Lib Dems pledge British return to EU in the next general election. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50596161]With voting, 52% is barely a technical majority. Referendums like this should only be taken in account when it is a landslide vote, such as 60%+ or stick with the status quo. Now that 48% is now under the tyranny of this mini majority.[/QUOTE] And a percentage is not a good presentation of the vote, since it makes it look way smaller than it actually was; that 2% difference, was 1.2 million voters. Ontop of that, if the vote was 60% instead, you'd demand for it to be pushed even higher; it's how the EU handled its voting in their own paraliment, it'd revote constantly until they got the result they desired. This is not how democracy works. As I said, whats done is done and we should be focusing on getting the best deal we can from the EU on our exit, they need us more than we need them and thats a reality, infact with the right person leading the talks, we'd probably do even better than what we currently got by being in the EU.

[QUOTE=lionheart1066;50597620][B]And a percentage is not a good presentation of the vote, since it makes it look way smaller than it actually was; that 2% difference, was 1.2 million voters.[/B] Ontop of that, if the vote was 60% instead, you'd demand for it to be pushed even higher; it's how the EU handled its voting in their own paraliment, it'd revote constantly until they got the result they desired. This is not how democracy works.[/QUOTE] What? No. A percentage is the BEST representation. Yes, 1.2 million voters looks huge, but so does 16.1 million voters. Humans are bad at effectively comprehending large numbers. Using the 1.2 million voter number just plays on that cognitive bias without providing context for it. This seems to have been a common theme for the leave side though, with its "350m a week" etc. [QUOTE=lionheart1066;50597620]As I said, whats done is done and we should be focusing on getting the best deal we can from the EU on our exit, [B]they need us more than we need them and thats a reality[/B],[/QUOTE] Very interesting definition of reality you have, given that the EU has a 16.8 trillion dollar economy while the UK has a 2.5 trillion dollar economy. If the really wanted, the EU can out wait you until you accept whatever shitty deal they want. Will it be painful for both sides? Sure. But do you really think the EU will have a harder time then the UK? Even if that were true, do you think that just because they have a harder time of it, that they couldn't survive the longer wait anyway? (ie, the EU has more HP then the UK, and even if you have a greater DPS, it win) [QUOTE=lionheart1066;50597620] infact with the right person leading the talks, [B]we'd probably do even better than what we currently got by being in the EU.[/B][/QUOTE] This is literally 100% impossible. The EU would be suicidal to give the UK a deal like this, because then it would encourage EVERY country to do what you guys did.

To quote David Cameron: [media]https://twitter.com/David_Cameron/status/732562392131997697[/media] The same applies to the remain side.

Imagine thinking the UK was a key exporter into the EU Large, yes, but by no means vital. The worst economic effect for the EU from this is the speculative market

[QUOTE=lionheart1066;50597620] it's how the EU handled its voting in their own paraliment, it'd revote constantly until they got the result they desired. This is not how democracy works. .[/QUOTE] Why, because you say so? If I ask someone the same question 3 times and the first 2 times they say no and on the third time they say yes, have I at any point stripped them of the power to say yes or no on the third attempt? No. In EU parliament all MEP's vote in all 3 readings and revisions to bills are made after each reading. There is nothing forcing democratically elected MEP's to accept a bill after the third reading, if nothing changes in the bill presented.

