7 ms·

Leaving the pros/cons of brexit out: if there was a plebiscite where the electorate voted in favor of something, and if we assume that politicians are supposed

Leaving the pros/cons of brexit out: if there was a plebiscite where the electorate voted in favor of something, and if we assume that politicians are supposed to be representing the electorate, shouldn't it have been pretty straightforward that the corresponding bill would pass largely unchallenged? If it had failed, how would the politicians have justified to their electors voting against their express intentions?

toomuchtodo 10y ago
> how would the politicians have justified to their electors voting against their express intentions? Sometimes the electorate requires protection from itself; the idea is not new (below History Stack Exchange answer references James Madison). "It is arguably the most famous of The Federalist Papers [1]. Madison argues that society is undone by faction" defined as "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.…" "A faction can be a minority, but also a majority, and the majority can work against the good of the whole by abusing its power. The majority simply cannot be trusted not to oppress the minority, given the opportunity." Emphasis mine. The "Tyranny Of The Majority" [2] also comes to mind. "American founding father Alexander Hamilton writing to Jefferson from the Constitutional Convention argued the same fears regarding the use of pure direct democracy by the majority to elect a demagogue who, rather than work for the benefit of all citizens, set out to either harm those in the minority or work only for those of the upper echelon. The Electoral College mechanism present in the indirect United States presidential election system, and the phenomenon of faithless electors allowed for within it, was, in part, deliberately created as a safety measure not only to prevent such a scenario, but also to prevent the use of democracy to overthrow democracy for an authoritarian, dictatorial or other system of oppressive government.[3] As articulated by Hamilton, one reason the Electoral College was created was so "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications." Some failure scenarios are clearly hard to prepare for. http://history.stackexchange.com/a/5568 http://history.stackexchange.com/a/5568 [1] http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
- generic_user 10y ago
  Article 50 is part of the Treaty of Lisbon. Any member state can trigger article 50 and leave the EU. The time to debate whether or not article 50 was in some way a tyrannical or unjust was during the crafting of the law. So we can assume that it was deemed acceptable and agreed by the member states. If your claim is that article 50 is tyrannical then the Treaty of Lisbon itself should be changed to remove article 50. Barring that, I don't think there is legal standing to try and prevent article 50 from being triggered. It was put to a popular vote and the PM is respecting the will of the citizenry.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    My comment was addressing why politicians might override an electorate morally; I don't believe I took a stance either way on Article 50. The public referendum was non-binding, and legally, can be ignored.
    - generic_user 10y ago
      But the topic of discussing is article 50. So I am contextualizing your post with the current topic. > My comment was addressing why politicians might override an electorate I think in the in the current case a referendum was a fairly standard democratic procedure that everyone agreed on. No one questioned weather or not there should have been a referendum in the first place. Some people are just upset that there side lost. So again in the current context there is little evidence of a 'tyrannical majority'. I'm not saying that your points are not valid in the abstract. But in the current discussion of article 50 and Brexit I do not see much evidence that the process or result could credibly called into question.
      - Symbiote 10y ago
        Plenty of people questioned wherever there should be a referendum. More people questioned whether a simple majority was appropriate. By the time of the vote, people questioned whether they had enough information, and after various "promises" were withdrawn mere hours after the result was announced, further questioned what the plan was. We still don't know the plan.
mbroncano 10y ago
On a related note, it doesn't say much of the representative nature of the chamber that the vote doesn't reflect the split hair referendum result.
- untog 10y ago
  Of course not - the parliament is based on constituencies, not direct representation. Much like we saw in the US last year, it is possible to win a majority in a UK election while losing the popular vote.
- mcguire 10y ago
  52% to 48% is "split-hair"? In England it was 53.4% to 46.6%. http://www.bbc.com/news/politics/eu_referendum/results http://www.bbc.com/news/politics/eu_referendum/results
Symmetry 10y ago
In the US popular opinion says that Congress should raise domestic spending, lower taxes, decrease the deficit, and pay for this by lowering foreign aid to 10% of the budget. Foreign aid is actually 1% of the budget. Politicians should ideally do the right thing or failing that do things that will get them reelected. Roughly 50% of the popular vote supported both the "leave" and stay options and the fraction of the electorate that votes based on "Has my life gotten better or worse since the last election" is much larger than the difference between the two sides so to get reelected MPs should vote as they think will most benefit the country.
- throwaway91111 10y ago
  Arguably, it's better to elect flawed but representative people. How else are people to learn?
  - GeneralMayhem 10y ago
    People will refuse to learn either way. Better to have someone intelligent at the top protecting them from their own ignorance, short-sightedness, and pettiness than to continue to inflict those traits on everyone by having representatives be glorified remote-control pens.
