3 ms·

Indeed. A recent poll was quoted on yesterday's "Any Questions?" show on BBC Radio 4 by a Brexiteer, which apparently asked the public "should MPs represent the

Indeed. A recent poll was quoted on yesterday's "Any Questions?" show on BBC Radio 4 by a Brexiteer, which apparently asked the public "should MPs represent their own views or those of their constituents?". Some small number of voters - I forget, but it was around 7% - thought they should represent their own views and the rest thought those of their constituents. This was, in the Brexiteer's view, evidence that MPs delaying Brexit in any form was anti-democratic given that 52% voted for "it" (where "it" was sadly not defined). Thing is, we elect MPs exactly so they can express their views in parliament. They're supposed to be experts, or at least they are given resources to consult experts on matters that affect their constituents. They are resolutely not for representing their constituents' views - that's why they publish a manifesto of what they want to do and we are asked to vote on it every 5 years. Of course, part of an MP's job is to consult their constituents, but they are not bound whatsoever to represent the majority view of their constituents. Apparently 93% of the public apparently don't understand this; the same public that were asked to decide whether to stay in the EU or not...

abraae 7y ago
Questions such as "should we stay in the EU" can't be answered by experts. Economists could perhaps answer some small parts of it - like "will this be net plus for the economy over next 5 years", but even then I'd imagine there would be little consensus. Questions this huge are really the sort of thing that should be put to the unwashed masses. They know as much as anyone else - not much.
- kybernetikos 7y ago
  > Questions such as "should we stay in the EU" can't be answered by experts. There's an interesting idea for a method of government based on the distinction between values and policy results. > In "futarchy," we would vote on values, but bet on beliefs https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/futarchy.html https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/futarchy.html In my opinion 'should the UK stay in the EU' would very definitely be a question of policy not values. It would actually be pretty difficult to disentangle the brexit question into meaningful values. You could say it's about 'sovereignty', but the UK parliament is as sovereign as it ever was - as the very fact that it's currently leaving demonstrates. In fact for the pure self-interested, short term version of sovereignty, the right thing to do is to plough your own furrow, taking advantage of the benefits and ignoring what you don't like until you are finally kicked out of the EU, which is something we might well see some other EU countries do. Any more nuanced understanding of sovereignty would realize that sovereignty is how we describe an entity that is able to enter into and keep agreements, and exercise infuence on other actors, not one that is unable to because it might restrict its freedom of action. Just as for humans, the end result of refusing all bonds is not freedom, it's extreme restriction. And that's not even considering the strain that leaving the EU puts on relationships with Scotland and Northern Ireland. It wouldn't surprise me at all if down the road brexit ends in break-up. Sovereignty takes on a bit more nuance when you're simultaneously denying it to your constituent members by leaving. You could say it's about 'migration', but that's not a proper value either. I suspect that people who complain about migration have values to do with crime, economics, and needing to be around people 'like them'. The only thing about those values, is that for most of them, migration is exactly the wrong thing to be worried about. As 'experts' know, migrants are less likely to commit crime, and more likely to pay taxes than the native born. I don't think the UK should be leaving the EU for policy reasons. I believe that it's in the interests of the UK, of Europe, of the world to resist the forces trying to disintegrate Europe (I've read enough history to know what happened last time). I think many of the disagreements I have with people who think it should leave are at the level of reality - things that could be established by fact. Trying to claim that it's motivated by differences of values is part of what is making the issue less clear. Of course this is all made extra difficult by the fact that the whole thing has been horrendously mishandled. The government has repeatedly and continually believed things for long periods of time about negotiating with Europe that are simply untrue. It was obvious from the start that this was going to be complicated, and pressing the button to start the ticking timebomb you're sat on top of, is not a great way to negotiate either. Whether you want Brexit or not, invoking article 50 before anyone knew what it meant was the height of idiocy.
thaumasiotes 7y ago
> Thing is, we elect MPs exactly so they can express their views in parliament. This is generally not true. We elect representative so they can express our views. We don't care what their views are, except to the extent that their views might impede them from expressing our views.
- jimnotgym 7y ago
  That is exactly the opposite of the prevailing thought and the guidance given to MPs. They are supposed to be a representative, not a delegate. They are supposed to do what they believe is right. >'The first duty of a member of Parliament is to do what he thinks in his faithful and disinterested judgement is right and necessary for the honour and safety of Great Britain. His second duty is to his constituents, of whom he is the representative but not the delegate. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmmodern/337/33706.htm https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmmo...
pushpop 7y ago
I might agree with you if it were even possible to be an expert on every subject. Sadly the only thing MPs are experts on is being MPs. Which is why we are in such a bloody mess: the general public are, generally, ill informed; MPs don’t give a shit as long as their career benefits; and the actual experts of their respective fields get ignored because nobody gives a shit about the opinion of actual experts in the era of social media.
simonh 7y ago
I completely agree on your general point. We elect leaders, not functionaries. I don’t really buy the expertise argument. Who gets to choose the experts? For me it’s about accountability. If you want to get a job done, vote for a party that has that thing in their manifesto, and hold them to delivering on it. The problem with direct democracy is, who is responsible for delivering the policies? How can they be accountable for the outcome, if they didn’t formulate or even agree with the policy? Choose a government and then let them govern. Scrutinise them, challenge them, hold them to account on the things they committed to. That’s how our (British) democracy should work. The reason we’re in this mess is because parliament is being coerced into implementing a policy most parliamentarians disagree with, and even the interpretation of what the referendum meant is up for grabs. If we can’t agree anything else, can we at least agree not to do anything this way again?

