• Brexit: Relations between Britain and the EU sink to a new low
    54 replies, posted
It almost feels as if Boilrig is a bot account controlled by Russia or something to spread propaganda about brexit.
[QUOTE=arleitiss;53122200]It almost feels as if Boilrig is a bot account controlled by Russia or something to spread propaganda about brexit.[/QUOTE] Or probably someone who hopes for the British empire to come back, unknowledged that the US, EU, China and Russia are the new era's "empires". And only two of them are democratic and with decent living conditions.
Ugh 'The Independent'. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Low effort post" - icemaz))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Boilrig;53121893]How exactly is asking for a 2nd referendum to override a previous referendum democratic?[/QUOTE] By voting. And don't think of it like overriding, think of it more like one of those "are you sure" popups on the internet and such. Which seems just about right given the amount of lies from the pro brexit side
[QUOTE=DeadWar;53122390]Ugh 'The Independent'.[/QUOTE] thanks for that well thought out and explained argument, really moved me Now I'm not gonna accuse you of being a bot, but that avatar + recent post history...
[QUOTE=gokiyono;53122402]By voting. And don't think of it like overriding, think of it more like one of those "are you sure" popups on the internet and such. Which seems just about right given the amount of lies from the pro brexit side[/QUOTE] So, Boilrig is literally saying "How is people voting democratic?" - Seems odd for such a stalwart defender of democracy as he claims to be. A referendum on the deal (whether to go ahead with it or remain) would at the very least make sense so the British people can decide which they prefer of two concrete options and not the bullshit hopes-dreams-and-homemade-jam that Brexit is currently founded upon.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;53122887]So, Boilrig is literally saying "How is people voting democratic?" - Seems odd for such a stalwart defender of democracy as he claims to be. A referendum on the deal (whether to go ahead with it or remain) would at the very least make sense so the British people can decide which they prefer of two concrete options and not the bullshit hopes-dreams-and-homemade-jam that Brexit is currently founded upon.[/QUOTE] Automatically negotiations collapse on that, so no, it is unwise. If the EU know the UK people will have a referendum on the final deal, they'll just pull out of negotiations, if you think your government is bad, I hope you never join any government, period.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;53122901]Automatically negotiations collapse on that, so no, it is unwise. If the EU know the UK people will have a referendum on the final deal, they'll just pull out of negotiations, if you think your government is bad, I hope you never join any government period.[/QUOTE] Hey, you gonna answer my question or what?
If you had a 2nd referendum, that offered the voter the choice of 'Accept the EU's Deal' or 'Decline the EU's Deal and Remain' which is what people have offered on this forum, that wouldn't be accepted by the electoral commission as the question is complex and has several propositions. Therefore the electoral commission would decline the question and suggest something along the lines of 'Do you accept the deal or not accept the deal offered by the European Union' which would tell the government to go back and renegotiate another deal, not actually remain a member.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;53122974]If you had a 2nd referendum, that offered the voter the choice of 'Accept the EU's Deal' or 'Decline the EU's Deal and Remain' which is what people have offered on this forum, that wouldn't be accepted by the electoral commission as the question is complex and has several propositions. Therefore the electoral commission would decline the question and suggest something along the lines of 'Do you accept the deal or not accept the deal offered by the European Union' which would tell the government to go back and renegotiate another deal, not actually remain a member.[/QUOTE] "Lalalalala I can't hear you"
[QUOTE=_Axel;53122995]"Lalalalala I can't hear you"[/QUOTE] The fact the government asked the question and they knew that there was a possibility of a Leave result and they must of been prepared to accept that other wise why would they have asked the question in the first place. So putting a referendum in place meant that they were committed to whatever the result was, to then turn around and say 'we don't like that result' is about as undemocratic as you can get. It is like telling a kid they can choose between a red and a green lolly, they choose the red, and then you say 'oh no, I've changed my mind, you've got to take the green.' The undemocratic element of that is saying 'yes, we want you to vote, but we don't want to act on the result', sounds like good old soviet times. All future referenda will be ignored by the public which will be a loss to the democratic process.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;53123008]The fact the government asked the question and they knew that there was a possibility of a Leave result and they must of been prepared to accept that other wise why would they have asked the question in the first place. So putting a referendum in place meant that they were committed to whatever the result was, to then turn around and say 'we don't like that result' is about as undemocratic as you can get. It is like telling a kid they can choose between a red and a green lolly, they choose the red, and then you say 'oh no, I've changed my mind, you've got to take the green.'