  - manicdee 10y ago
    Learn what? That the slip from representative democracy to genocide-crazy fascism is one election cycle?
    - candiodari 10y ago
      Could you explain how leaving the EU is genocidal and/or fascist ? How it is going to change the government in the UK ?
      - andrewflnr 10y ago
        I'm guessing that was a reference to the US election.
GeneralMayhem 10y ago
The most important reason to organize your government as a republic instead of a direct democracy is that voters can't always be trusted (a) to put the best interests of the nation as a whole ahead of their own, or (b) to even know what their best interests are. "That was clearly a really self-destructive/evil/illegal/otherwise terrible idea once we spent more time thinking about it" is a perfectly fine justification in an ideal world. In reality, of course, it would probably be very difficult to explain satisfactorily to the electorate, especially the stereotypical Brexit/Trump "low-information" voter. One potential way to counteract this is through collusion by the MPs. If, for instance, all of Parliament were agreed that Article 50 was a terrible idea, but didn't want anyone to lose their seat over it, they could organize their votes such that they can all get out relatively unscathed. The ones from left-wing districts are probably okay either way, and then the conservatives just have to pick the handful that have the safest seats to be the nays that push it over the edge.
aryehof 10y ago
In the UK, Parliament is sovereign. The Judiciary are independent, and only make rulings based on current law and precedent. Some sought clarification that the current Government (executive branch) could not invoke Brexit without regard to Parliament. The Courts decided that was the case according to current law, precedent and convention. The Government then put it to Parliament that they be given the power, that passed, meaning if put to the Courts again, they would have to now find in favor of the Government. Frankly a triumph of correct process being followed, and an example of the real independence and effectiveness of different branches of government in the UK. Parliament is the people, which is why it is sovereign. In the USA, so much power has been devolved to the executive branch (the President) by the people (Congress) that the President has increasingly become sovereign, and access to legal recourse increasingly difficult. One reason the USA is number 21 on the 2016 Democracy Index, and now in the "Flawed Democracy" category.
- edblarney 10y ago
  "In the UK, Parliament is sovereign." The EU courts can declare any bit of UK Parliamentary action 'unconstitutional'. Within the EU, UK Parliament is not quite 'sovereign' :)
  - edblarney 10y ago
    I don't know why someone would down-vote this. Here it is from the EU [1] The EU courts and constitution have supremacy over UK Parliament - which is therefore 'not sovereign'. Technically, you could say that Parliament has to ratify EU laws, which would mean it maintains a degree of sovereignty, but in practice, all softs of rulings made from the EU high courts override UK laws and alter policy. [1] http://www.europeanlawmonitor.org/eu-legal-principles/eu-law-does-european-law-override-national-law.html http://www.europeanlawmonitor.org/eu-legal-principles/eu-law...
    - aryehof 10y ago
      You are downvoted because you are incorrect. The UK Parliament can decide to adhere to EU law, and just as easily take that away. Parliamentary sovereignty which includes the inability to bind or restrict any future Parliament, is the foundation of UK constitutional law - http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/sovereignty/ http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/sovereignty/
Veen 10y ago
MPs represent constituencies in parliament. Many constituencies voted overwhelmingly to remain, which is why some MPs, especially on the labour side, felt they couldn't vote for the the bill. Some, like Ken Clark, have been pro-EU for decades and simply believe Brexit is the wrong thing to do. He opposed the referendum. If you strongly believe something to be a terrible mistake, should you support it just because it's popular? The UK isn't a direct democracy. We vote for the people who will make decisions on our behalf. I'm glad there are politicians who refuse to follow a marginally popular opinion because they believe it's wrong. That's their job.
- flukus 10y ago
  So your happy for MP's to cede your sovereignty rather than risk a popular vote? Because that's how Britain ended up in the EU in the first place.
  - Veen 10y ago
    I don't expect a parliamentary democracy to produce perfect reaults, just better results than a tyranny of the majority. I'm a remain supporter, but that doesn't mean I think the EU is perfect. I do think that we're better off in than out though. The sovereignty issue is a red herring because if being in the EU became intolerable, we can leave. I don't believe we're in a situation where the negatives of membership outweigh the positives. Europe has been peaceful for the longest period in its history because our interests are so closely entangled. That's a good thing. Free movement is a good thing both for me personally and for the economy.
  - Veen 10y ago
    I don't expect a parliamentary democracy to produce perfect reaults, just better results than a tyranny of the majority. I'm a remain supporter, but that doesn't mean I think the EU is perfect. I do think that we're better off in than out though. The sovereignty issue is a red herring because if being in the EU became intolerable, we can leave. I don't believe we're in a situation where the negatives of membership outweigh the positives. Europe has been peaceful for the longest period in its history because our interests are so closely entangled. That's a good thing. Free movement is a good thing both for me personally and for the economy.

