7 ms·

Regardless of your political beliefs and opinion this is democracy in action. I didn't know that the queen has to sign bills though, but that's purely a ceremon

• omegaworks 10y ago
  The youth will live with this, and only 36% of them voted. Sad day for democracy. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/06/how-did-different-demographic-groups-vote-eu-referendum http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/06/how-di...
  • andrewchambers 10y ago
    If they cared they would have voted. Not voting is a choice too.
    • Mz 10y ago
      Sometimes, it is more complicated than that.
      • ryan-allen 10y ago
        Personal responsibility starts with the individual. The sheer arrogance of those who didn't vote and were upset with the result is astounding. Maybe they'll learn and act appropriately next time.
        • mkaziz 10y ago
          What interests me is that, despite that example, folks across the pond made exactly that mistake in November! Maybe we truly can't learn from others' mistakes.
        • Mz 10y ago
          I am currently homeless and chronically ill. I looked into trying to register to vote locally for U.S. elections last fall. I am registered to vote elsewhere, but failed to get registered locally (gave up when it became clear it would be too late). The assumption that you can manage to fit voting into your life comes from a place of privilege that some people lack. Punishing them harder until they behave more responsibly fixes nothing.
          • ryan-allen 10y ago
            I'm sorry you're homeless and chronically ill. I was talking about people in the UK though, I'm aware it's difficult in the US but to my knowledge the UK is much different. EDIT: It appears the UK has some problems too [1], and being Australian where voting is a legal requirement, easy to enroll and difficult to drop off the register, my perspective is perhaps a bit harsh. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2015/feb/05/missing-voters-individual-electoral-registration-disaster https://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2015/feb/...
          • refurb 10y ago
            So is the argument that Remain would have won had it not been for the physical state of the voters? I'm sorry to hear of your situation, but I hardly think it's relevant to the discussion.
    • __realtime 10y ago
      they might have voted in favor...
    • DaiPlusPlus 10y ago
      I'd wager many did and do care - but complacency was rife on the Remain side during the Brexit referendum - I suspect that's why Leave (and Trump) won.
      • ajmurmann 10y ago
        I frequently wonder why our processes of casting a vote is as simple as it is. The entire complacency issue would be resolved if the voting booths stayed open several days and we had daily counts published. I'm sure we could come up with some clever way when the vote would end. Instead we are for some reason afraid to even count more than once. I really don't get it.
        • refurb 10y ago
          I really don't get it. Really? In Canada they often had a ban on televising election results until after polls closed. Why? You don't want someone changing their vote because of how the polls are going. You know, you want them to vote based on their own beliefs, not who is going to win.
          • ajmurmann 10y ago
            Well, I might not bother voting because there is no way the Nazi party will win the election. I believe we have seen this kind of effect more than once in recent elections. What's bad if I only vote once I realize"my candidate" might actually lose?
          • DaiPlusPlus 10y ago
            "You don't want someone changing their vote because of how the polls are going. You know, you want them to vote based on their own beliefs, not who is going to win." That idea makes sense in true proportional representation system, but in a first-past-the-post system then strategic-voting becomes important (as voting-for-beliefs is an immediately suboptimal strategy), and therefore if voters know who is currently in the lead and alter their voting behaviour then surely that's a good thing for democracy?
  • beaconstudios 10y ago
    how is that a sad day for democracy? Young people had plenty of opportunity to vote but didn't bother. Non-participation in the democratic process is turning down your chance to back your stance. I think what you actually mean is "sad day for my political viewpoint".
    • SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
      That the majority of young people don't participate can be sad for democracy.
      • beaconstudios 10y ago
        that anything less than a considerably majority participate in the vote could be considered a bad thing. Young people don't have a unique hold on political insight over older groups.
        • ajmurmann 10y ago
          No, but they are the ones who have to live with the decision the longest and on whose lives it will have the most impact.
          • lostlogin 10y ago
            Weighting votes based on lifespan you can reasonably be expected to live with the outcome would lead to a different world.
            • omegaworks 10y ago
              A better world :) Maybe our societies will shift to seeking longer-term gains.
          • ajmurmann 10y ago
            Older people also have more life experience and maybe even some wisdom. We need a diverse mix of views for democracy to be strong. Instead of penalizing one group we should try to get people more excited about voting. Things like your vote only mattering in a handful of states and there really being only two viable parties because the system suffers from the spoiler effect are obvious obstacles that most be resolved.
