7 ms·

But whatever they call it, it is majority indeed and that's the democracy - you either accept that majority wins or well... don't know

by elcct 10y ago

throwaway-hn123 10y ago
Or realise that the 52-48 reflects a point in time, that things change and therefore it's perfectly ok to campaign against brexit, and try to stop it. Or do you subscribe to the point of view that we should only have had a single general election and abide by that result for all time?
- dasboth 10y ago
  > the 52-48 reflects a point in time The number of people who claimed to wish they could change their vote after the result was surprising. How many referendums do we need before people decide they've voted "properly"?
  - sasvari 10y ago
    The number of people who claimed to wish they could change their vote after the result was surprising. How many referendums do we need before people decide they've voted "properly"? Maybe that's the reasons why direct democracy by means of referendums is [considered to be] not always a good idea.
    - mixedCase 10y ago
      Of course, not always. It is only a good idea when you can agree with the result, of course.
- ldjb 10y ago
  Considering the British people never voted to join the EU in its current form, I'm not sure why membership of the EU should be seen as the default option. If we weren't asked whether we wanted to join a post-Lisbon Treaty EU, and once we were in it, we actively said we don't want it, why should we remain in it?
  - ricw 10y ago
    This is factually incorrect. As a parliamentary democracy we voted for all the governments that agreed to all such treaties and had the right to veto or reject any of them (which we did, the Schengen or euro treaties being examples thereof).
    - ldjb 10y ago
      People voted in general elections for many different reasons. People voting for a pro-EU party didn't necessarily support the EU. And all those elections took place under a flawed first-past-the-post system.
      - throwaway-hn123 10y ago
        I mean, if you want to keep moving the goalposts as your arguments are rebutted, that's fine. It just makes you not appear to be acting in good faith.
        ldjb 10y ago
        I don't see how I'm moving the goalposts. All I'm saying is that the EU referendum result must be respected. General election results must also be respected, but they revolve around a number of issues, so are not a good indicator of voters' opinion of membership of the EU. Besides, the Conservatives were elected into government with a manifesto promising an in-out referendum. The government has delivered on that promise and is carrying out the will of the people, as decided in that referendum.
        throwaway-hn123 10y ago
        > All I'm saying is that the EU referendum result must be respected. It is being respected. This might be news to you, but we don't live in a fascist dictatorship where dissent is forbidden. So, in your view, not a single thing any government has done (with the exception of joining the Common Market) has been agreed to by the population. Interesting.
slmyers 10y ago
I'm not sure if you can describe modern democracies as a will of the majority -- marijuana legalization, civil rights movements, anti war sentiments as examples.
- matteuan 10y ago
  I would say moderate oligarchies. 'Oligarchy' sounds negative, but it is not always bad.
- elcct 10y ago
  But that will is not reflected in voting...
return0 10y ago
The referendum is a poll. UK has representative, parliamentary democracy.
- vixen99 10y ago
  Exactly - so we should disregard the original referendum (a mere poll, as you put it) on the basis of which the British government signed up in 1975 to what was then the embryo EU - though only those experienced in deciphering subtexts in official documents really understood at that time that federation was the real goal not merely the establishment of a free trade area.
  - tom_mellior 10y ago
    > the original referendum (a mere poll, as you put it) on the basis of which the British government signed up You seem to be trying a reductio ad absurdum argument here and failing. The UK joined the EEC in 1973, without a referendum but based on an act of Parliament. In 1975 they held an explicitly non-binding referendum that supported staying in the EEC. In other words, that referendum voted to maintain the status quo. You can "disregard" it if you wish, but that would also just mean maintaining the status quo. The UK has never held a binding referendum on EEC/EU membership. According to the UK's crufty "constitution", this means Parliament gets to decide. If Parliament does nothing, the UK remains in the EU.
    - _delirium 10y ago
      The court also relied somewhat heavily on a more specific feature of UK constitutional principles: that if Parliament has granted a right to British citizens, only Parliament itself may revoke it. The European Communities Act 1972, the court held here, has the effect of granting certain individual rights to British citizens (such as a right of appeal to various EU courts). As these were granted by an Act of Parliament, they can only be revoked by another Act of Parliament, not by a decree of the Government. Therefore the European Communities Act 1972 must be properly repealed by Parliament, not de-facto rendered inoperative by action of the Government.
Quarrelsome 10y ago
I'm sorry to be rude but this is a very basic interpretation of democracy. It has some serious limitations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_rule#Limitations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_rule#Limitations typically we practice more complex implementations of democracy and as a rule we use majority rule for things like social questions as opposed to key strategic and economic ones.

