Thousands marching through London to protest against the decision to leave EU
176 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50635243]direct democracy sucks precisely because it creates situations like this. have we not been through this already?[/QUOTE]
Parliament Voted 544 to 53 to hold the referendum, and Cameron declared a simple majority is all that would be required for it to be valid when the Leavers asked about what would happen if the margin of victory was less than 4%, then promptly committed suicide on Live TV the day after the referendum when it didn't go his way.
How is annulling it not-undemocratic?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50635392]Farage himself was calling for a second referendum when he thought he lost.
The two faced ness of anyone who supports that cocksucker is just too much for me.
[/QUOTE]
I don't support Farage, and neither support LePen or Salvini (Italian equivalent of Farage but more ridiculous and with a bulldozer fetish), I support EU in any meaning and stayed up all night to see the result by myself. I was just saying that all those leavers who shout "BUTTHURT BECAUSE YOU LOST" are just people who would have protested in first place for the result.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50635392]Farage himself was calling for a second referendum when he thought he lost.
The two faced ness of anyone who supports that cocksucker is just too much for me.
[editline]2nd July 2016[/editline]
so you're the hypocrite I thought you are because you do complain about those things.
who are you to say others can't voice their opinion when they feel thrown under the bus?[/QUOTE]
A overwhelming majority of Puerto Ricans voted for Statehood and the Federal Government simply ignored it.
A majority of British Citizens voted for Brexit, and now the Remain camp is calling for it to be ignored.
How am I a hypocrite for denoucing the Remain camp?
[QUOTE=Broseph_;50635438]Parliament Voted 544 to 53 to hold the referendum, and Cameron declared a simple majority is all that would be required for it to be valid when the Leavers asked about what would happen if the margin of victory was less than 4%, then promptly committed suicide on Live TV the day after the referendum when it didn't go his way.
How is annulling it not-undemocratic?[/QUOTE]
The majority being decided by less than 2% is not a good representation of democracy, not for any change that large. Cameron quit to cause political suicide for whoever takes office after him, not because he's a coward or "it didn't go his way", and I don't even fucking like Cameron.
It's a non binding referendum, there's no consequences for not following through with it besides what the public throws at them. And considering that leave, or no leave, they're going to get the same volumetric tonnes of shit, it's not the biggest issue they're worried about at the moment.
[editline]2nd July 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Broseph_;50635473]A overwhelming majority of Puerto Ricans voted for Statehood and the Federal Government simply ignored it.
A majority of British Citizens voted for Brexit, and now the Remain camp is calling for it to be ignored.
How am I a hypocrite for denoucing the Remain camp?[/QUOTE]
1) It's debatable how many PR's voted that way.
2) yes the federal government sucks for doing that
3) you've no doubt said a word or two in complaint about this, making you a hypocrite for saying other people should just shut up and take it
4) The majority is so narrow it's hard to justify the actions that'll affect the country based on so much misinformation.
Democracy is great and all, but if everyone voted for something matter of factly stupid, would you really just go along with it quietly?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50635478]The majority being decided by less than 2% is not a good representation of democracy, not for any change that large. Cameron quit to cause political suicide for whoever takes office after him, not because he's a coward or "it didn't go his way", and I don't even fucking like Cameron.
It's a non binding referendum, there's no consequences for not following through with it besides what the public throws at them. And considering that leave, or no leave, they're going to get the same volumetric tonnes of shit, it's not the biggest issue they're worried about at the moment.
[editline]2nd July 2016[/editline]
1) It's debatable how many PR's voted that way.
2) yes the federal government sucks for doing that
3) you've no doubt said a word or two in complaint about this, making you a hypocrite for saying other people should just shut up and take it
4) The majority is so narrow it's hard to justify the actions that'll affect the country based on so much misinformation.
Democracy is great and all, but if everyone voted for something matter of factly stupid, would you really just go along with it quietly?[/QUOTE]
If the final result would have been 51% remain and 49% leave. Would you complain as loudly as you are doing now about the results being too narrow? I mean if that had been the final result then instead of one half being unrepresented then simply the other half would have been unrepresented.
[QUOTE=Folstream;50635493]If the final result would have been 51% remain and 49% leave. Would you complain as loudly as you are doing now about the results being too narrow? I mean if that had been the final result then instead of one half being unrepresented then simply the other half would have been unrepresented.[/QUOTE]
Yes I would.
Any democractic decision being made by only a fraction of the populous at 2% is not a good fucking decision.