[QUOTE=lionheart1066;50597620]And a percentage is not a good presentation of the vote, since it makes it look way smaller than it actually was; that 2% difference, was 1.2 million voters. Ontop of that, if the vote was 60% instead, you'd demand for it to be pushed even higher; it's how the EU handled its voting in their own paraliment, it'd revote constantly until they got the result they desired. This is not how democracy works. As I said, whats done is done and we should be focusing on getting the best deal we can from the EU on our exit, they need us more than we need them and thats a reality, infact with the right person leading the talks, we'd probably do even better than what we currently got by being in the EU.[/QUOTE] Ignoring the fact that percentages are in fact the ideal way to represent vote divides, you're still telling me that the older half of the population, most of which won't live long enough to either experience the full brunt of the consequences that come with leaving the EU or are vastly uninformed gets to decide the future of every future worker in the country. I'm not sure if you're aware of the fact that one man owns the biggest private news sources in the country, and is second only in influence to the BBC, which is supposed to impartial as opposed to right leaning, and his campaign was not only disgustingly "populist" in the worst kind of way, he blatantly had lies printed on the front page, the most infuriating of which was "QUEEN SUPPORTS BREXIT" which he later retracted with a small "we were wrong about that" some pages in a few days later, but the damage had already been done. Not only that, many of the issues that leave championed such as "350 gojirion for NHS" and "keep immigrants at bay" will simply not be fullfilled as Nigel Farage flat out admitted on the BBC that it was a "mistake", or in other words a boldfaced lie when he posed with the words emblazoned in giant letters on the side of a fucking bus. And you're right, this isn't how democracy works. This should not have been a pure democratic yae or nae vote, but the usual way through seasoned, knowledgeable representatives that we vote in for this very fucking purpose. Maybe then the VAST majority could've put their heads together and collectively inform the public that this idea of leaving the EU is bug fuck retarded. Instead, we're going to have to deal with economic misery, a complete loss of face on the public stage, potentially heavy privatisation of many previously nationalised sectors depending on who becomes prime minister just because Rupert fucking Murdoch said so.

[QUOTE=Captain James;50597179]"Democracy only works when it works in my favour" Let it go dude, what you're describing is not democracy.[/QUOTE] The problem is that public opinion changes, and can be pretty volatile. If a second referendum was held next month maybe it would be a 52% in favour of remain. And then at some point it would be leave again, etc. If an ideal democracy is to cater to the tiniest majority then it would have to hold referendums repeatedly to adapt to the majority flipping to the other side. This isn't feasible however, the UK can't keep getting in and out of the EU. I don't think the idea of supermajority is necessarily undemocratic when it comes to permanent decisions (or very long lasting ones). Is a 52% majority really representative of the people not only today but also in the decades to come? At least a supermajority indicates a stronger trend and not just a fluke. Neither subjecting future generations to the decisions of a majority at one point in time nor requiring a supermajority is perfectly democratic, but in the real world you need to make compromises.

[QUOTE=Monkah;50595909]Oh give it a rest already. The people have spoken, whether you agree or disagree with what they voted for.[/QUOTE] They did? The result I saw showed a country that was a literal coin flip either way. I wouldn't call Brexit's referendum a win for either side, it's undecided, as in Britian doesn't know if it does or doesn't want to remain with the EU.

people who are arguing against the "BUT THE 2% MAJORITY SIDE IS THE PEOPLE SPEAKING" remember that this is the side who had a representative that literally said that britain is tired of experts remember who you are arguing with

Also everyone has realised that economists weren't fear mongering when they said it would hurt, that Sadiq Kahn wasn't fear mongering when he said that leave had no plan for the future, that Boris wasn't telling the truth that we'd spend £350m/week on the NHS and that the Brexit camp don't actually plan on ending free movement.

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;50597781]Also everyone has realised that economists weren't fear mongering when they said it would hurt, that Sadiq Kahn wasn't fear mongering when he said that leave had no plan for the future, that Boris wasn't telling the truth that we'd spend £350m/week on the NHS and that the Brexit camp don't actually plan on ending free movement.[/QUOTE] This is the reason I have trouble believing in conspiracy theories. Hanlon's razor says that before chalking something up to malice, incompetence is far more likely.

[QUOTE=Johnny Guitar;50596141]Why are you assuming they're misinformed simply because you disagree with them?[/QUOTE] Did you miss how the £350 million for the NHS figure was a total fabrication? Or the immigration figures? Or the fact that Turkey could join the EU and get freedom of movement for its people? Not saying the Remain side was completely innocent, but there were a LOT of outright lies on Leave's side.