[/QUOTE] But asking what party you want to be represented by and once the results are in telling the majority 'fat chance, we're giving power to that minority instead' isn't undemocratic? It's the same thing either way. Ignoring the will of the majority. [editline]11th February 2018[/editline] If you're not okay with the government going 'we know the majority wants that but we're going to go with what the minority wants instead' then that should apply to the general election as well.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;53123008]The fact the government asked the question and they knew that there was a possibility of a Leave result and they must of been prepared to accept that other wise why would they have asked the question in the first place. So putting a referendum in place meant that they were committed to whatever the result was, to then turn around and say 'we don't like that result' is about as undemocratic as you can get. It is like telling a kid they can choose between a red and a green lolly, they choose the red, and then you say 'oh no, I've changed my mind, you've got to take the green.' The undemocratic element of that is saying 'yes, we want you to vote, but we don't want to act on the result', sounds like good old soviet times. All future referenda will be ignored by the public which will be a loss to the democratic process.[/QUOTE] The fact you literally don't understand "non binding" is all we really need to see.
Didn't the Leave campaign also promise multiple do-over referendums if they didn't get their way?
[QUOTE=Bathacker;53123033]Didn't the Leave campaign also promise multiple do-over referendums if they didn't get their way?[/QUOTE] Farage made a fair bit of noise about that himself. Claiming they'd repeatedly call for referendums until they got what they wanted like a bunch of fucking babies. Calling for one or two once a initial gauging of public interest was sorted via the initial referendum is understandable. We need to see if the public wants deal x, y or z, and once those are more formalised we need to see if the public still wants to go through with it. But repeatedly calling for referendums until you get the result you want isn't reasonable. Well, actually we don't need to do any of the above as the first referendum wasn't legally binding. But apparently we're now a direct democracy where every uneducated fuck has equal say in matters, and where an entire campaign lying and spreading fear to get the result they want goes unpunished.
[QUOTE=_Axel;53123013]But asking what party you want to be represented by and once the results are in telling the majority 'fat chance, we're giving power to that minority instead' isn't undemocratic? It's the same thing either way. Ignoring the will of the majority. [editline]11th February 2018[/editline] If you're not okay with the government going 'we know the majority wants that but we're going to go with what the minority wants instead' then that should apply to the general election as well.[/QUOTE] Can you clarify please, its almost a double negative. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53123030]The fact you literally don't understand "non binding" is all we really need to see.[/QUOTE] They may have not of used the 'binding' on the referendum, but it was made abundantly clear to the public by Cameron that he would go with the result, that it would not turn into a neverendum. 72% of voters came out in belief that it was an absolute vote and the government would act on the result. If it was made clear to the public it was non-binding, the turnout would've been significantly lower. The fact the British government rarely puts out referendums also implied to the public that this was a significant and binding vote. [QUOTE=hexpunK;53123039]Farage made a fair bit of noise about that himself. Claiming they'd repeatedly call for referendums until they got what they wanted like a bunch of fucking babies. Calling for one or two once a initial gauging of public interest was sorted via the initial referendum is understandable. We need to see if the public wants deal x, y or z, and once those are more formalised we need to see if the public still wants to go through with it. But repeatedly calling for referendums until you get the result you want isn't reasonable. Well, actually we don't need to do any of the above as the first referendum wasn't legally binding. But apparently we're now a direct democracy where every uneducated fuck has equal say in matters, and where an entire campaign lying and spreading fear to get the result they want goes unpunished.[/QUOTE] With Farage wanting more referendums and Remain wanting more referendums, at least we have a government steadfast in their resolve, as the people surely aren't.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;53123040]Can you clarify please, its almost a double negative. They may have not of used the 'binding' on the referendum, but it was made abundantly clear to the public by Cameron that he would go with the result, that it would not turn into a neverendum. [B]72% of voters came out in belief that it was an absolute vote and the government would act on the result[/B]. If it was made clear to the public it was non-binding, the turnout would've been significantly lower. The fact the British government rarely puts out referendums also implied to the public that this was a significant and binding vote.[/QUOTE] So? That's on the people for not knowing the law, for not knowing they are non-binding Democracy only works when the people are informed. Funny how the Leave campaign was all about the opposite, huh?