Democracy only works if your side wins - can we please just look for some solutions without undermining the votes and rights of others or at the very least give it some time to settle already?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50635478]The majority being decided by less than 2% is not a good representation of democracy, not for any change that large. Cameron quit to cause political suicide for whoever takes office after him, not because he's a coward or "it didn't go his way", and I don't even fucking like Cameron. [/QUOTE]
It was decided by 3.78%, 1.3 Million people, more people than in the second largest city in the United Kingdom, Birmingham.
Also it obviously didn't go his way because before the vote he said if leave won he would immediately invoke Article 50, instead when it came back Brexit won, he simply threw up his hands
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50635478]It's a non binding referendum, there's no consequences for not following through with it besides what the public throws at them. And considering that leave, or no leave, they're going to get the same volumetric tonnes of shit, it's not the biggest issue they're worried about at the moment.[/QUOTE]
The Quebec referendum was like that too, yet even the Prime Minster of Canada admitted if Quebec won by even a cunt hair they couldn't stop it from seceding, and even ordered all Canadian Military assets to relocated to Ontario to prevent Quebec from claiming them through inheritance.
Regardless all the leaders in the EU are saying they can't cancel or take back Brexit they have to commit, because the the French and Germans are already trying to ram-through the United States of Europe which is exactly what the Leave camp was warning of.
I can't wait for this all to end, cunts coming out from all angles.
[QUOTE=Broseph_;50634592]And guess what? The UK voted to leave the EU.
You can't vote to remain in a Union then complain about that Union when it doesn't go your way.
If it's so bad, have a new referendum on Independence since apparently the Union isn't working out for you guys, and there's nothing to lose now since Scotland is getting kicked out of the E.U. independent or not.[/QUOTE]
I really wish London becoming a city state and Scotland/Ireland leaving was feasible, just so I could watch Leave voters rot in England.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50635504]Yes I would.
Any democractic decision being made by only a fraction of the populous at 2% is not a good fucking decision.[/QUOTE]
The thing is that quite a few elections and referendums are made with small margins. Pretty much any US presidential election won't have a winner with more than 55% of the votes.
Sweden held a referendum on joining the EU back in 1994 and the results was 52.3% yes and 46.8% no. Maybe we should not have joined the EU based on such a narrow result?
Just to give a few examples, I think your logic becomes unreasonable.
[QUOTE=BioWaster;50635517]Democracy only works [u]if your side wins[/u] - can we please just look for some solutions without undermining the votes and rights of others or at the very least give it some time to settle already?[/QUOTE]
Nobody wins in this outcome. That's why there's so much outrage. Leaving the EU is fundamentally worse for the UK under our current leaving circumstances.
[QUOTE=Broseph_;50635531]It was decided by 3.78%, 1.3 Million people, more people than in the second largest city in the United Kingdom, Birmingham.
Also it obviously didn't go his way because before the vote he said if leave won he would immediately invoke Article 50, instead when it came back Brexit won, he simply threw up his hands
The Quebec referendum was like that too, yet even the Prime Minster of Canada admitted if Quebec won by even a cunt hair they couldn't stop it from seceding, and even ordered all Canadian Military assets to relocated to Ontario to prevent Quebec from claiming them through inheritance.
Regardless all the leaders in the EU are saying they can't cancel or take back Brexit they have to commit, because the the French and Germans are already trying to ram-through the United States of Europe which is exactly what the Leave camp was warning of.[/QUOTE]
Yeah just bring up everything and anything even tangentially related to... what?
Quebec was a whole different deal that involved a form of sovreignty that was unfair to the rest of Canada. It was basically "we want to be free but you guys pay for everything". So yes, under those conditions, it really doesn't fucking matter what they vote because they're voting to take advantage of the rest of the nation for literally nothing.
As for the subject at hand, yes, that's a good chunk of people. Good thing we don't go by "LARGE NUMBERS" and instead go by %. 3.78 is a tiny fraction of a nation for such a large choice to be decided by.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50635478]1) It's debatable how many PR's voted that way.
2) yes the federal government sucks for doing that
3) you've no doubt said a word or two in complaint about this, making you a hypocrite for saying other people should just shut up and take it
4) The majority is so narrow it's hard to justify the actions that'll affect the country based on so much misinformation.
Democracy is great and all, but if everyone voted for something matter of factly stupid, would you really just go along with it quietly?[/QUOTE]
We voted 54% to 46% to end our status as a US territory, and 61% to become a US State.
So what the fuck are you talking about it's debatable? The only two other options were become a US Protectorate or fully Independent, and Protectorate status only won 33%, and Independence 5.5%
[QUOTE=wewlad;50635538]I really wish London becoming a city state and Scotland/Ireland leaving was feasible, just so I could watch Leave voters rot in England.[/QUOTE]
London is one of the major fucking reasons the UK is this divided in the first place. And i say this as a bloody londoner.