[QUOTE=Kybalt;50597636]What? No. A percentage is the BEST representation. Yes, 1.2 million voters looks huge, but so does 16.1 million voters. Humans are bad at effectively comprehending large numbers. Using the 1.2 million voter number just plays on that cognitive bias without providing context for it. This seems to have been a common theme for the leave side though, with its "350m a week" etc.[/QUOTE] No it isn't, when summerizing 1.2 million votes down into a small percentage so you press forward how "unfair" the vote was from the supposedly misinformed. You are mispresenting the scale of the vote by using a percentage when the vote count was in the millions. [QUOTE=Kybalt;50597636]Very interesting definition of reality you have, given that the EU has a 16.8 trillion dollar economy while the UK has a 2.5 trillion dollar economy. If the really wanted, the EU can out wait you until you accept whatever shitty deal they want. Will it be painful for both sides? Sure. But do you really think the EU will have a harder time then the UK? Even if that were true, do you think that just because they have a harder time of it, that they couldn't survive the longer wait anyway? (ie, the EU has more HP then the UK, and even if you have a greater DPS, it win)[/QUOTE] You realize that economies are based on estimates and are in constant flux of change correct? Ontop of that over half of our trade is coming from nations outside of the EU and even then, 2 trillion is a big dent in a big economy worth trillions, that's nothing to scoff over. [QUOTE=Kybalt;50597636]This is literally 100% impossible. The EU would be suicidal to give the UK a deal like this, because then it would encourage EVERY country to do what you guys did.[/QUOTE] So explain why the Germans are already citing caution to the EU with how they handle UK's exit. This isn't just going to hurt us, it's going to hurt EU pretty badly aswell.

I can see why they made that promise, the Lib Dems want to get elected again so they're seizing on something they know will make a lot of people more likely to vote for them. I mean, it'll probably end with another coalition government that sees them completely abandoning their election promises but hey more power to you guys. Yours sincerely, A voter you fucking burned a while back

[QUOTE=lionheart1066;50597926]No it isn't, when summerizing 1.2 million votes down into a small percentage so you press forward how "unfair" the vote was from the supposedly misinformed. You are mispresenting the scale of the vote by using a percentage when the vote count was in the millions.[/QUOTE] 1.2 million [I]is[/I] a small number when it's 2% of the population. You have to put numbers in perspective for them to mean anything.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50597293]This should not have been left to democracy to begin with.[/QUOTE] Thank fuck you don't run a country.

[QUOTE=Pops;50598245]Thank fuck you don't run a country.[/QUOTE] Yeah, you tell him, dude. It's much better that rather than the elected representatives, our Members of Parliament, who have intimate knowledge with constitutional politics, who could have consulted with the industry experts in the House of Lords, and worked with the UK Government, to settle a decision affecting 40 years of constitutional, fiscal, and economic legislation, we instead had a direct democracy referendum where we relied upon the British populace who, by and large, has no knowledge of the workings of the UK government, or Parliament, and left it up to them to decide we should leave an unquestionably beneficial trade union.

[QUOTE=Pops;50598245]Thank fuck you don't run a country.[/QUOTE] Your response can be reflected right back at you given that it's evidence you don't understand how government works in the first place.

i understand how the government works perfectly fine, thanks. the problem is, so do the dinguses that get elected under whatever premise they ran on, and then most of the time they just feed their pockets and forget the people they're supposed to "represent". of course, i also think the idea that such a small amount of people are meant to represent an entire nation is ludicrous, but it can be done right. had members of parliament voted on leave/remain with the people's input, that would be fine. otherwise, this is absolutely a vote the people should have direct influence over.

[QUOTE=Pops;50598421]i understand how the government works perfectly fine, thanks. the problem is, so do the dinguses that get elected under whatever premise they ran on, and then most of the time they just feed their pockets and forget the people they're supposed to "represent". of course, i also think the idea that such a small amount of people are meant to represent an entire nation is ludicrous, but it can be done right. had members of parliament voted on leave/remain with the people's input, that would be fine. otherwise, this is absolutely a vote the people should have direct influence over.[/QUOTE] [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1524520&p=50596149&viewfull=1#post50596149]First, read this to understand why referendums on complex issues is a bad idea[/url] Secondly, it's been the general consensus by hundreds of political scientists over the centuries that direct democracy is just plain bad, from Plato to today. Yes, representatives are sometimes corrupt. But so can campaigners for certain leanings in a direct vote, which exacerbates the issues in my first point. People can be corrupt. There is no profession or position that someone cannot abuse to their own ends. It's stupid to say "well all this has to be done by the direct vote because they could be corrupt!" because you may as well dissolve government in its entirety at that point and just have everything be a direct democracy. And let the majority damn the minorities in every vote. Referendums on small issues and laws are perfectly fine. City-wide referendums on introducing a new tax is perfectly fine, you either vote for and have the tax or vote no and don't pay. Leaving the EU is not so simple as "pay or don't pay". It's immensely complex to begin with, and doesn't help by being distorted by those blindly in favor of one side or the other when campaigning. [editline]26th June 2016[/editline] The thing I've learned most about this whole Brexit thing is that a large majority of people simply don't understand simple concepts as a representative government and direct democracy. No one the UK has fucked up so badly.

