4 ms·

I think it's pretty clear that in many western democracies it's getting increasingly easy to form majorities "against" stuff while it's getting harder to form m

by simias 7y ago

I think it's pretty clear that in many western democracies it's getting increasingly easy to form majorities "against" stuff while it's getting harder to form majorities "for stuff". There's a majority in the UK that wants to live the EU, but there's no majority agreeing on where to go from there. That's why this referendum was mindbogglingly stupid to begin with, you can't give the people a choice if you're not prepared to handle both outcomes. What's next, a referendum for "social security for all and basic income and no taxes, also free candy. Yes or no?" Of course the people is sovereign, but democracy can't trump reality. How can you live the UK without hard border with Ireland? This wasn't even a topic at the time of the referendum as I recall. David Cameron made one of the biggest political errors in modern history here.

jazzyk 7y ago
>David Cameron made one of the biggest political errors in modern history here. By asking people to have a voice instead of deciding for them?? Direct democracy can work very well - just look at Switzerland, which is the envy of the world when it comes to governance. It may/may not be scalable, but important decisions like EU membership should be decided by the people, not the elite.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  > By asking people to have a voice instead of deciding for them?? The question posed was simply "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?" No implementation details, no specifics, no timeline, and not binding. In the Swiss model, you'd have subsequent direct votes on specific plans once decided upon. (Citizens need only garner 50k signatures to force a vote for/against the specific law implementing a deal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optional_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optional_referendum) Right now, they'd be voting on "given our inability to strike a deal, should we take a no-deal exit?", which I don't think anyone can really argue would get the same 52% the more general Brexit referendum did.
  - cameronbrown 7y ago
    > In the Swiss model, you'd have subsequent direct votes on specific plans once decided upon. This is a flawed assumption. The EU referendum absolutely was an exercise in direct democracy. Nowhere does it say that direct democracy requires a specific set of questions to be asked. Breakup from the EU is so complex that we could not have prepared for it enough to know the ramifications of any options. Politics does not work like that and neither does life.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      > The EU referendum absolutely was an exercise in direct democracy. Not in the slightest. It was explicitly non-binding on a legal level. It was fundamentally an opinion poll with a large sample size. > Breakup from the EU is so complex that we could not have prepared for it enough to know the ramifications of any options. Perhaps, but that's why the people have elected representatives, who are very clearly saying the no-deal approach isn't acceptable. Claiming the Brexit referendum gives the PM the right to do anything he wants is silly. It's like claiming "we should fund the NHS" is carte blanche to have the NHS euthanize everyone under 40 because "the people approved the funding".
      - cameronbrown 7y ago
        > Not in the slightest. It was explicitly non-binding on a legal level. It was fundamentally an opinion poll with a large sample size. The spirit of the referendum, legally binding or not, is direct democracy in action. Regardless of what you believe, it would be a travesty to ignore the will of the people, hard as it may be to carry out their command to leave the EU. > Claiming the Brexit referendum gives the PM the right to do anything he wants is silly. It's like claiming "we should fund the NHS" is carte blanche to have the NHS euthanize everyone under 40 because "the people approved the funding". Now if you believe the referendum was just 'an opinion poll', and no deal is also by far the most popular option right now[0]: Even if you disagree with it, Boris trying to push no deal is legitimate if you accept the referendum is legitimate. [0] https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/is-the-conservative-partys-view-on-brexit-to-go-ahead-on-october-31-even-if-it-means-no-deal-to-delay-until-we-can-negotiate-a-new-deal-which-can-be-put-to-a-referendum-or-to-cancel-brexit-and-rem/ https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/is-the-conservative-pa...
- lagadu 7y ago
