4 ms·

the problem with the supermajority argument is that there was no such vote to join the EU in the first place. You can't apply stringent rules in only one direct

the problem with the supermajority argument is that there was no such vote to join the EU in the first place. You can't apply stringent rules in only one direction of a decision, or you're weighting the default to the position you personally prefer. At the end of the day, the vote could be repositioned from "remain/leave" to "be in the EU/not be in the EU" to make it an A/B rather than a yes/no decision, at which point the argument about direct democracy being unfair becomes clearly biased.

OJFord 10y ago
> the vote could be repositioned from "remain/leave" to "be in the EU/not be in the EU" to make it an A/B rather than a yes/no decision, at which point the argument about direct democracy being unfair becomes clearly biased. Apologies if you're from the UK (or otherwise aware) but there was huge debate about 'the question' ahead of the referendum. Like you (it sounds) I was surprised they decided on one that seems so obviously biased. I think the 'to be or not to be' variant was supposedly going to be 'confusing to voters'.
- beaconstudios 10y ago
  yeah I am from the UK, and this is the exact debate I'm referencing - in fact, one of the questions that I asked a few people that got them to really think about their position was "if this was a vote to join the EU, would your position still be the same?" - this question is also obviously biased in the other direction, but it gets people to think outside of the default position of loss aversion, which has psychological biases to support it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion).
belltaco 10y ago
>the problem with the supermajority argument is that there was no such vote to join the EU in the first place https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum,_1975 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Commun... >The electorate expressed significant support for EC membership, with 67% in favour on a national turnout of 64%. Am I missing something?
- sbmassey 10y ago
  EC membership, not EU - from the perspective of the British, they voted for membership of a trading block, which then morphed into a new megastate wannabe without any vote taking place to legitimise it.
- beaconstudios 10y ago
  there's a significant difference between the EU and the EC. For one, the EC vote was held under the promise that it would not become a political union. It was also sold as a trading zone, rather than a super-bloc. There wasn't a vote to join the EU as it currently exists, and the EU and the EC might as well be chalk and cheese.
zanny 10y ago
There shouldn't have been a direct democracy vote to join as much as there shouldn't have been one to leave. The point of representative democracy is supposed to be one where ignorant citizens can select the best - not necessarily most ideologically aligned or politically motivated - from amongst themselves to make these kinds of decisions on their behalf as their job. Obviously we are far from that ideal (very, very far), but it doesn't change how terrible referendum votes are anywhere in the world. You just get emotionally charged shit-flinging that devolves complex issues into tribal warfare. The world is too complicated to boil the issues of millions into yes and no bubble quizzes, that is why we are supposed to have our best handle it.

OJFord 10y ago

> the vote could be repositioned from "remain/leave" to "be in the EU/not be in the EU" to make it an A/B rather than a yes/no decision, at which point the argument about direct democracy being unfair becomes clearly biased. Apologies if you're from the UK (or otherwise aware) but there was huge debate about 'the question' ahead of the referendum. Like you (it sounds) I was surprised they decided on one that seems so obviously biased. I think the 'to be or not to be' variant was supposedly going to be 'confusing to voters'.

beaconstudios 10y ago
yeah I am from the UK, and this is the exact debate I'm referencing - in fact, one of the questions that I asked a few people that got them to really think about their position was "if this was a vote to join the EU, would your position still be the same?" - this question is also obviously biased in the other direction, but it gets people to think outside of the default position of loss aversion, which has psychological biases to support it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion).

belltaco 10y ago

>the problem with the supermajority argument is that there was no such vote to join the EU in the first place https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum,_1975 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Commun... >The electorate expressed significant support for EC membership, with 67% in favour on a national turnout of 64%. Am I missing something?

sbmassey 10y ago
EC membership, not EU - from the perspective of the British, they voted for membership of a trading block, which then morphed into a new megastate wannabe without any vote taking place to legitimise it.
beaconstudios 10y ago
there's a significant difference between the EU and the EC. For one, the EC vote was held under the promise that it would not become a political union. It was also sold as a trading zone, rather than a super-bloc. There wasn't a vote to join the EU as it currently exists, and the EU and the EC might as well be chalk and cheese.

zanny 10y ago

There shouldn't have been a direct democracy vote to join as much as there shouldn't have been one to leave. The point of representative democracy is supposed to be one where ignorant citizens can select the best - not necessarily most ideologically aligned or politically motivated - from amongst themselves to make these kinds of decisions on their behalf as their job. Obviously we are far from that ideal (very, very far), but it doesn't change how terrible referendum votes are anywhere in the world. You just get emotionally charged shit-flinging that devolves complex issues into tribal warfare. The world is too complicated to boil the issues of millions into yes and no bubble quizzes, that is why we are supposed to have our best handle it.