  • jdietrich 10y ago
    The 36% turnout figure is completely wrong. It was extrapolated from turnout at the last general election. Post-referendum research showed that turnout in the 18-24 age group was 64%, against an overall turnout of 72%. Increased turnout among young voters would not have been sufficient to change the result, due to the top-heavy age demographics in the UK - young people are simply outnumbered. In my opinion, the Brexit vote reflects a fundamental political division in the UK and much of the developed world. Older Britons have, in a profound an systematic way, pulled the ladder up behind them. A multitude of factors have skewed society in favour of the old, from housing costs to student fees to ironclad pensions. Pensioners have the lowest rate of poverty of any age group and are nearly half as likely to be poor than children. Pensions continue to grow above inflation, while wages have barely recovered since the financial crisis. Rampant growth in house prices coupled with a chronic shortage of social housing have effected an unprecedented transfer of wealth from young to old. On the balance of evidence, the term "kleptogerontocracy" does not seem entirely unjustified. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-brexit-turnout-young-voters-youth-vote-double-a7129181.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-... https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/articles/overviewoftheukpopulation/mar2017 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populati... http://www.poverty.org.uk/04/index.shtml http://www.poverty.org.uk/04/index.shtml http://www.if.org.uk/archives/category/research http://www.if.org.uk/archives/category/research
    • uncle_d 10y ago
      ZIRP and NIRP have been very damaging to many retired and retiring, when buying annuities and attempting to live off savings interest.
  • nodejscloud 10y ago
    This sort of mentality and pretending to stand on the podium of social righteousness is the problem. Things didn't go how you wanted, so therefore it must be wrong, hateful, xenophobist, and racist right?
    • peteretep 10y ago
      > Things didn't go how you wanted They certainly didn't > so therefore it must be wrong, hateful, > xenophobist, and racist I'm just yet to hear any arguments that, when dug into, aren't. The least bad argument seems to devolve down to the conceit that "British experts are better than pan-European experts at making decisions", and the nicest thing you can say about that particular argument is "it's a misguided view of British primacy".
      • Silhouette 10y ago
        I'm just yet to hear any arguments that, when dug into, aren't. Playing devil's advocate for a minute, here are just a few of the big claims often made before the referendum that would point in favour of leaving if you accept them: - The EU economy is still fragile, particularly within the Eurozone. Another financial crisis is possible, or even likely, within the next few years, and the recovery could be even harder if it does happen. - The EU takes billions of pounds in funding from the UK every year, and yet has a track record of not producing any properly audited accounts to show where the money actually goes. - The power structures of the EU are cryptic and there are legitimate concerns about democratic deficit. - The EU has a tendency to regulate excessively, perhaps with good intentions, but with poor execution. This is harmful, particularly to small businesses whose needs are frequently overlooked. The regulations apply to goods and services for domestic consumption or trade outside the EU as well as to trade within the EU, even though the latter represents only a relatively small part of our economy as a whole. - Being a member of the EU limits our ability to make independent trade deals with the rest of the world. The EU's track record on making good trade deals with non-EU partners on our behalf is questionable. Our international trading was already shifting slowly but surely towards more trade with non-EU partners, and this is only likely to accelerate given global economic development patterns, even if the EU doesn't suffer another major financial problem. - A vote to remain would de facto be a vote for ever closer union, increasing our exposure to all of the above and reducing the influence of our national government. In the strongest negotiating position a British leader would ever likely be in, Cameron still won only minor concessions, which may or may not have been binding. In any case, with 26/28 member states already in or expected to join the Eurozone, it is unrealistic to expect a "two-speed Europe" to remain a relevant concept, and arguments about keeping a seat at the table by remaining in are significantly weakened. As I said, I'm just playing devil's advocate here and making the case for a single side of the debate, but I don't see anything particularly wrong, hateful, xenophobic or racist about any of those points, and none of them seems particularly esoteric or out of character with what many who came down on the Leave side were saying before the vote.
• geowwy 10y ago
  It's hard to know if it really is just ceremonial because the last few of monarchs have never tested how much power they actually have.