toomuchtodo 10y ago

> how would the politicians have justified to their electors voting against their express intentions? Sometimes the electorate requires protection from itself; the idea is not new (below History Stack Exchange answer references James Madison). "It is arguably the most famous of The Federalist Papers [1]. Madison argues that society is undone by faction" defined as "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.…" "A faction can be a minority, but also a majority, and the majority can work against the good of the whole by abusing its power. The majority simply cannot be trusted not to oppress the minority, given the opportunity." Emphasis mine. The "Tyranny Of The Majority" [2] also comes to mind. "American founding father Alexander Hamilton writing to Jefferson from the Constitutional Convention argued the same fears regarding the use of pure direct democracy by the majority to elect a demagogue who, rather than work for the benefit of all citizens, set out to either harm those in the minority or work only for those of the upper echelon. The Electoral College mechanism present in the indirect United States presidential election system, and the phenomenon of faithless electors allowed for within it, was, in part, deliberately created as a safety measure not only to prevent such a scenario, but also to prevent the use of democracy to overthrow democracy for an authoritarian, dictatorial or other system of oppressive government.[3] As articulated by Hamilton, one reason the Electoral College was created was so "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications." Some failure scenarios are clearly hard to prepare for. http://history.stackexchange.com/a/5568 http://history.stackexchange.com/a/5568 [1] http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

generic_user 10y ago
Article 50 is part of the Treaty of Lisbon. Any member state can trigger article 50 and leave the EU. The time to debate whether or not article 50 was in some way a tyrannical or unjust was during the crafting of the law. So we can assume that it was deemed acceptable and agreed by the member states. If your claim is that article 50 is tyrannical then the Treaty of Lisbon itself should be changed to remove article 50. Barring that, I don't think there is legal standing to try and prevent article 50 from being triggered. It was put to a popular vote and the PM is respecting the will of the citizenry.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  My comment was addressing why politicians might override an electorate morally; I don't believe I took a stance either way on Article 50. The public referendum was non-binding, and legally, can be ignored.
  - generic_user 10y ago
    But the topic of discussing is article 50. So I am contextualizing your post with the current topic. > My comment was addressing why politicians might override an electorate I think in the in the current case a referendum was a fairly standard democratic procedure that everyone agreed on. No one questioned weather or not there should have been a referendum in the first place. Some people are just upset that there side lost. So again in the current context there is little evidence of a 'tyrannical majority'. I'm not saying that your points are not valid in the abstract. But in the current discussion of article 50 and Brexit I do not see much evidence that the process or result could credibly called into question.
    - Symbiote 10y ago
      Plenty of people questioned wherever there should be a referendum. More people questioned whether a simple majority was appropriate. By the time of the vote, people questioned whether they had enough information, and after various "promises" were withdrawn mere hours after the result was announced, further questioned what the plan was. We still don't know the plan.

mbroncano 10y ago

On a related note, it doesn't say much of the representative nature of the chamber that the vote doesn't reflect the split hair referendum result.

untog 10y ago
Of course not - the parliament is based on constituencies, not direct representation. Much like we saw in the US last year, it is possible to win a majority in a UK election while losing the popular vote.
mcguire 10y ago
52% to 48% is "split-hair"? In England it was 53.4% to 46.6%. http://www.bbc.com/news/politics/eu_referendum/results http://www.bbc.com/news/politics/eu_referendum/results

Symmetry 10y ago

In the US popular opinion says that Congress should raise domestic spending, lower taxes, decrease the deficit, and pay for this by lowering foreign aid to 10% of the budget. Foreign aid is actually 1% of the budget. Politicians should ideally do the right thing or failing that do things that will get them reelected. Roughly 50% of the popular vote supported both the "leave" and stay options and the fraction of the electorate that votes based on "Has my life gotten better or worse since the last election" is much larger than the difference between the two sides so to get reelected MPs should vote as they think will most benefit the country.

throwaway91111 10y ago
Arguably, it's better to elect flawed but representative people. How else are people to learn?
- GeneralMayhem 10y ago
  People will refuse to learn either way. Better to have someone intelligent at the top protecting them from their own ignorance, short-sightedness, and pettiness than to continue to inflict those traits on everyone by having representatives be glorified remote-control pens.
- manicdee 10y ago
  Learn what? That the slip from representative democracy to genocide-crazy fascism is one election cycle?
  - candiodari 10y ago
    Could you explain how leaving the EU is genocidal and/or fascist ? How it is going to change the government in the UK ?
    - andrewflnr 10y ago
      I'm guessing that was a reference to the US election.