  That's why there are elections, the vast majority of the electorate really isn't equipped to deal with all the details and ramifications of what a big decision like this entails: therefore we choose representatives whose ideas we agree with so that they, along with experts of choice, can deep-dive into the consequences of each decision and make appropriate choices. For example: ask me about agricultural policy and you'll find out why I should have no business in making any sort of significant decisions about it. It's the same reason we go to a doctor when we're sick or to an architect when we want to design a house: we go to someone whose job is to know how to do something properly. In the Swiss model you'll never find single, completely vague and as wide-reaching questions like the one that lead to brexit.
- kitd 7y ago
  > just look at Switzerland You are right that Switzerland has a long history of direct democracy. But the reason it works at all is that people vote whether to accept specific proposals that have already been drawn up. This was the biggest flaw in the Brexit referendum. As formulated, it was way too woolly and covered a wide range of possible plans. At which point, some rabid Brexiteer chimes in and says "No, Brexit was very clearly defined as ... ", and then proceeds to reel off their pet opinions-as-facts. QED.
- rsynnott 7y ago
  In general, Swiss referenda are fairly well-thought-out; the voter knows what they're voting for. Interestingly, one recent case where it was _not_ well-specified or not well-thought-out caused a bit of a crisis, and in effect lead to the government fudging a non-solution. This case also involved the EU: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Swiss_immigration_initiative#Implementation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Swiss_immigration_initiat...
hogFeast 7y ago
Very true (and might I say, a rare sensible comment on this topic). The end result is very much a function of the starting point. But I would say that Johnson is the only one who has actually recognised the difficulty. His starting point, unfortunately three years down the line and after the deal was voted down four times, is to say that this is really difficult and the priority is to do what is possible, not constantly try to rework the fundamentally impossible. I think it is worth going over the history leading up to Cameron calling the referendum. As always, as with austerity, people read back from the present and assume that all the information was available then. Cameron was facing down a pretty significant rebellion (as it turned out people really didn't like the EU), and he thought he could appease this group with a deal from the EU. The mistake wasn't the referendum but his delusion that the EU would him something useful (this isn't to blame the EU, merely to observe that is was politically impossible for them to do so).
- dTal 7y ago
  >But I would say that Johnson is the only one who has actually recognised the difficulty Boy, that's richer than mum's trifle, considering that Boris "£350 million for the NHS" Johnson threw his weight behind the whole sorry endeavour in the first place, while fully half the population voted against it. I think it's pretty fair to say that the difficulty has been obvious to vast swathes of people since the very beginning.
cameronbrown 7y ago
> I think it's pretty clear that in many western democracies it's getting increasingly easy to form majorities "against" stuff while it's getting harder to form majorities "for stuff". What. "I'm not anti EU, I'm pro independence"? From this perspective the people who are against Brexit are inherently against change, or fear of the unknown, and pro Brexiteers are fighting to own their own laws. I'm not saying this is or isn't my opinion, but your opening presumption is flawed.
- simias 7y ago
  You're putting words in my mouth. Clearly Brexit is a huge change so brexiteers are clearly not against it. I also don't know where you get the "fear of the unknown" from, you're building a strawman. Brexit is the unknown and Remainers seem to fear that a whole lot. If you were to find something unifying the Brexit mindset, something that would unify Brexiteers as a whole, what would it be? "Pro-independance" doesn't work because that's simply too vague. As we've seen over the past couple of years there's no agreement on what an independent UK would look like. What unifies the Brexiteers is the rejection of the European Union, they don't seem to adhere to any constructive project as a whole. And to be clear that's not to say that they're not individually constructive, just that there's no constructive consensus among this majority.
  - cameronbrown 7y ago
    It isn't my intention to build a strawman, so sorry if that's how you interpreted it, but I'll try and rephrase. We may live in different regions or have had different conversations, but the trend in conversations I've had in the North across all age groups seems to be rejection of the EU because they're holding us back. The last part is key, because it's not destructive, it's wanting to be constructive but not being able to. Some (most? I don't know) Brexiteers don't hate the EU, they just think we can be a better nation without them. Either way, I just don't think you can break it down to constructive and destructive mindsets. My argument is that those are entirely subjective depending on your viewpoint (leave/remain) anyway.

