest or simply to raise a middle finger up to society, and these peoples opinions are counted equally? How also do explain to intelligent and outward looking 16 and 17 year-olds that they're not allowed a say on an issue that affects them far more than people who own a home and draw a pension who do get a vote?
7
4
In reply to Jimbo C:
That assumes politicans have any specialist skills in that area. As opposed to being able to win elections by appealing to people. Whilst some people will have skills in both areas they dont necessarily overlap.
Having seen politicans trying to talk about my specialist areas I think I have only ever heard one or two with a clue. An opinion which is shared by most of the true experts in the area.
Personally i think the problem is more ensuring people are properly informed to make a choice and possibly having a third "sorry unable to make a decision" option for when its seen as too messy.
> The reason we elect a parliament is so that the people who take in interest in politics and spend their lives gaining experience and knowledge of the complex issues are the ones who have the debates and make the decisions on our behalf.
That assumes politicans have any specialist skills in that area. As opposed to being able to win elections by appealing to people. Whilst some people will have skills in both areas they dont necessarily overlap.
Having seen politicans trying to talk about my specialist areas I think I have only ever heard one or two with a clue. An opinion which is shared by most of the true experts in the area.
Personally i think the problem is more ensuring people are properly informed to make a choice and possibly having a third "sorry unable to make a decision" option for when its seen as too messy.
1
In reply to Rog Wilko:
Excellent OP, and very eloquently written too! I've always been dubious of the idea of referendums. The EU and AV referendums were designed cynically to diminish the influence of certain parts of the government. This one has, of course, spectacularly backfired.
I wonder if their current popularity has something to do with the rise of the X-Factor, comment pages on websites, Twitter and other modern outlets for sharing opinions or interacting with media.
Excellent OP, and very eloquently written too! I've always been dubious of the idea of referendums. The EU and AV referendums were designed cynically to diminish the influence of certain parts of the government. This one has, of course, spectacularly backfired.
I wonder if their current popularity has something to do with the rise of the X-Factor, comment pages on websites, Twitter and other modern outlets for sharing opinions or interacting with media.
2
2
In reply to KevinD:
I'd have thought key skills that politicians ought to possess (in an ideal world) include the ability to organise and delegate, the intelligence to know the right questions to ask, a healthy respect for expert or academic opinion and an openess to new ideas or contrary opinions. I would never expect a politician to have in-depth knowledge of any given subject (although a broad understanding of economics, geopolitics, culture and maybe some areas of science should be par the course). But I would expect them to, given sufficient time, be able to gather information to be sufficiently informed on a subject prior to a debate or vote on policy.
> That assumes politicans have any specialist skills in that area. As opposed to being able to win elections by appealing to people. Whilst some people will have skills in both areas they dont necessarily overlap.
> Having seen politicans trying to talk about my specialist areas I think I have only ever heard one or two with a clue. An opinion which is shared by most of the true experts in the area.
I'd have thought key skills that politicians ought to possess (in an ideal world) include the ability to organise and delegate, the intelligence to know the right questions to ask, a healthy respect for expert or academic opinion and an openess to new ideas or contrary opinions. I would never expect a politician to have in-depth knowledge of any given subject (although a broad understanding of economics, geopolitics, culture and maybe some areas of science should be par the course). But I would expect them to, given sufficient time, be able to gather information to be sufficiently informed on a subject prior to a debate or vote on policy.
4
1
In reply to Big Ger:
No. Just an IQ that reaches double figures.
> Voting should be limited to owners of property worth at least forty shillings, do you think?
No. Just an IQ that reaches double figures.
1
In reply to John2:
It may be close to the original, Athenian democracy, but that doesn't mean it was any good. Are you aware of why US states capitols are usually located in backwater towns, it's to shield them from the pressure of the mob. Because 2000 years of experience had taught people that you need to introduce some sort of filter to democracy - to allow govts to take tough, long term strategies based on a coherent plan, rather than a series of knee-jerk reactions which would provide short term gratification and long term chaos.
The OP is spot on - referendums are a very poor way to conduct government.
> This was democracy in the purest form in which it has ever been exercised - no building ever created could hold an electorate of more than 33 million voters. So the referendum format is the closest that can be devised to the original democratic system.
It may be close to the original, Athenian democracy, but that doesn't mean it was any good. Are you aware of why US states capitols are usually located in backwater towns, it's to shield them from the pressure of the mob. Because 2000 years of experience had taught people that you need to introduce some sort of filter to democracy - to allow govts to take tough, long term strategies based on a coherent plan, rather than a series of knee-jerk reactions which would provide short term gratification and long term chaos.