[QUOTE=SebiWarrior;53123650]So? That's on the people for not knowing the law, for not knowing they are non-binding[/QUOTE] So people were surprised the government acted on it? Doubt it, not after how much it was reiterated that this vote would mean leaving the European Union if voted for. [QUOTE=SebiWarrior;53123650] Democracy only works when the people are informed. Funny how the Leave campaign was all about the opposite, huh?[/QUOTE] That is if there has ever been an informed population.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;53123040]Can you clarify please, its almost a double negative.[/QUOTE] What is there to clarify? If you're of the belief that the slightest of majorities should always have the last word on political matters then you should be demanding that the same applies to general elections. How's that a complicated concept?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53123030]The fact you literally don't understand "non binding" is all we really need to see.[/QUOTE] That's not really a good reason to go against it. If there had been a non-binding vote on allowing gay marriage and it eked out a win, you'd sure as shit be mad if the government just said "nah I don't think so". This is not to say that allowing gay marriage is a bad idea (it's not), and obviously Brexit is all kinds of retarded - but you can imagine how proponents of gay marriage would feel: snubbed to the extreme. Ignoring popular votes isn't free on your democracy legitimacy account (not that it's always the wrong decision, though). Where Boilrig's argument falls apart is his inane objection to a second referendum. He's brought up a single legitimate argument against this as far as I'm aware - that "you shouldn't just keep doing votes until you get the result you want", but this is easily countered by two things: A: That the situation will have changed markedly since the last referendum - no one knew exactly what Brexit would entail two years ago. Quite a few might've voted a contingent "yes"; if the UK could get a good deal, they'd be in favour, but otherwise they'd stay in the EU. I haven't seen Boilrig address why this shouldn't be taken into account - the world isn't black and white, and a yes/no referendum can't cover that. B: If a referendum might as well be decided by a coin toss, it's probably not a good basis for a decision. This is why you put barriers in like 60% in favour to change something - if the result of a very important vote isn't decisive, it's probably best to go with the conservative option. I agree that holding multiple referenda until you get a result you like is anti-democratic, but if you can hold a second one and get a different result from the first, chances are the first referendum's outcome lacked legitimacy in the first place. Boilrig's (or anyone's) persistence to prop up what is a pretty shaky win (52% vs 48%) is definitely founded in more than a simple concern for protecting the integrity of democracy. [editline]11th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Boilrig;53123040]They may have not of used the 'binding' on the referendum, but it was made abundantly clear to the public by Cameron that he would go with the result, that it would not turn into a neverendum. 72% of voters came out in belief that it was an absolute vote and the government would act on the result. If it was made clear to the public it was non-binding, the turnout would've been significantly lower. The fact the British government rarely puts out referendums also implied to the public that this was a significant and binding vote.[/QUOTE] I'll also just point out that here in Denmark, turnout among youth is higher than that in our usual elections - flaunting 72% turnout like being especially impressive is kinda laughable tbh. In my opinion it points to an issue where people don't really know what they want, which gives even less legitimacy to a 4% edge.