by simias 7y ago

jazzyk 7y ago

>David Cameron made one of the biggest political errors in modern history here. By asking people to have a voice instead of deciding for them?? Direct democracy can work very well - just look at Switzerland, which is the envy of the world when it comes to governance. It may/may not be scalable, but important decisions like EU membership should be decided by the people, not the elite.

ceejayoz 7y ago
> By asking people to have a voice instead of deciding for them?? The question posed was simply "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?" No implementation details, no specifics, no timeline, and not binding. In the Swiss model, you'd have subsequent direct votes on specific plans once decided upon. (Citizens need only garner 50k signatures to force a vote for/against the specific law implementing a deal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optional_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optional_referendum) Right now, they'd be voting on "given our inability to strike a deal, should we take a no-deal exit?", which I don't think anyone can really argue would get the same 52% the more general Brexit referendum did.
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  > In the Swiss model, you'd have subsequent direct votes on specific plans once decided upon. This is a flawed assumption. The EU referendum absolutely was an exercise in direct democracy. Nowhere does it say that direct democracy requires a specific set of questions to be asked. Breakup from the EU is so complex that we could not have prepared for it enough to know the ramifications of any options. Politics does not work like that and neither does life.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    > The EU referendum absolutely was an exercise in direct democracy. Not in the slightest. It was explicitly non-binding on a legal level. It was fundamentally an opinion poll with a large sample size. > Breakup from the EU is so complex that we could not have prepared for it enough to know the ramifications of any options. Perhaps, but that's why the people have elected representatives, who are very clearly saying the no-deal approach isn't acceptable. Claiming the Brexit referendum gives the PM the right to do anything he wants is silly. It's like claiming "we should fund the NHS" is carte blanche to have the NHS euthanize everyone under 40 because "the people approved the funding".
    - cameronbrown 7y ago
      > Not in the slightest. It was explicitly non-binding on a legal level. It was fundamentally an opinion poll with a large sample size. The spirit of the referendum, legally binding or not, is direct democracy in action. Regardless of what you believe, it would be a travesty to ignore the will of the people, hard as it may be to carry out their command to leave the EU. > Claiming the Brexit referendum gives the PM the right to do anything he wants is silly. It's like claiming "we should fund the NHS" is carte blanche to have the NHS euthanize everyone under 40 because "the people approved the funding". Now if you believe the referendum was just 'an opinion poll', and no deal is also by far the most popular option right now[0]: Even if you disagree with it, Boris trying to push no deal is legitimate if you accept the referendum is legitimate. [0] https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/is-the-conservative-partys-view-on-brexit-to-go-ahead-on-october-31-even-if-it-means-no-deal-to-delay-until-we-can-negotiate-a-new-deal-which-can-be-put-to-a-referendum-or-to-cancel-brexit-and-rem/ https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/is-the-conservative-pa...
lagadu 7y ago
That's why there are elections, the vast majority of the electorate really isn't equipped to deal with all the details and ramifications of what a big decision like this entails: therefore we choose representatives whose ideas we agree with so that they, along with experts of choice, can deep-dive into the consequences of each decision and make appropriate choices. For example: ask me about agricultural policy and you'll find out why I should have no business in making any sort of significant decisions about it. It's the same reason we go to a doctor when we're sick or to an architect when we want to design a house: we go to someone whose job is to know how to do something properly. In the Swiss model you'll never find single, completely vague and as wide-reaching questions like the one that lead to brexit.
kitd 7y ago
> just look at Switzerland You are right that Switzerland has a long history of direct democracy. But the reason it works at all is that people vote whether to accept specific proposals that have already been drawn up. This was the biggest flaw in the Brexit referendum. As formulated, it was way too woolly and covered a wide range of possible plans. At which point, some rabid Brexiteer chimes in and says "No, Brexit was very clearly defined as ... ", and then proceeds to reel off their pet opinions-as-facts. QED.
rsynnott 7y ago
In general, Swiss referenda are fairly well-thought-out; the voter knows what they're voting for. Interestingly, one recent case where it was _not_ well-specified or not well-thought-out caused a bit of a crisis, and in effect lead to the government fudging a non-solution. This case also involved the EU: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Swiss_immigration_initiative#Implementation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Swiss_immigration_initiat...

hogFeast 7y ago

Very true (and might I say, a rare sensible comment on this topic). The end result is very much a function of the starting point. But I would say that Johnson is the only one who has actually recognised the difficulty. His starting point, unfortunately three years down the line and after the deal was voted down four times, is to say that this is really difficult and the priority is to do what is possible, not constantly try to rework the fundamentally impossible. I think it is worth going over the history leading up to Cameron calling the referendum. As always, as with austerity, people read back from the present and assume that all the information was available then. Cameron was facing down a pretty significant rebellion (as it turned out people really didn't like the EU), and he thought he could appease this group with a deal from the EU. The mistake wasn't the referendum but his delusion that the EU would him something useful (this isn't to blame the EU, merely to observe that is was politically impossible for them to do so).

dTal 7y ago
>But I would say that Johnson is the only one who has actually recognised the difficulty Boy, that's richer than mum's trifle, considering that Boris "£350 million for the NHS" Johnson threw his weight behind the whole sorry endeavour in the first place, while fully half the population voted against it. I think it's pretty fair to say that the difficulty has been obvious to vast swathes of people since the very beginning.

cameronbrown 7y ago

> I think it's pretty clear that in many western democracies it's getting increasingly easy to form majorities "against" stuff while it's getting harder to form majorities "for stuff". What. "I'm not anti EU, I'm pro independence"? From this perspective the people who are against Brexit are inherently against change, or fear of the unknown, and pro Brexiteers are fighting to own their own laws. I'm not saying this is or isn't my opinion, but your opening presumption is flawed.

simias 7y ago
You're putting words in my mouth. Clearly Brexit is a huge change so brexiteers are clearly not against it. I also don't know where you get the "fear of the unknown" from, you're building a strawman. Brexit is the unknown and Remainers seem to fear that a whole lot. If you were to find something unifying the Brexit mindset, something that would unify Brexiteers as a whole, what would it be? "Pro-independance" doesn't work because that's simply too vague. As we've seen over the past couple of years there's no agreement on what an independent UK would look like. What unifies the Brexiteers is the rejection of the European Union, they don't seem to adhere to any constructive project as a whole. And to be clear that's not to say that they're not individually constructive, just that there's no constructive consensus among this majority.
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  It isn't my intention to build a strawman, so sorry if that's how you interpreted it, but I'll try and rephrase. We may live in different regions or have had different conversations, but the trend in conversations I've had in the North across all age groups seems to be rejection of the EU because they're holding us back. The last part is key, because it's not destructive, it's wanting to be constructive but not being able to. Some (most? I don't know) Brexiteers don't hate the EU, they just think we can be a better nation without them. Either way, I just don't think you can break it down to constructive and destructive mindsets. My argument is that those are entirely subjective depending on your viewpoint (leave/remain) anyway.