The OP is spot on - referendums are a very poor way to conduct government.
3
In reply to Goucho:
Ah sorry got it. You're an intellectual snob, not an economic one. Thanks for clarifying.
> No. Just an IQ that reaches double figures.
Ah sorry got it. You're an intellectual snob, not an economic one. Thanks for clarifying.
2
2
In reply to Trevers:
Lovely, and you think the comment I was referring to;
Is not flippant?
> Such a flippant response fails to address the fact that there are issues with our interpretation of democracy.
Lovely, and you think the comment I was referring to;
> The biggest problem with referendums, is that even people who haven't mastered how to shit in a bucket, can vote in them.
Is not flippant?
1
1
In reply to Big Ger:
It was flippant too, but it touched on a decent point.
> Lovely, and you think the comment I was referring to;
> Is not flippant?
It was flippant too, but it touched on a decent point.
1
In reply to Rog Wilko:
I think we can see from the quality of the campaign whether or not referenda are a good idea.
jcm
I think we can see from the quality of the campaign whether or not referenda are a good idea.
jcm
2
1
In reply to Lenin:
Your trite reply to a serious and considered OP is unworthy of you, Steve. I would have much more respect for you if you had made any attempt to grapple with points I raised in an admittedly rather lengthy post, but you'd rather go with a sound bite.
> Possibly only people who have been to Uni or maybe have a certain wealth should vote, or maybe only men. It is rather repugnant that people only like democracy when it goes their way.
Your trite reply to a serious and considered OP is unworthy of you, Steve. I would have much more respect for you if you had made any attempt to grapple with points I raised in an admittedly rather lengthy post, but you'd rather go with a sound bite.
2
1
In reply to Big Ger:
Well if you consider someone with an IQ in double figures an intellectual, then yes.
> Ah sorry got it. You're an intellectual snob, not an economic one. Thanks for clarifying.
Well if you consider someone with an IQ in double figures an intellectual, then yes.
4
1
In reply to elsewhere:
Good theory, makes sense. Never thought of the implications of FPTP that way before. Thanks
Good theory, makes sense. Never thought of the implications of FPTP that way before. Thanks
In reply to Rog Wilko:
Roger we have not spoken for awhile now. What you perhaps do not know is I have been studying social sciences and globalisation for 4 years now. This has given me a totally new perspective on the world (I now read The Guardian or the website, in fact some people think I am a leftie, hence the Lenin pseudonym, ), and I can see things from your view point (or what I suspect is your view point), however I do not think that you have the ability to see the world from the other viewpoint. May I suggest that you hop in your car and wander around Blackburn town centre, then have a wander around some of the residential streets. Maybe just maybe you will then comprehend the dis-orientation that many British people are feeling. This has been the failure of the Remain campaign, they called the leavers thick racists, stupid xenophobes, when possibly if they had just stood back and tried to understand the other perspective, they may have swung the vote. Trevor Phillips ex equalities dude eventually got that you cannot tell people how to think. Leave did not win the argument, Remain lost it (hope that makes sense ) Off out for a walk in the Dales now, and this is a typical stream of consciousness thing from me, but try and read it and remember that I am of good heart.
Roger we have not spoken for awhile now. What you perhaps do not know is I have been studying social sciences and globalisation for 4 years now. This has given me a totally new perspective on the world (I now read The Guardian or the website, in fact some people think I am a leftie, hence the Lenin pseudonym, ), and I can see things from your view point (or what I suspect is your view point), however I do not think that you have the ability to see the world from the other viewpoint. May I suggest that you hop in your car and wander around Blackburn town centre, then have a wander around some of the residential streets. Maybe just maybe you will then comprehend the dis-orientation that many British people are feeling. This has been the failure of the Remain campaign, they called the leavers thick racists, stupid xenophobes, when possibly if they had just stood back and tried to understand the other perspective, they may have swung the vote. Trevor Phillips ex equalities dude eventually got that you cannot tell people how to think. Leave did not win the argument, Remain lost it (hope that makes sense ) Off out for a walk in the Dales now, and this is a typical stream of consciousness thing from me, but try and read it and remember that I am of good heart.
2
2
In reply to Goucho:
I consider anyone who thinks that there should be an intellectual cut off point for voting, is an intellectual snob.
> Well if you consider someone with an IQ in double figures an intellectual, then yes.
I consider anyone who thinks that there should be an intellectual cut off point for voting, is an intellectual snob.
In reply to Lenin:
Wrong!
The disorientation people from places like Blackburn are feeling is because of domestic policies and politics, not our EU membership.
Unfortunately the people from Blackburn who voted leave like so many others from similar towns, aren't able to distinguish between the two.