[QUOTE=Folstream;50635547]The thing is that quite a few elections and referendums are made with small margins. Pretty much any US presidential election won't have a winner with more than 55% of the votes.
Sweden held a referendum on joining the EU back in 1994 and the results was 52.3% yes and 46.8% no. Maybe we should not have joined the EU based on such a narrow result?
Just to give a few examples, I think your logic becomes unreasonable.[/QUOTE]
That's a margin of 5.5% if i'm not wrong. That's a bigger one.
I don't even believe referendums make sense. Direct democracy is a horrible way to apply democracy. You're not really putting my logic in a hard place because I [B]don't like the idea of direct democracy what so ever[/B]
[editline]2nd July 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Broseph_;50635558]We voted 54% to 46% to end our status as a US territory, and 61% to become a US State.
So what the fuck are you talking about it's debatable? The only two other options were become a US Protectorate or fully Independent, and Protectorate status only won 33%, and Independence 5.5%[/QUOTE]
Cool you know more about that than I do, I was just arguing this in another thread with Scorpious and as far as that discussion went, your numbers were a "Statistical fiction". So go argue that with him, not me.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50635563]That's a margin of 5.5% if i'm not wrong. That's a bigger one.
I don't even believe referendums make sense. Direct democracy is a horrible way to apply democracy. You're not really putting my logic in a hard place because I [B]don't like the idea of direct democracy what so ever[/B]
[editline]2nd July 2016[/editline]
Cool you know more about that than I do, I was just arguing this in another thread with Scorpious and as far as that discussion went, your numbers were a "Statistical fiction". So go argue that with him, not me.[/QUOTE]
What Statistical fiction?
[url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1525372[/url]
go take it up with him because I tried arguing that PR did want statehood
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50635563]That's a margin of 5.5% if i'm not wrong. That's a bigger one.
I don't even believe referendums make sense. Direct democracy is a horrible way to apply democracy. You're not really putting my logic in a hard place because I [B]don't like the idea of direct democracy what so ever[/B]
[editline]2nd July 2016[/editline]
Cool you know more about that than I do, I was just arguing this in another thread with Scorpious and as far as that discussion went, your numbers were a "Statistical fiction". So go argue that with him, not me.[/QUOTE]
It's still only a margin of 2.3% from not being a majority of the votes. Blank votes + No votes total at 47.2% and a blank vote is not a yes vote.
In any case how would representative democracy magically solve the issues of narrow margins/non-representation?
The current Swedish government coalition only accumulates a total of 37.9% of voters but due to a divided opposition that has the majority the current government gains a plurality. That means that 62.1% have not voted for the current government and probably doesn't feel represented by it.
That doesn't seem particularly good either.
As long as you have democracy in one form or the other there is going to be a sizeable amount of people who will be unhappy with how things are.
When going into the EU if it's a narrow margin on the join side of things then you have the options of negotiating your membership to alleviate the concerns of the narrow margin. I'm not sure how one alleviates the concerns of those on the remain side when it's such a tight margin? We could leave and join the EEA but then you don't really solve the issues the leave side have, and you just create more issues than you had before.
If you just leave completely and say fuck the EEA then you have half the country with zero representation.
[QUOTE=Folstream;50635605]It's still only a margin of 2.3% from not being a majority of the votes. Blank votes + No votes total at 47.2% and a blank vote is not a yes vote.
In any case how would representative democracy magically solve the issues of narrow margins/non-representation?
The current Swedish government coalition only accumulates a total of 37.9% of voters but due to a divided opposition that has the majority the current government gains a plurality. That means that 62.1% have not voted for the current government and probably doesn't feel represented by it.
That doesn't seem particularly good either.
As long as you have democracy in one form or the other there is going to be a sizeable amount of people who will be unhappy with how things are.[/QUOTE]
Should that "Sizeable" amount be literally half of the population of a given nation?
Is there any condition possible that would make you go "Oh maybe the majority shouldn't be deciding what the minority are going to be doing too"? Or will you always default to the concept that "The rule of the majority must be a good one"?
I wonder how many of those people actually voted on the issue anyway, in my experience people who are apt to protest aren't the people who are willing to cast a vote. That might just be an American thing though, I don't know.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50635616]Should that "Sizeable" amount be literally half of the population of a given nation?