But whatever they call it, it is majority indeed and that's the democracy - you either accept that majority wins or well... don't know

by elcct 10y ago

But whatever they call it, it is majority indeed and that's the democracy - you either accept that majority wins or well... don't know

throwaway-hn123 10y ago

Or realise that the 52-48 reflects a point in time, that things change and therefore it's perfectly ok to campaign against brexit, and try to stop it. Or do you subscribe to the point of view that we should only have had a single general election and abide by that result for all time?

dasboth 10y ago
> the 52-48 reflects a point in time The number of people who claimed to wish they could change their vote after the result was surprising. How many referendums do we need before people decide they've voted "properly"?
- sasvari 10y ago
  The number of people who claimed to wish they could change their vote after the result was surprising. How many referendums do we need before people decide they've voted "properly"? Maybe that's the reasons why direct democracy by means of referendums is [considered to be] not always a good idea.
  - mixedCase 10y ago
    Of course, not always. It is only a good idea when you can agree with the result, of course.
ldjb 10y ago
Considering the British people never voted to join the EU in its current form, I'm not sure why membership of the EU should be seen as the default option. If we weren't asked whether we wanted to join a post-Lisbon Treaty EU, and once we were in it, we actively said we don't want it, why should we remain in it?
- ricw 10y ago
  This is factually incorrect. As a parliamentary democracy we voted for all the governments that agreed to all such treaties and had the right to veto or reject any of them (which we did, the Schengen or euro treaties being examples thereof).
  - ldjb 10y ago
    People voted in general elections for many different reasons. People voting for a pro-EU party didn't necessarily support the EU. And all those elections took place under a flawed first-past-the-post system.
    - throwaway-hn123 10y ago
      I mean, if you want to keep moving the goalposts as your arguments are rebutted, that's fine. It just makes you not appear to be acting in good faith.
      - ldjb 10y ago
        I don't see how I'm moving the goalposts. All I'm saying is that the EU referendum result must be respected. General election results must also be respected, but they revolve around a number of issues, so are not a good indicator of voters' opinion of membership of the EU. Besides, the Conservatives were elected into government with a manifesto promising an in-out referendum. The government has delivered on that promise and is carrying out the will of the people, as decided in that referendum.
        throwaway-hn123 10y ago
        > All I'm saying is that the EU referendum result must be respected. It is being respected. This might be news to you, but we don't live in a fascist dictatorship where dissent is forbidden. So, in your view, not a single thing any government has done (with the exception of joining the Common Market) has been agreed to by the population. Interesting.

slmyers 10y ago

I'm not sure if you can describe modern democracies as a will of the majority -- marijuana legalization, civil rights movements, anti war sentiments as examples.

matteuan 10y ago
I would say moderate oligarchies. 'Oligarchy' sounds negative, but it is not always bad.
elcct 10y ago
But that will is not reflected in voting...

return0 10y ago

The referendum is a poll. UK has representative, parliamentary democracy.

vixen99 10y ago
Exactly - so we should disregard the original referendum (a mere poll, as you put it) on the basis of which the British government signed up in 1975 to what was then the embryo EU - though only those experienced in deciphering subtexts in official documents really understood at that time that federation was the real goal not merely the establishment of a free trade area.
- tom_mellior 10y ago
  > the original referendum (a mere poll, as you put it) on the basis of which the British government signed up You seem to be trying a reductio ad absurdum argument here and failing. The UK joined the EEC in 1973, without a referendum but based on an act of Parliament. In 1975 they held an explicitly non-binding referendum that supported staying in the EEC. In other words, that referendum voted to maintain the status quo. You can "disregard" it if you wish, but that would also just mean maintaining the status quo. The UK has never held a binding referendum on EEC/EU membership. According to the UK's crufty "constitution", this means Parliament gets to decide. If Parliament does nothing, the UK remains in the EU.
  - _delirium 10y ago
    The court also relied somewhat heavily on a more specific feature of UK constitutional principles: that if Parliament has granted a right to British citizens, only Parliament itself may revoke it. The European Communities Act 1972, the court held here, has the effect of granting certain individual rights to British citizens (such as a right of appeal to various EU courts). As these were granted by an Act of Parliament, they can only be revoked by another Act of Parliament, not by a decree of the Government. Therefore the European Communities Act 1972 must be properly repealed by Parliament, not de-facto rendered inoperative by action of the Government.

Quarrelsome 10y ago

I'm sorry to be rude but this is a very basic interpretation of democracy. It has some serious limitations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_rule#Limitations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_rule#Limitations typically we practice more complex implementations of democracy and as a rule we use majority rule for things like social questions as opposed to key strategic and economic ones.