They've seen this as a way of venting their anger and frustration with the establishment and political elite, but they've taken it out on completely the wrong establishment and political elite.
Ironically, they will be the ones to suffer from the turmoil which now follows, not the establishment or economic elite of either Westminster or Brussels.
Wrong!
The disorientation people from places like Blackburn are feeling is because of domestic policies and politics, not our EU membership.
Unfortunately the people from Blackburn who voted leave like so many others from similar towns, aren't able to distinguish between the two.
They've seen this as a way of venting their anger and frustration with the establishment and political elite, but they've taken it out on completely the wrong establishment and political elite.
Ironically, they will be the ones to suffer from the turmoil which now follows, not the establishment or economic elite of either Westminster or Brussels.
9
2
In reply to Big Ger:
My cut off point was anyone who couldn't competently shit in a bucket.
If you feel that's setting the bar a bit too high, then I rest my case.
> I consider anyone who thinks that there should be an intellectual cut off point for voting, is an intellectual snob.
My cut off point was anyone who couldn't competently shit in a bucket.
If you feel that's setting the bar a bit too high, then I rest my case.
6
1
In reply to Goucho:
Second that.
> Wrong!
> The disorientation people from places like Blackburn are feeling is because of domestic policies and politics, not our EU membership.
> Unfortunately the people from Blackburn who voted leave like so many others from similar towns, aren't able to distinguish between the two.
> They've seen this as a way of venting their anger and frustration with the establishment and political elite, but they've taken it out on completely the wrong establishment and political elite.
> Ironically, they will be the ones to suffer from the turmoil which now follows, not the establishment or economic elite of either Westminster or Brussels.
Second that.
In reply to Rog Wilko:
Until now I had never given referendums much thought, other than they are probably a "good idea" as the whole population have a chance to decide on a single important issue.
Trying to put aside my personal feelings - as 'my side' lost and I'm worried to hell that my final 20 years on earth are about to f****d up - I can see in retrospect that referendums can turn into a "bad idea".
In these days of instant media coverage, soundbites and spin (even, dare I say it, lies?) the whole thing has been a master class in media manipulation of the public and we the public have sucked it up and voted.
I think referendums are a "bad idea".
Until now I had never given referendums much thought, other than they are probably a "good idea" as the whole population have a chance to decide on a single important issue.
Trying to put aside my personal feelings - as 'my side' lost and I'm worried to hell that my final 20 years on earth are about to f****d up - I can see in retrospect that referendums can turn into a "bad idea".
In these days of instant media coverage, soundbites and spin (even, dare I say it, lies?) the whole thing has been a master class in media manipulation of the public and we the public have sucked it up and voted.
I think referendums are a "bad idea".
3
In reply to Moley:
Can we get a referendum on "No more referendums"?
> Until now I had never given referendums much thought, other than they are probably a "good idea" as the whole population have a chance to decide on a single important issue.
> Trying to put aside my personal feelings - as 'my side' lost and I'm worried to hell that my final 20 years on earth are about to f****d up - I can see in retrospect that referendums can turn into a "bad idea".
> In these days of instant media coverage, soundbites and spin (even, dare I say it, lies?) the whole thing has been a master class in media manipulation of the public and we the public have sucked it up and voted.
> I think referendums are a "bad idea".
Can we get a referendum on "No more referendums"?
1
In reply to Lenin:
Steve, I think you do me a dis-service. I have perhaps seen more than you imagine of the areas of the NW that you describe. I'm surprised and somewhat disappointed that your view of me is that I have no awareness of the poorer echelons of society and how they have been given a very raw deal over many decades by governments of both stripes. I flatter myself that I have quite a good imagination concerning the plight of others and my various contributions to discussions on UKC in the last few hours/days would I hope make it clear where my sympathies lie (and have done over 40+ years, not 4). The appalling thing about this referendum, which has been shamelessly approached by both sides (but more so by the leavers) is that the disadvantaged have been cleverly duped by a number of obsessive and self-aggrandising politicians who have convinced a majority of voters that their problems are caused by immigration. You may have noticed that less than 24 hours had elapsed before MEP Daniel Hannan said on TV that he didn't think Brexit would do anything to reduce immigration and Farage (my spell-check just came up very aptly with farrago) has said, no, the (mythical) £350m a month wouldn't go into the health service. I rest my case.
> however I do not think that you have the ability to see the world from the other viewpoint.
