6 ms·

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

by 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.
- cstejerean 10y ago
  I suspect the promise was spending £350M on the NHS after Brexit, which everyone was quick to backpedal from as soon as the vote went through http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/nigel-farage-350-million-pledge-to-fund-the-nhs-was-a-mistake/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/nigel-farage-350-...
  - ldjb 10y ago
    Well, that was Vote Leave, not UKIP. And in fact, the pledge wasn't to spend the entire £350 million on the NHS, but part of it. The government is still looking to do just that, but it can't until we've actually left the EU (we're still paying them money).
    - lavezzi 10y ago
      I'm struggling to read the small print, fam. Can you help me out? http://i.imgur.com/6aU3sH6.png http://i.imgur.com/6aU3sH6.png
      - 10y ago
peteretep 10y ago
> Democracy is not simply about > following the rule of the 50% The population has had 300-350 years to let it bed in, and the politicians the same amount of time to learn their jobs; much as the result upsets me, it's not like it's something particularly new.
flukus 10y ago
> 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% There never was a referendum to join, there was a referendum to join a very different thing that evolved into the EU, don't pretend they're the same thing.
Silhouette 10y ago
Your argument about democracy is based on the views of an unelected legislator, belonging to the party that less than two years ago demonstrated the biggest nationwide drop in popularity in modern British political history, in large part due to a loss of credibility after going back on a manifesto pledge once in power? I'm not sure he's any more qualified to comment on this subject than you or me. If anything, the reverse is true. In any case, the two typical arguments in favour of representation over delegation or direct influence now seem rather weak to me. The original practical arguments for relying on representatives rather than direct engagement expired somewhere around the time we moved beyond messengers on horseback as our primary means of long-distance communication. It's the 21st century. There is no reason, given modern technology, that we couldn't have much wider direct participation in many more decisions. The other common argument is the presumed advantage of having specialists who can consider government and political matters full time as opposed to the average citizen who has other responsibilities as well. To those who would make such an argument, I remind you that the people you're advocating delegating to were probably the worst in the entire country when it came to making questionable claims, misrepresenting the evidence, and ultimately misleading people. And I would remind you that every part of that statement is just as true for both sides of the official campaigns, which were as about disgraceful as each other IMNSHO. We had a campaign lasting several months during which anyone who wanted to inform themselves about the issues before voting had plenty of information, much of it coming from more informed and reliable sources than the politicians, available to help guide their decision. I see no rational argument that an MP is somehow more qualified to make a judgement on this issue than an average citizen under those circumstances. If nothing else, those MPs are elected by the same people voting in the referendum, but typically with much lower turnout and based on their policies across a wide range of issues. I don't see how anyone can logically argue that the people are competent enough to elect an MP with such broad and long-lasting powers in their own best interest, and yet not qualified to make a much more focused decision on one specific issue in their own best interest.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

by tarikjn 10y ago

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.

cstejerean 10y ago
I suspect the promise was spending £350M on the NHS after Brexit, which everyone was quick to backpedal from as soon as the vote went through http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/nigel-farage-350-million-pledge-to-fund-the-nhs-was-a-mistake/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/nigel-farage-350-...
- ldjb 10y ago
  Well, that was Vote Leave, not UKIP. And in fact, the pledge wasn't to spend the entire £350 million on the NHS, but part of it. The government is still looking to do just that, but it can't until we've actually left the EU (we're still paying them money).
  - lavezzi 10y ago
    I'm struggling to read the small print, fam. Can you help me out? http://i.imgur.com/6aU3sH6.png http://i.imgur.com/6aU3sH6.png
    - 10y ago

peteretep 10y ago

> Democracy is not simply about > following the rule of the 50% The population has had 300-350 years to let it bed in, and the politicians the same amount of time to learn their jobs; much as the result upsets me, it's not like it's something particularly new.

flukus 10y ago

> 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% There never was a referendum to join, there was a referendum to join a very different thing that evolved into the EU, don't pretend they're the same thing.

Silhouette 10y ago

Your argument about democracy is based on the views of an unelected legislator, belonging to the party that less than two years ago demonstrated the biggest nationwide drop in popularity in modern British political history, in large part due to a loss of credibility after going back on a manifesto pledge once in power? I'm not sure he's any more qualified to comment on this subject than you or me. If anything, the reverse is true. In any case, the two typical arguments in favour of representation over delegation or direct influence now seem rather weak to me. The original practical arguments for relying on representatives rather than direct engagement expired somewhere around the time we moved beyond messengers on horseback as our primary means of long-distance communication. It's the 21st century. There is no reason, given modern technology, that we couldn't have much wider direct participation in many more decisions. The other common argument is the presumed advantage of having specialists who can consider government and political matters full time as opposed to the average citizen who has other responsibilities as well. To those who would make such an argument, I remind you that the people you're advocating delegating to were probably the worst in the entire country when it came to making questionable claims, misrepresenting the evidence, and ultimately misleading people. And I would remind you that every part of that statement is just as true for both sides of the official campaigns, which were as about disgraceful as each other IMNSHO. We had a campaign lasting several months during which anyone who wanted to inform themselves about the issues before voting had plenty of information, much of it coming from more informed and reliable sources than the politicians, available to help guide their decision. I see no rational argument that an MP is somehow more qualified to make a judgement on this issue than an average citizen under those circumstances. If nothing else, those MPs are elected by the same people voting in the referendum, but typically with much lower turnout and based on their policies across a wide range of issues. I don't see how anyone can logically argue that the people are competent enough to elect an MP with such broad and long-lasting powers in their own best interest, and yet not qualified to make a much more focused decision on one specific issue in their own best interest.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]