[QUOTE=_Axel;53123667]What is there to clarify? If you're of the belief that the slightest of majorities should always have the last word on political matters then you should be demanding that the same applies to general elections. How's that a complicated concept?[/QUOTE] You are trying to mix a simple majority yes/no scenario with a general election. That is a different situation, even with FPTP and you know it. [QUOTE=GoDong-DK;53123683] Where Boilrig's argument falls apart is his inane objection to a second referendum. He's brought up a single legitimate argument against this as far as I'm aware - that "you shouldn't just keep doing votes until you get the result you want", but this is easily countered by two things: A: That the situation will have changed markedly since the last referendum - no one knew exactly what Brexit would entail two years ago. Quite a few might've voted a contingent "yes"; if the UK could get a good deal, they'd be in favour, but otherwise they'd stay in the EU. I haven't seen Boilrig address why this shouldn't be taken into account - the world isn't black and white, and a yes/no referendum can't cover that. [/QUOTE] A 2nd referendum on 'Take the Deal' or 'Refuse the Deal and Stay in the EU' would never pass the electoral commission process, as the question is complex and has several propositions. Therefore the electoral commission would decline the question and suggest something along the lines of 'Do you accept the deal or not accept the deal offered by the European Union' which would tell the government to go back and renegotiate another deal, not actually remain a member. [QUOTE=GoDong-DK;53123683] B: If a referendum might as well be decided by a coin toss, it's probably not a good basis for a decision. This is why you put barriers in like 60% in favour to change something - if the result of a very important vote isn't decisive, it's probably best to go with the conservative option. I agree that holding multiple referenda until you get a result you like is anti-democratic, but if you can hold a second one and get a different result from the first, chances are the first referendum's outcome lacked legitimacy in the first place. Boilrig's (or anyone's) persistence to prop up what is a pretty shaky win (52% vs 48%) is definitely founded in more than a simple concern for protecting the integrity of democracy.[/QUOTE] That is only if it goes outside of that 52% vs 48% area or even 56% etc, but it depends on how far that needs to then be out for that 2nd referendum to mean anything against the 1st. Unless you actually get a meaningful change in numbers, you are going to be locked in reruns of the referendums forever. [QUOTE=GoDong-DK;53123683]I'll also just point out that here in Denmark, turnout among youth is higher than that in our usual elections - flaunting 72% turnout like being especially impressive is kinda laughable tbh. In my opinion it points to an issue where people don't really know what they want, which gives even less legitimacy to a 4% edge.[/QUOTE] Good for Denmark. This is still above turnout against a UK election.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;53123689]You are trying to mix a simple majority yes/no scenario with a general election. That is a different situation, even with FPTP and you know it.[/QUOTE] Cognitive dissonance in a nutshell, boys. "Oh but it's not the exact same situation so you can't compare the two!" Alright then. Can you explain to me why having a minority decide things is undemocratic for single-issue referendums but not for general elections which determine basically everything political that'll happen for several years? Or are you saying that it's alright to have your government be a big undemocratic turd as long as you get to have little bits of democratic processes sprinkled on top?
[QUOTE=_Axel;53123700]Cognitive dissonance in a nutshell, boys. "Oh but it's not the exact same situation so you can't compare the two!" Alright then. Can you explain to me why having a minority decide things is undemocratic for single-issue referendums but not for general elections which determine basically everything political that'll happen for several years?[/QUOTE] Technically those parties become a majority through coalition, I mean, you might not like the system, but every system takes you there. You can end up with minority governments, but they are more placeholders who collapse at major speeches without the majority support needed, so I wouldn't exactly call them governments in a traditional sense, and it is a very rare occasion.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;53123701]Technically those parties become a majority through coalition, I mean, you might not like the system, but every system takes you there.[/QUOTE] And now you're conveniently ignoring the fact that MP seat distribution is not proportional in the slightest to the popular vote, which, you know, is what we've been discussing since the beginning? [editline]11th February 2018[/editline] My main point about the system being undemocratic never was the necessity for coalitions.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;53123040]72% of voters came out in belief that it was an absolute vote and the government would act on the result. If it was made clear to the public it was non-binding, the turnout would've been significantly lower.[/QUOTE] Source please.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.