Is there any condition possible that would make you go "Oh maybe the majority shouldn't be deciding what the minority are going to be doing too"? Or will you always default to the concept that "The rule of the majority must be a good one"?[/QUOTE]
Like I said, 62.1% a pretty damn large majority have not voted for the current Swedish government. Obviously it's not a problem related to direct democracy vs. representative democracy. The problem here is democracy in itself since both forms of it has the potential to leave a ton of people out.
It's kind of like what Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others".
I may dislike a lot of decisions made on a democratic basis but I respect them as long as it's not blatant human rights violations or whatever but most democratic countries have a constitution to prevent that from happening.
[QUOTE=Folstream;50635643]Like I said, 62.1% a pretty damn large majority have not voted for the current Swedish government. Obviously it's not a problem related to direct democracy vs. representative democracy. The problem here is democracy in itself since both forms of it has the potential to leave a ton of people out.
It's kind of like what Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others".[/QUOTE]
Elections are different than referendums though.
And yes elections can be wildly unrepresentative. Canada's previous Government was elected with less than 40% of the vote and had a massive majority in Parliment. Yes it can be unrepresentative. Isn't that something worth aiming to work on? And that's just dealing with elections.
Referendums as this one was, was a form of direct democracy and I truly believe that was a horrible way to go about doing it.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;50634236]At least the EU has a leaving article. Ignoring a referendum is on a completely different level.[/QUOTE]
Accepting the result of a referendum without a 60%+ majority is on a completely different level.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50635661]Elections are different than referendums though.
And yes elections can be wildly unrepresentative. Canada's previous Government was elected with less than 40% of the vote and had a massive majority in Parliment. Yes it can be unrepresentative. Isn't that something worth aiming to work on? And that's just dealing with elections.
Referendums as this one was, was a form of direct democracy and I truly believe that was a horrible way to go about doing it.[/QUOTE]
How would you improve a representative democracy then? I can't speak for the Canadian system but the Swedish system is about as proportional as it gets. 10% of votes means 10% of seats and so on. 4% threshold for a party to get seats. It's not like the British system with first past the post that makes the results wildy unproportional.
But then I take it that if by some magic chance UKIP would win their own majority of seats in parliament and from there initiated the article 50 to leave the EU, you would be fine with it then?
[QUOTE=Folstream;50635719]How would you improve a representative democracy then? I can't speak for the Canadian system but the Swedish system is about as proportional as it gets. 10% of votes means 10% of seats and so on. 4% threshold for a party to get seats. It's not like the British system with first past the post that makes the results wildy unproportional.
But then I take it that if by some magic chance UKIP would win their own majority of seats in parliament and from there initiated the article 50 to leave the EU, you would be fine with it then?[/QUOTE]
If by some miracle UKIP managed to be the majority in population and in whatever form of representation is best, I wouldn't support it but fuck it, it's their choice. I'm not saying they can't make the choices they want to make, as much as you and anyone else on your side of the argument would like to. I don't believe the people arguing against this are against democracy, as much as that is the argument many people on your side of this argument seem to be leading with.
It's trite.
I do not know how to make a better system. I'm not sure how one does that. I'm not sure how to make this any clearer though, but a [B]direct democracy via referendum is not a good form of democracy, and is clearly not representative of the populous[/B] so please stop twisting that to mean something else or leaving out the fact a direct democracy via a referendum is different than an election system.
[QUOTE=Morgen;50635610]When going into the EU if it's a narrow margin on the join side of things then you have the options of negotiating your membership to alleviate the concerns of the narrow margin. I'm not sure how one alleviates the concerns of those on the remain side when it's such a tight margin? We could leave and join the EEA but then you don't really solve the issues the leave side have, and you just create more issues than you had before.
If you just leave completely and say fuck the EEA then you have half the country with zero representation.[/QUOTE]
A majority of the Remain camp only cares about the EEA and believes that the only way to stay in the EEA is to remain in the EU, when there's still the EFTA, which is apart of the EEA, but doesn't require the UK to submit itself to EU's NON-ECONOMIC Laws, Court Rulings, and creeping federalism.
[QUOTE=Broseph_;50635735]A majority of the Remain camp only cares about the EEA and believes that the only way to stay in the EEA is to remain in the EU, when there's still the EFTA, which is apart of the EEA, but doesn't require the UK to submit itself to EU's NON-ECONOMIC Laws, and Court Rulings.[/QUOTE]
Of which, when they were in the EU, they agreed with 98% of them
so not sure how that even mattered as an argument in the first place as a reason to leave because it really isn't.
every major "Leave" campaign promise was a lie.
But the majority decided. In democratic country. These protests are meaningless. Thay may be lod but they are still MINORITY.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.