Steve, I think you do me a dis-service. I have perhaps seen more than you imagine of the areas of the NW that you describe. I'm surprised and somewhat disappointed that your view of me is that I have no awareness of the poorer echelons of society and how they have been given a very raw deal over many decades by governments of both stripes. I flatter myself that I have quite a good imagination concerning the plight of others and my various contributions to discussions on UKC in the last few hours/days would I hope make it clear where my sympathies lie (and have done over 40+ years, not 4). The appalling thing about this referendum, which has been shamelessly approached by both sides (but more so by the leavers) is that the disadvantaged have been cleverly duped by a number of obsessive and self-aggrandising politicians who have convinced a majority of voters that their problems are caused by immigration. You may have noticed that less than 24 hours had elapsed before MEP Daniel Hannan said on TV that he didn't think Brexit would do anything to reduce immigration and Farage (my spell-check just came up very aptly with farrago) has said, no, the (mythical) £350m a month wouldn't go into the health service. I rest my case.
4
In reply to Rog Wilko:
as life is too short I haven't read all the replies but in answer to your question obviously they are when they show the difference between those that were voted in to represent the views of the people, and the true view of the people.
as life is too short I haven't read all the replies but in answer to your question obviously they are when they show the difference between those that were voted in to represent the views of the people, and the true view of the people.
1
1
In reply to Rog Wilko:
Good posts. I still think referenda are a necessary evil but prefer to keep them at an absolute minimum.
FPTP is a major democratic problem as the vast majority of the population are disenfranchised but that argument was lost for the near future because many of the people worst affected were even more gullible than they were on europe.
I will continue to regard xenophobic people as dangerous and those responding to xenophobic messages as gullible and in that stupid. All this pandering to having to understand ordinary people's concerns on migration (ie not calling out xenophibic and racist ideas) will bite labour in the arse one day. The problem is about UK governement austerity poilicy, not migration (without which the economy and the pain would be much worse).
Good posts. I still think referenda are a necessary evil but prefer to keep them at an absolute minimum.
FPTP is a major democratic problem as the vast majority of the population are disenfranchised but that argument was lost for the near future because many of the people worst affected were even more gullible than they were on europe.
I will continue to regard xenophobic people as dangerous and those responding to xenophobic messages as gullible and in that stupid. All this pandering to having to understand ordinary people's concerns on migration (ie not calling out xenophibic and racist ideas) will bite labour in the arse one day. The problem is about UK governement austerity poilicy, not migration (without which the economy and the pain would be much worse).
1
2
In reply to Rog Wilko:
Clearly a referendum where the outcome is quite close will leave the "losing" side feeling hugely disappointed. Personally I'm glad we don't have more. As we have seen they are incredibly divisive.
From a constitutional and democratic perspective I can understand the concept of having a threshold for change rather than 50% + 1. But I cannot support it. I cannot support it as it is fundamentally unfair.
If you say, for example, that 60% is required to enact a change and overturn the status quo then you are actually changing individual votes. You are saying that everyone has 1 vote but actually if you are in favour of the status quo you have 1.2 votes and if you are in favour of change then you have 0.8 of a vote. You are giving the status quo an advantage. Imagine if you did this in other votes and elections! I want to have the same voting rights as everyone else irrespective of mine or their view. I don't want to look at someone with a contrary opinion and have to accept that he or she gets more voting power than me.
In terms of volumes, keep in mind that the current government was voted in with a 36.9% share of the vote when 30.6 million people voted - turnout of 66.1%
The Leave campaign got 51.9% share of the vote when 33.5 million people voted - turnout of 71.8%
Taking emotion, disappointment etc. out of it and just looking at the cold numbers, you can argue that the referendum was actually more democratic than the General Election. However this does not take into account individual seats won in individual constituencies.
I think it's easy to complain that 50%+1 feels wrong, (especially if the result goes against you), but actually the referendum result was 50%+634,751
That's a lot of votes.
Clearly a referendum where the outcome is quite close will leave the "losing" side feeling hugely disappointed. Personally I'm glad we don't have more. As we have seen they are incredibly divisive.
From a constitutional and democratic perspective I can understand the concept of having a threshold for change rather than 50% + 1. But I cannot support it. I cannot support it as it is fundamentally unfair.
If you say, for example, that 60% is required to enact a change and overturn the status quo then you are actually changing individual votes. You are saying that everyone has 1 vote but actually if you are in favour of the status quo you have 1.2 votes and if you are in favour of change then you have 0.8 of a vote. You are giving the status quo an advantage. Imagine if you did this in other votes and elections! I want to have the same voting rights as everyone else irrespective of mine or their view. I don't want to look at someone with a contrary opinion and have to accept that he or she gets more voting power than me.