GeneralMayhem 10y ago

The most important reason to organize your government as a republic instead of a direct democracy is that voters can't always be trusted (a) to put the best interests of the nation as a whole ahead of their own, or (b) to even know what their best interests are. "That was clearly a really self-destructive/evil/illegal/otherwise terrible idea once we spent more time thinking about it" is a perfectly fine justification in an ideal world. In reality, of course, it would probably be very difficult to explain satisfactorily to the electorate, especially the stereotypical Brexit/Trump "low-information" voter. One potential way to counteract this is through collusion by the MPs. If, for instance, all of Parliament were agreed that Article 50 was a terrible idea, but didn't want anyone to lose their seat over it, they could organize their votes such that they can all get out relatively unscathed. The ones from left-wing districts are probably okay either way, and then the conservatives just have to pick the handful that have the safest seats to be the nays that push it over the edge.

aryehof 10y ago

In the UK, Parliament is sovereign. The Judiciary are independent, and only make rulings based on current law and precedent. Some sought clarification that the current Government (executive branch) could not invoke Brexit without regard to Parliament. The Courts decided that was the case according to current law, precedent and convention. The Government then put it to Parliament that they be given the power, that passed, meaning if put to the Courts again, they would have to now find in favor of the Government. Frankly a triumph of correct process being followed, and an example of the real independence and effectiveness of different branches of government in the UK. Parliament is the people, which is why it is sovereign. In the USA, so much power has been devolved to the executive branch (the President) by the people (Congress) that the President has increasingly become sovereign, and access to legal recourse increasingly difficult. One reason the USA is number 21 on the 2016 Democracy Index, and now in the "Flawed Democracy" category.

edblarney 10y ago
"In the UK, Parliament is sovereign." The EU courts can declare any bit of UK Parliamentary action 'unconstitutional'. Within the EU, UK Parliament is not quite 'sovereign' :)
- edblarney 10y ago
  I don't know why someone would down-vote this. Here it is from the EU [1] The EU courts and constitution have supremacy over UK Parliament - which is therefore 'not sovereign'. Technically, you could say that Parliament has to ratify EU laws, which would mean it maintains a degree of sovereignty, but in practice, all softs of rulings made from the EU high courts override UK laws and alter policy. [1] http://www.europeanlawmonitor.org/eu-legal-principles/eu-law-does-european-law-override-national-law.html http://www.europeanlawmonitor.org/eu-legal-principles/eu-law...
  - aryehof 10y ago
    You are downvoted because you are incorrect. The UK Parliament can decide to adhere to EU law, and just as easily take that away. Parliamentary sovereignty which includes the inability to bind or restrict any future Parliament, is the foundation of UK constitutional law - http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/sovereignty/ http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/sovereignty/

Veen 10y ago

MPs represent constituencies in parliament. Many constituencies voted overwhelmingly to remain, which is why some MPs, especially on the labour side, felt they couldn't vote for the the bill. Some, like Ken Clark, have been pro-EU for decades and simply believe Brexit is the wrong thing to do. He opposed the referendum. If you strongly believe something to be a terrible mistake, should you support it just because it's popular? The UK isn't a direct democracy. We vote for the people who will make decisions on our behalf. I'm glad there are politicians who refuse to follow a marginally popular opinion because they believe it's wrong. That's their job.

flukus 10y ago
So your happy for MP's to cede your sovereignty rather than risk a popular vote? Because that's how Britain ended up in the EU in the first place.
- Veen 10y ago
  I don't expect a parliamentary democracy to produce perfect reaults, just better results than a tyranny of the majority. I'm a remain supporter, but that doesn't mean I think the EU is perfect. I do think that we're better off in than out though. The sovereignty issue is a red herring because if being in the EU became intolerable, we can leave. I don't believe we're in a situation where the negatives of membership outweigh the positives. Europe has been peaceful for the longest period in its history because our interests are so closely entangled. That's a good thing. Free movement is a good thing both for me personally and for the economy.
- Veen 10y ago
  I don't expect a parliamentary democracy to produce perfect reaults, just better results than a tyranny of the majority. I'm a remain supporter, but that doesn't mean I think the EU is perfect. I do think that we're better off in than out though. The sovereignty issue is a red herring because if being in the EU became intolerable, we can leave. I don't believe we're in a situation where the negatives of membership outweigh the positives. Europe has been peaceful for the longest period in its history because our interests are so closely entangled. That's a good thing. Free movement is a good thing both for me personally and for the economy.