  • mikekchar 10y ago
    My understanding is that royal assent does not need to be granted, but that in practice there has to be clear evidence that granting assent would lead to a disaster. It's kind of an emergency protocol. I highly doubt the brexit would qualify. Interesting quote from Wikipedia: In 1914, George V did take legal advice on withholding royal assent from the Government of Ireland Bill, a highly contentious piece of legislation that the Liberal government intended to push through parliament by means of the Parliament Act 1911. The King decided that he should not withhold assent without "convincing evidence that it would avert a national disaster, or at least have a tranquillizing effect on the distracting conditions of the time".
  • FireBeyond 10y ago
    Best example is likely the dismissal of Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam by the Governer General: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional...
• d_t_w 10y ago
  It's Representative Democracy (via a Constitutional Monarchy) in action, that's wildly more complicated than taking profound action on the basis of a simple majority referendum. Regardless of your political beliefs and opinion, this is best described as an absolute aberration with respect to the normal democratic process of the U.K.
  • skylan_q 10y ago
    There was a referendum and a parliamentary vote. What else would need to be done to not make it an aberration?
    • d_t_w 10y ago
      What part of the brexit process do you think is not best described as an aberration with respect to the normal democratic process of the U.K? I'll give you one clue. It's extremely rare to hold a referendum of such huge consequence. Heck, I'll give you a second clue. It's even more rare for politicians to then behave as if the result of a non-binding referendum is binding. I could enumerate for you the remaining peculiarities, but if you're curious you'll find plenty for yourself. I do understand that people often like to point to simple cases like this and say "That's Democracy!", inevitably those people don't have a great understanding of the meaning.
      • Boothroid 10y ago
        'The people have spoken - the bastards!'
    • skwirl 10y ago
      Go with the outcome d_t_w preferred.
      • d_t_w 10y ago
        What outcome did I prefer?
    • 10y ago
• tarikjn 10y ago
  Actually I think Brexit is a demonstration of what happen when people don't understand democracy and the powers exploit that ignorance. Here is what one of the Lords said today: > The Lib Dem peer Lord Taverne says that peers are entitled to refuse to back down on this issue because MPs have abandoned their commitment to representative democracy. They are now acting as delegates, not representatives, because they are giving primacy to the views of the people as expressed in the referendum. 1. the MPs acted as delegate, the easy way out to protect their career 2. the referendum in was >2/3, while the referendum out was barely >50%, you need a supermajority threshold on such a long-term issue where the opinion can swing bellow/above 50% 3. most know a democracy needs a free and honest press to function so that the people can be informed, which essentially is good information, and not be deceived, especially for a referendum. However after the referendum a number of leave voters were disappointed to learn that one of the top promises of UKIP was a lie Democracy is not simply about following the rule of the 50% (also known as the rule of the mob), which populists love to lean on, but all the finer details.
  • skylan_q 10y ago
    It doesn't matter how many votes there are or how many times it's done, it's not democracy if it's not the outcome you like.
    • tarikjn 10y ago
      This could be interpreted as a snarky comment, but is actually on point. A good democracy should function is such a way to afford for an outcome that maximize the satisfaction of each individual.
    • leonroy 10y ago
      There's a saying (I paraphrase): 'A good compromise is one where everyone is equally unhappy'. Guess you could flip around your comment and say it's not democracy if it's the outcome you like!
  • ldjb 10y ago
    1. MPs acted as delegates because the government was elected on a manifesto promising a referendum and to deliver on the result. The referendum happened, the UK voted to leave, and so the majority of MPs respected the will of the people and voted the bill through. 2. Considering we didn't have a referendum to join the EU in the first place, I'm not sure it makes sense to have a threshold. If the threshold wasn't met, I'm not sure how the default can be to be part of something the British people never said they wanted. 3. I absolutely agree that people need to have accurate information to base their decisions upon. So it was a real shame a lot of the information published by the remain campaign was not entirely true. I'm not sure what promise UKIP made you're referring to. It is true that democracy requires more than simply going with what the majority want. But in this case, there was a clear choice between leaving the EU or remaining. I really don't see how it can be democratic to keep the UK in the EU after the result of the referendum.
• refurb 10y ago
  I didn't know that the queen has to sign bills though Countries like Canada that have the Queen as head of state still need her royal assent for all bills. Typically the Governor General plays that role as the Queen's representative. However, you are correct that it's more of a formality than anything.