In terms of volumes, keep in mind that the current government was voted in with a 36.9% share of the vote when 30.6 million people voted - turnout of 66.1%
The Leave campaign got 51.9% share of the vote when 33.5 million people voted - turnout of 71.8%
Taking emotion, disappointment etc. out of it and just looking at the cold numbers, you can argue that the referendum was actually more democratic than the General Election. However this does not take into account individual seats won in individual constituencies.
I think it's easy to complain that 50%+1 feels wrong, (especially if the result goes against you), but actually the referendum result was 50%+634,751
That's a lot of votes.
1
In reply to Rog Wilko:
The referendum has been like an atom bomb.
We would be better served by an internet based democracy where we interact and participate in decision making.
My view is to allocate 10,000 votes a year to each person, vote on every issue, allowing multiple votes to be applied.
Can something like this be entertained as a possibility with some research and trials ?
The referendum has been like an atom bomb.
We would be better served by an internet based democracy where we interact and participate in decision making.
My view is to allocate 10,000 votes a year to each person, vote on every issue, allowing multiple votes to be applied.
Can something like this be entertained as a possibility with some research and trials ?
In reply to Rog Wilko:
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/25/brexit-is-only-the-latest-proof-of-the-...
Pretty much ticked all those boxes with your above screed.
D
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/25/brexit-is-only-the-latest-proof-of-the-...
Pretty much ticked all those boxes with your above screed.
D
In reply to Dauphin:
I think this is a compliment, so thank you.
> Pretty much ticked all those boxes with your above screed.
> D
I think this is a compliment, so thank you.
In reply to Rampikino:
Re the above: if you live in a safe parliamentary constituency you are already without voting power thanks to the crazy First Past the Post system. Your second point only goes to increase the case against FPTP rather than reduce it I've heard it is calculated that something like 0.6 million voters decide who gets into Downing Street..
Incidentally, why is it called First Past the Post? There is no post, unlike the 50% required to win in most PR systems). It should be called Winner Takes All system, which I think sounds much more disreputable.
> I don't want to look at someone with a contrary opinion and have to accept that he or she gets more voting power than me.
> In terms of volumes, keep in mind that the current government was voted in with a 36.9% share of the vote when 30.6 million people voted - turnout of 66.1%
Re the above: if you live in a safe parliamentary constituency you are already without voting power thanks to the crazy First Past the Post system. Your second point only goes to increase the case against FPTP rather than reduce it I've heard it is calculated that something like 0.6 million voters decide who gets into Downing Street..
Incidentally, why is it called First Past the Post? There is no post, unlike the 50% required to win in most PR systems). It should be called Winner Takes All system, which I think sounds much more disreputable.
1
1
In reply to Rog Wilko:
Yes - we have to live with the flaws of a system in order to move forward.
I live in a super safe Tory area. I have about 0.2 of a vote here!
Yes - we have to live with the flaws of a system in order to move forward.
I live in a super safe Tory area. I have about 0.2 of a vote here!
In reply to Rog Wilko:
Of course, that was a slip - £350m a week was the figure.
> and Farage (my spell-check just came up very aptly with farrago) has said, no, the (mythical) £350m a month wouldn't go into the health service.
Of course, that was a slip - £350m a week was the figure.
In reply to Rog Wilko:
This does not give parliament the authority to hand part of that sovereignty to a third entity, in this case the EU. It is not parliament's sovereignty to hand over. That authority lies with the people and that is why they got the chance to decide directly on whether their sovereignty should be passed to a third party.
> Apparently this is the third national referendum in our history. Let’s hope it is the last. I know many people think it’s the ultimate form of democracy, but it has never been our way, and I hope it never will. Our system of representative democracy, although it is weakened by our absurd voting system, has much to recommend it.
>
The logic of the referendum on this issue is as follows: the basis of representative democracy in the UK is that sovereignty lies with the people and that every five years the people vote on whom they they wish to pass that sovereignty to ie.parliament. After five years the people get it back and vote again.This does not give parliament the authority to hand part of that sovereignty to a third entity, in this case the EU. It is not parliament's sovereignty to hand over. That authority lies with the people and that is why they got the chance to decide directly on whether their sovereignty should be passed to a third party.
2
2
In reply to Rog Wilko:
I feel that the £350m thing became too much of a focal point on all sides and forced people to lose sight of the real questions about EU finances.
We never really got to the nub of it - how much does the EU actually cost us across a whole range of variables? Where does that money go? How much do we get back? What is the net result? On balance could we do all the same things with less?
I feel that the £350m thing became too much of a focal point on all sides and forced people to lose sight of the real questions about EU finances.
We never really got to the nub of it - how much does the EU actually cost us across a whole range of variables? Where does that money go? How much do we get back? What is the net result? On balance could we do all the same things with less?