[QUOTE=Pops;50598421]i understand how the government works perfectly fine, thanks. the problem is, so do the dinguses that get elected under whatever premise they ran on, and then most of the time they just feed their pockets and forget the people they're supposed to "represent".[/QUOTE] It's a two-way relationship. MPs don't just sit in Parliament all days of the year. Part of their obligations are to hold regular surgeries in their constituencies, where they meet with members of the public on an individual basis, and address concerns at larger meetings. This is on top of their countless responses to letters, emails, and phone calls, where they can then bring these issues up in Parliament. I won't argue that they're perfect in their jobs at doing this, but to blindly state that they simply ignore their constituents and are totally corrupt is misinformation that is damaging to representative democracy. [quote]of course, i also think the idea that such a small amount of people are meant to represent an entire nation is ludicrous, but it can be done right. had members of parliament voted on leave/remain with the people's input, that would be fine. otherwise, this is absolutely a vote the people should have direct influence over.[/quote] Parliament isn't the only representation we have in the UK. As members of the public, we aren't isolated out here outside of London. We have local councils, and in my case in Northern Ireland, we have the Northern Ireland Assembly, made up of the local Northern Irish Government, and MLAs who attend the assembly as representatives. Scotland and Wales have the same thing with the Scottish Parliament, and the Welsh Assembly. As the people, we have given our mandate to our elected representatives that they are to act in our best interest. Parliament had an overwhelming support for Britain remaining a part of the EU. This is [I]across[/I] party divisions. [img]http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/BA5A/production/_90060774_mps_declare_eu_stance_22_06_16_624gr.png[/img] Source: [I] [URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35616946[/URL][/I] This is the same Parliament, like I've said before, that has experience working in constitutional politics, and their judgement should be trusted more than the average member of the public over matters of constitutional, fiscal, and economic politics. And yes, it says in that graph that not all MPs declared - but that's 637 of a total of 650 MPs. That is a significant number of MPs supporting Remain - 74%. A group that has the experience to understand the implications of leaving the EU.

[QUOTE=CMB Unit 01;50598492]It's a two-way relationship. MPs don't just sit in Parliament all days of the year. Part of their obligations are to hold regular surgeries in their constituencies, where they meet with members of the public on an individual basis, and address concerns at larger meetings. This is on top of their countless responses to letters, emails, and phone calls, where they can then bring these issues up in Parliament. I won't argue that they're perfect in their jobs at doing this, but to blindly state that they simply ignore their constituents and are totally corrupt is misinformation that is damaging to representative democracy. Parliament isn't the only representation we have in the UK. As members of the public, we aren't isolated out here outside of London. We have local councils, and in my case in Northern Ireland, we have the Northern Ireland Assembly, made up of the local Northern Irish Government, and MLAs who attend the assembly as representatives. Scotland and Wales have the same thing with the Scottish Parliament, and the Welsh Assembly. As the people, we have given our mandate to our elected representatives that they are to act in our best interest. Parliament had an overwhelming support for Britain remaining a part of the EU. This is [I]across[/I] party divisions. [img]http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/BA5A/production/_90060774_mps_declare_eu_stance_22_06_16_624gr.png[/img] Source: [I] [URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35616946[/URL][/I] This is the same Parliament, like I've said before, that has experience working in constitutional politics, and their judgement should be trusted more than the average member of the public over matters of constitutional, fiscal, and economic politics. And yes, it says in that graph that not all MPs declared - but that's 637 of a total of 650 MPs. That is a significant number of MPs supporting Remain - 74%. A group that has the experience to understand the implications of leaving the EU.[/QUOTE] this entire debate and the remain side just goes to show how much liberal-capitalism is incompatible with democracy along elitist, wealth-based lines. it doesn't surprise me the biggest vocal supporters of the EU are all petit-bourgeois or 'citizens of the world' no wonder the nationalists reject this