abraae 7y ago

Questions such as "should we stay in the EU" can't be answered by experts. Economists could perhaps answer some small parts of it - like "will this be net plus for the economy over next 5 years", but even then I'd imagine there would be little consensus. Questions this huge are really the sort of thing that should be put to the unwashed masses. They know as much as anyone else - not much.

kybernetikos 7y ago
> Questions such as "should we stay in the EU" can't be answered by experts. There's an interesting idea for a method of government based on the distinction between values and policy results. > In "futarchy," we would vote on values, but bet on beliefs https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/futarchy.html https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/futarchy.html In my opinion 'should the UK stay in the EU' would very definitely be a question of policy not values. It would actually be pretty difficult to disentangle the brexit question into meaningful values. You could say it's about 'sovereignty', but the UK parliament is as sovereign as it ever was - as the very fact that it's currently leaving demonstrates. In fact for the pure self-interested, short term version of sovereignty, the right thing to do is to plough your own furrow, taking advantage of the benefits and ignoring what you don't like until you are finally kicked out of the EU, which is something we might well see some other EU countries do. Any more nuanced understanding of sovereignty would realize that sovereignty is how we describe an entity that is able to enter into and keep agreements, and exercise infuence on other actors, not one that is unable to because it might restrict its freedom of action. Just as for humans, the end result of refusing all bonds is not freedom, it's extreme restriction. And that's not even considering the strain that leaving the EU puts on relationships with Scotland and Northern Ireland. It wouldn't surprise me at all if down the road brexit ends in break-up. Sovereignty takes on a bit more nuance when you're simultaneously denying it to your constituent members by leaving. You could say it's about 'migration', but that's not a proper value either. I suspect that people who complain about migration have values to do with crime, economics, and needing to be around people 'like them'. The only thing about those values, is that for most of them, migration is exactly the wrong thing to be worried about. As 'experts' know, migrants are less likely to commit crime, and more likely to pay taxes than the native born. I don't think the UK should be leaving the EU for policy reasons. I believe that it's in the interests of the UK, of Europe, of the world to resist the forces trying to disintegrate Europe (I've read enough history to know what happened last time). I think many of the disagreements I have with people who think it should leave are at the level of reality - things that could be established by fact. Trying to claim that it's motivated by differences of values is part of what is making the issue less clear. Of course this is all made extra difficult by the fact that the whole thing has been horrendously mishandled. The government has repeatedly and continually believed things for long periods of time about negotiating with Europe that are simply untrue. It was obvious from the start that this was going to be complicated, and pressing the button to start the ticking timebomb you're sat on top of, is not a great way to negotiate either. Whether you want Brexit or not, invoking article 50 before anyone knew what it meant was the height of idiocy.

thaumasiotes 7y ago

> Thing is, we elect MPs exactly so they can express their views in parliament. This is generally not true. We elect representative so they can express our views. We don't care what their views are, except to the extent that their views might impede them from expressing our views.

jimnotgym 7y ago
That is exactly the opposite of the prevailing thought and the guidance given to MPs. They are supposed to be a representative, not a delegate. They are supposed to do what they believe is right. >'The first duty of a member of Parliament is to do what he thinks in his faithful and disinterested judgement is right and necessary for the honour and safety of Great Britain. His second duty is to his constituents, of whom he is the representative but not the delegate. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmmodern/337/33706.htm https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmmo...

pushpop 7y ago

I might agree with you if it were even possible to be an expert on every subject. Sadly the only thing MPs are experts on is being MPs. Which is why we are in such a bloody mess: the general public are, generally, ill informed; MPs don’t give a shit as long as their career benefits; and the actual experts of their respective fields get ignored because nobody gives a shit about the opinion of actual experts in the era of social media.

simonh 7y ago

I completely agree on your general point. We elect leaders, not functionaries. I don’t really buy the expertise argument. Who gets to choose the experts? For me it’s about accountability. If you want to get a job done, vote for a party that has that thing in their manifesto, and hold them to delivering on it. The problem with direct democracy is, who is responsible for delivering the policies? How can they be accountable for the outcome, if they didn’t formulate or even agree with the policy? Choose a government and then let them govern. Scrutinise them, challenge them, hold them to account on the things they committed to. That’s how our (British) democracy should work. The reason we’re in this mess is because parliament is being coerced into implementing a policy most parliamentarians disagree with, and even the interpretation of what the referendum meant is up for grabs. If we can’t agree anything else, can we at least agree not to do anything this way again?