In reply to Dauphin:
It is possible to utterly despise the dog whistle politics that swung the brexit vote and respect others had better reasons to vote leave. Such articles as the one you link seek simplicity in a complex world and risk leaving us turning the other cheek to (and hence boosting) genuinely nasty attitudes that we need to challenge. Hence, I'm sticking with many stupidly falling for xenophobic tendancies.... just look at what was said by huge numbers on TV and Social Media before the vote and now. Its nothing new either: The Fail, Scum and Excess sales and support for pUkip show this clearly. Migrants fill millions of lower paid jobs that the Brits won't take and the skill gaps in higher paid jobs; our economy depends on them (as does pretty much every other succesful western economy). Gove, Boris Osbourne and co deserve particular scorn for ignoring expert opinion for rhetorical hyperbole to acheive ideological and/or personal gain.
However if you train a beast dont be surprised if it bites.
It is possible to utterly despise the dog whistle politics that swung the brexit vote and respect others had better reasons to vote leave. Such articles as the one you link seek simplicity in a complex world and risk leaving us turning the other cheek to (and hence boosting) genuinely nasty attitudes that we need to challenge. Hence, I'm sticking with many stupidly falling for xenophobic tendancies.... just look at what was said by huge numbers on TV and Social Media before the vote and now. Its nothing new either: The Fail, Scum and Excess sales and support for pUkip show this clearly. Migrants fill millions of lower paid jobs that the Brits won't take and the skill gaps in higher paid jobs; our economy depends on them (as does pretty much every other succesful western economy). Gove, Boris Osbourne and co deserve particular scorn for ignoring expert opinion for rhetorical hyperbole to acheive ideological and/or personal gain.
However if you train a beast dont be surprised if it bites.
1
2
In reply to Rog Wilko:
Sorry I thought the parallels were obvious. If you give everyone a chance to vote on something they are not all going to think about the consequences.
Sorry I thought the parallels were obvious. If you give everyone a chance to vote on something they are not all going to think about the consequences.
In reply to David Riley:
I said "may not", which is logically the same as "may or may not", i.e., neither optimist nor pessimist.
I said "may not", which is logically the same as "may or may not", i.e., neither optimist nor pessimist.
In reply to Rog Wilko:
sometimes a referendum is good. for instance if a question has a good 'yes/no' answer.
in this case it was not a good thing because the question was thought of differently by different segments of the population. many people for instance that voted leave want no EU beaurocracy or being bossed around but want access to a single market and other benefits. (same for remainers i think).
when a complex question is represented as a 'yes/no' referendum is becomes an emotional answer for many, simply because its not really a yes/no question.
sometimes a referendum is good. for instance if a question has a good 'yes/no' answer.
in this case it was not a good thing because the question was thought of differently by different segments of the population. many people for instance that voted leave want no EU beaurocracy or being bossed around but want access to a single market and other benefits. (same for remainers i think).
when a complex question is represented as a 'yes/no' referendum is becomes an emotional answer for many, simply because its not really a yes/no question.
1
In reply to Rampikino:
Where does the money go?
I attend 6 EU meetings a year, travel, hotel and subsistence paid for by the EU. It costs about 1000 euro per head per meeting. There are between 50-60 funded places. That's one small meeting, imagine how many are taking place each day. Not all are fully funded, but you get the idea. As well as these 6, I expect to do one or two more ad-hoc ones where travel at least is paid.
Where does the money go?
I attend 6 EU meetings a year, travel, hotel and subsistence paid for by the EU. It costs about 1000 euro per head per meeting. There are between 50-60 funded places. That's one small meeting, imagine how many are taking place each day. Not all are fully funded, but you get the idea. As well as these 6, I expect to do one or two more ad-hoc ones where travel at least is paid.
In reply to Rampikino:
Ps, you should look into pay and conditions for EU officials too, that makes interesting reading, especially things,like,tax,status and pensions.
Ps, you should look into pay and conditions for EU officials too, that makes interesting reading, especially things,like,tax,status and pensions.
In reply to kipper12:
My brother in law does electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) testing with one certification for 28 current eu countries and 4 eea countries.
Your meetings may be far cheaper than 32 countries forming national committees to make 32 sets of national regulations.
Such meetings may be far cheaper than the industry in 32 countries trying to follow 32 different sets of national regulations.
Such meetings may mean copious eu red tape, but that is far less red tape for the industry than 32 sets of national regulations.
For EMC and cars etc I'd expect a single eu standard saves more money than it costs in multibillion industries.
Your meetings are expensive, they may have nothing to do with regulations and I have no idea what field you are in but do you reckon they save money for industry in that field?