[QUOTE=Conscript;50598569]this entire debate and the remain side just goes to show how much liberal-capitalism is incompatible with democracy along elitist, wealth-based lines. it doesn't surprise me the biggest vocal supporters of the EU are all petit-bourgeois or 'citizens of the world' no wonder the nationalists reject this[/QUOTE] oh boy I've sure missed reading your obtuse posts full of needless jargon please do continue

[QUOTE=Conscript;50598569]this entire debate and the remain side just goes to show how much liberal-capitalism is incompatible with democracy along elitist, wealth-based lines. it doesn't surprise me the biggest vocal supporters of the EU are all petit-bourgeois or 'citizens of the world' no wonder the nationalists reject this[/QUOTE] It's hard to comprehend this much ignorance.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50598607]oh boy I've sure missed reading your obtuse posts full of needless jargon please do continue[/QUOTE] ha i almost thought i had to reply with substance than i saw a word that confounded me ;) sorry, i didn't mean to raise the quality of discussion. keep fishing for ratings, it's all you're good for like it or not i didn't use a single 'big word' and i'm describing a theme just about everyone in the west can identify. it's the first point raised regarding brexit or trump, generation gaps on globalization opinions, and so on [quote]It's hard to comprehend this much ignorance.[/quote] "capitalism is too much for people to think about we should leave everything up to [i]representatives[/i]" i really like the indignation of the privileged, liberal political center in response to the rise of political extremes across the west and a growing rejection of the 21st century liberal-capitalist vision we've held since the 90s, because it was supposed to never happen. at least libertarians were always consistent in believing nations and democracy are fundamentally incompatible with the future, it seems our neoliberal elite will be forced to come to grips with that realization.

[QUOTE=Conscript;50598639]ha i almost thought i had to reply with substance than i saw a word that confounded me ;) sorry, i didn't mean to raise the quality of discussion. keep fishing for ratings, it's all you're good for like it or not i didn't use a single 'big word' and i'm describing a theme just about everyone in the west can identify. it's the first point raised regarding brexit or trump, generation gaps on globalization opinions, and so on "capitalism is too much for people to think about we should leave everything up to [i]representatives[/i]" i really like the indignation of the privileged, liberal political center in response to the rise of political extremes across the west and a growing rejection of the 21st century liberal-capitalist vision we've held since the 90s. at least libertarians are consistent in believing nations and democracy are fundamentally incompatible with the future[/QUOTE] Oh don't get me wrong, I fully understood what you said, just that it was a load of tosh embellished with flowery language to make it seem like a legitimate statement, so I didn't bother responding properly.

It's not about losing, you morons. There should be a second referendum because the question on the Brexit referendum was "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?". Nowhere in there does it say under what circumstances should the UK leave the European Union, and that's truly where the division lies. Would you want to leave the European Union if it ultimately means paying for single market access just as before (Which means the UK has effectively saved no money by leaving), would you want to leave the European Union if it means splitting the Union? [QUOTE=Conscript;50598639] i really like the indignation of the privileged[/QUOTE] Fuck you, I'm an expat, I'm part of the British public that is most affected by this, and that is why I vehemently defend Remain. I barely have any money and I don't have any ties whatsoever with the financial world, I don't even have a UK bank account. How can you seriously say that "oh only the capitalists and rich want the EU" when the working class is the one that will face the brunt of a recession and the removal of EU benefits?

[QUOTE=Bazsil;50596208]its okay to ignore the wishes of the majority because clearly the majority is illiterate because they don't agree with me sorry, thats not how democracy works. you lost, get over it[/QUOTE] why do so many people view democracy as a game that you win or lose

[QUOTE=elowin;50598708]why do so many people view democracy as a game that you win or lose[/QUOTE] Because empathy is difficult.

[QUOTE=Conscript;50598639];)[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Conscript;50598639]keep fishing for ratings, it's all you're good for[/QUOTE] I take it you're used to people not taking you seriously with the way you talk. [editline]26th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=elowin;50598708]why do so many people view democracy as a game that you win or lose[/QUOTE] Because it's t[B]he rules!!11![/B] When they have no real input to give in the situation due to either lack of information or perspective, they just look at the numbers and say 'nope, one's higher than the other'.