4 ms·

>>'Or worse still, you get Brexit-style direct democracy where the referendum settles only a broad objective and yet all criticisms of details of policy impleme

>>'Or worse still, you get Brexit-style direct democracy where the referendum settles only a broad objective and yet all criticisms of details of policy implementation are dismissed as defying the "will of the people".' Is it not always the case? We vote for a goal a leave the experts to implement it. The point of democracy is that we accept the decision of our con-citizens even if we deeply disagree. Maybe Brexit was the wrong decision, but the idea of not asking because we could get a result that we don't like is totally antidemocratic and hypocritical. Why to bother with the democratic 'appearance' then? Just go with an oligarchy. Anyway, I have the feeling that part of the Brexit result is because, people, already have the feeling of being in an oligarchy and wanted to use the opportunity to express their discomfort.

notahacker 9y ago
> Is it not always the case? We vote for a goal a leave the experts to implement it. No, lawmaking in a representative democracy consists of the wording of a bill being amended as many times as necessary to secure agreement from a majority of representatives - all able to propose amendments themselves - and then being put to the vote before becoming law. This is also the case for some policies put to referenda: the AV referendum was one where the referendum was on a previously agreed text to become law, with no further legislative change implied. And what is being objected to here is not the government attempting to implement the result, it is the government proposing a raft of policy objectives loosely related to some interpretations of the result and trying to curtail further debate and votes over them. If, as you say, part of the result is because people wished to express their discomfort with the feeling of being in an oligarchy, it is even less attractive a method of decision making to assume that the executive's interpretation of the vote must prevail and that criticisms of it from those who voted the other way lack any legitimacy.
euyyn 9y ago
> Anyway, I have the feeling that part of the Brexit result is because, people, already have the feeling of being in an oligarchy and wanted to use the opportunity to express their discomfort. I think that's the problem people see on it, not that "people were asked, oh no!". That, and populists.

notahacker 9y ago

> Is it not always the case? We vote for a goal a leave the experts to implement it. No, lawmaking in a representative democracy consists of the wording of a bill being amended as many times as necessary to secure agreement from a majority of representatives - all able to propose amendments themselves - and then being put to the vote before becoming law. This is also the case for some policies put to referenda: the AV referendum was one where the referendum was on a previously agreed text to become law, with no further legislative change implied. And what is being objected to here is not the government attempting to implement the result, it is the government proposing a raft of policy objectives loosely related to some interpretations of the result and trying to curtail further debate and votes over them. If, as you say, part of the result is because people wished to express their discomfort with the feeling of being in an oligarchy, it is even less attractive a method of decision making to assume that the executive's interpretation of the vote must prevail and that criticisms of it from those who voted the other way lack any legitimacy.

euyyn 9y ago

> Anyway, I have the feeling that part of the Brexit result is because, people, already have the feeling of being in an oligarchy and wanted to use the opportunity to express their discomfort. I think that's the problem people see on it, not that "people were asked, oh no!". That, and populists.