My brother in law does electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) testing with one certification for 28 current eu countries and 4 eea countries.
Your meetings may be far cheaper than 32 countries forming national committees to make 32 sets of national regulations.
Such meetings may be far cheaper than the industry in 32 countries trying to follow 32 different sets of national regulations.
Such meetings may mean copious eu red tape, but that is far less red tape for the industry than 32 sets of national regulations.
For EMC and cars etc I'd expect a single eu standard saves more money than it costs in multibillion industries.
Your meetings are expensive, they may have nothing to do with regulations and I have no idea what field you are in but do you reckon they save money for industry in that field?
Post edited at 19:33
In reply to elsewhere:
I'm sure one standard, applicable across the EU is the same approach, and so probably is the cheaper option. I was just trying to point out where some of our money goes in the EU. Something few of us may be aware of.
As an aside, we may have accidentally made some UK citizens currently employed by the Connission and agencies unemployed. The reason being, I think, one has to be a citizen of an EU country.. Does anyone know what the rules are?
I'm sure one standard, applicable across the EU is the same approach, and so probably is the cheaper option. I was just trying to point out where some of our money goes in the EU. Something few of us may be aware of.
As an aside, we may have accidentally made some UK citizens currently employed by the Connission and agencies unemployed. The reason being, I think, one has to be a citizen of an EU country.. Does anyone know what the rules are?
In reply to kipper12:
So are any nations who throw money into this pot better off (net) and any worse off?
So are any nations who throw money into this pot better off (net) and any worse off?
In reply to Rampikino:
We get out less than we put in , about 150 million per week which or 3 pounds each per week. A tiny fraction of our eu trade or per capita income 600 pounds per week.
Make that 6 pounds per week if you think eu costs us 350 million per week.
We get out less than we put in , about 150 million per week which or 3 pounds each per week. A tiny fraction of our eu trade or per capita income 600 pounds per week.
Make that 6 pounds per week if you think eu costs us 350 million per week.
In reply to Goucho:
You then qualified that by saying;
But your intellectual snobbery, saying that those of lesser intellect would be denied a vote in your intellectual utopia, shines though.
The universal franchise for those who have reached the age benchmark is one of the defining facets of democracy, you want to change that..
> My cut off point was anyone who couldn't competently shit in a bucket.
> If you feel that's setting the bar a bit too high, then I rest my case.
You then qualified that by saying;
> No. Just an IQ that reaches double figures.
But your intellectual snobbery, saying that those of lesser intellect would be denied a vote in your intellectual utopia, shines though.
The universal franchise for those who have reached the age benchmark is one of the defining facets of democracy, you want to change that..
2
1
In reply to Big Ger:
Well unfortunately, that is one of the negative aspects of democracy.
But if you are happy to have people with an IQ of 9 - which is probably less than a Jack Russell - voting, then that is both wonderfully inclusive and idiotic in equal measures.
> You then qualified that by saying;
> But your intellectual snobbery, saying that those of lesser intellect would be denied a vote in your intellectual utopia, shines though.
> The universal franchise for those who have reached the age benchmark is one of the defining facets of democracy, you want to change that..
Well unfortunately, that is one of the negative aspects of democracy.
But if you are happy to have people with an IQ of 9 - which is probably less than a Jack Russell - voting, then that is both wonderfully inclusive and idiotic in equal measures.
In reply to Goucho:
Do you know anyone with a real IQ of 9; they would not be a functional human being
Do you know anyone with a real IQ of 9; they would not be a functional human being
In reply to kipper12:
I'm not sure whether this comes under pedant alert or satire alert.
> Do you know anyone with a real IQ of 9; they would not be a functional human being
I'm not sure whether this comes under pedant alert or satire alert.
In reply to Lenin:
The nation's destiny should not be decided on a Yes /No question.
Let's couch the question a different way "Should the United Kingdom be friends with Germany and France? YES or NO."
Some might say NO because they don't like foreigners. Some might YES but feel frustrated because although they like Germans they detest French cheese etc. The issue is too complex for a simple question, therefore is invalid and the Brexit vote is therefore invalid.
> I think the point is many people are just fed up with an elite who constantly lie and treat with total disdain the people they are supposed to serve.
This referendum is by far the most glaring example in my lifetime of the people being lied to and manipulated. A referendum is fine for "Britain's Got Talent" or what should the new research boat be called etcThe nation's destiny should not be decided on a Yes /No question.
Let's couch the question a different way "Should the United Kingdom be friends with Germany and France? YES or NO."
Some might say NO because they don't like foreigners. Some might YES but feel frustrated because although they like Germans they detest French cheese etc. The issue is too complex for a simple question, therefore is invalid and the Brexit vote is therefore invalid.
Post edited at 15:43
2
In reply to kipper12:
Exactly. Farage or Gove, take your pick.
> Do you know anyone with a real IQ of 9; they would not be a functional human being
Exactly. Farage or Gove, take your pick.
1
In reply to Lenin:
Is it democracy if you vote without knowing the ramifications?
For example:
Would you like an extra £1000? Yes [x] No [_]
Is that democracy? when the real question is:
Would you sell your left kidney for £1000? Yes[_] No [x]
That's what many in Brexit voted for:
Would like you like an extra £350m a week, perhaps for the NHS? Yes [x] No [_]
When in fact it was really:
Would you like to retain EU membership fees of £350m a week, with a reduction of £200m in EU funding, and a market contraction of £400m (net reduction of £250m to the weekly budget)? (We may be able to spend an extra £350m on the NHS, but then we'll have a £500m deficit to source from elsewhere in the budget) Yes[_] No [x]
It's simply not democracy unless everyone has all of the facts. To pretend that relevant facts were in abundance - would be a ridiculous position to hold.
Nobody wants to admit that they're ignorant of some facts (or in some cases, all of the facts), or even indeed that even if they had all the facts, that they could not form an accurate prediction of the future from them. It's taboo to admit that your human brain is simply not up to the task of analyzing a complex web of interconnected feedback loops and predicting its possible outputs, and perhaps it's impossible to admit so (Dunning-Kruger effect). Even if we may not be able to achieve perfect democracy - we can get a lot closer than the travesty of populist propaganda that we had last Thursday.
> Possibly only people who have been to Uni or maybe have a certain wealth should vote, or maybe only men. It is rather repugnant that people only like democracy when it goes their way.
Is it democracy if you vote without knowing the ramifications?
For example:
Would you like an extra £1000? Yes [x] No [_]
Is that democracy? when the real question is:
Would you sell your left kidney for £1000? Yes[_] No [x]
That's what many in Brexit voted for:
Would like you like an extra £350m a week, perhaps for the NHS? Yes [x] No [_]
When in fact it was really:
Would you like to retain EU membership fees of £350m a week, with a reduction of £200m in EU funding, and a market contraction of £400m (net reduction of £250m to the weekly budget)? (We may be able to spend an extra £350m on the NHS, but then we'll have a £500m deficit to source from elsewhere in the budget) Yes[_] No [x]
It's simply not democracy unless everyone has all of the facts. To pretend that relevant facts were in abundance - would be a ridiculous position to hold.
Nobody wants to admit that they're ignorant of some facts (or in some cases, all of the facts), or even indeed that even if they had all the facts, that they could not form an accurate prediction of the future from them. It's taboo to admit that your human brain is simply not up to the task of analyzing a complex web of interconnected feedback loops and predicting its possible outputs, and perhaps it's impossible to admit so (Dunning-Kruger effect). Even if we may not be able to achieve perfect democracy - we can get a lot closer than the travesty of populist propaganda that we had last Thursday.
2
In reply to Big Ger:
Unfortunately many of voting age have the intellectual capacity of small and poorly stimulated children.
I only just managed to stop myself finishing that statement with "as has been demonstrated."
> The universal franchise for those who have reached the age benchmark is one of the defining facets of democracy, you want to change that..
Unfortunately many of voting age have the intellectual capacity of small and poorly stimulated children.
I only just managed to stop myself finishing that statement with "as has been demonstrated."
In reply to SenzuBean:
Somebody on these forums said that this referendum was like turkeys voting for Christmas. I think it is more like asking turkeys to make a binary choice between Christmas and Thanksgiving, the campaigners promising to remain vegetarian and poo-pooing the opposing camp.
Somebody on these forums said that this referendum was like turkeys voting for Christmas. I think it is more like asking turkeys to make a binary choice between Christmas and Thanksgiving, the campaigners promising to remain vegetarian and poo-pooing the opposing camp.
In reply to Xharlie:
You forgot that on the morning after the vote, the campaigners organized an additional Turkey barbecue.
> Somebody on these forums said that this referendum was like turkeys voting for Christmas. I think it is more like asking turkeys to make a binary choice between Christmas and Thanksgiving, the campaigners promising to remain vegetarian and poo-pooing the opposing camp.
You forgot that on the morning after the vote, the campaigners organized an additional Turkey barbecue.
In reply to Goucho:
Perhaps there should be a government that ensures the people are educated enough to make these decisions by properly arranging and funding an education system.
Perhaps there should be a government that ensures the people are educated enough to make these decisions by properly arranging and funding an education system.
2
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...