7 ms·

Brexit is the best modern argument against Democracy. It's literally the beloved British saying of cutting off the nose to spite the face. Edit: I mean if some

• st1x7 6y ago
  No, it's more complicated than that. It's an argument against putting your long-term foreign policy up to a simple majority vote on only one occasion and in a way that one of the outcomes hasn't been clearly defined which allows for anyone to claim anything they want about the potential benefits.
• roamerz 6y ago
  Right or wrong how can one argue against Democracy (the will of the people)? It’s a basic tenant to freedom.
  • oblio 6y ago
    Minor nitpick: tenet, not tenant. Otherwise, agreed :-)
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • johnp314 6y ago
    History is replete with pure democracy leading to tyranny. Beyond just Brexit, it's not out of the realm of possibility that the 'majority' could vote to nullify constitutional checks to the power of a president, to term length, to guarantees on the protection of individual rights and freedoms, etc. Of course any such votes are deemed to be in the interest of the 'people'. The ancients and the US at its founding were wise enough to mix democracy, the at the moment will of the people, with various checks, balances and buffers. The US seems to be moving to more and more pure democracy. In my humble opinion this is dangerous, a slippery slope, a camel's nose under the tent, etc.
    • roamerz 6y ago
      The founders were indeed wise in requiring 2/3 to amend the constitution as well as establishing the electoral college in lieu of popular vote. What they failed at in my opinion is not having any criminal penalties for anyone including politicians and judges for violating the constitution.
      • ascagnel_ 6y ago
        I disagree on the Electoral College -- it's a system designed so that votes aren't equal in value. If you live in California, your presidential vote is worth less than a vote in Wyoming[0]. Similarly, the cap on the size of the House of Representatives also means that larger states will generally see less representation per capita than smaller states. (Note: I'm leaving the Senate out, given that it's designed to assign two votes per state without regard to population). A referendum is great at giving legislators or executives a priority -- my home state of New Jersey has been working on marijuana legalization for years, but it's largely stalled in the statehouse. The 2020 election featured a ballot question on legalization, and the overwhelming "yes" (more than 2/3 of the electorate supports the move) helped kick off another round of legislation (that, in a sadly predictable pattern, seems to be stuck once again). [0] https://www.axios.com/electoral-college-by-vote-per-capita-420912ee-30be-4101-8dfb-9de5e7ebcdd4.html https://www.axios.com/electoral-college-by-vote-per-capita-4...
        • jdmichal 6y ago
          Here in Florida, we got so tired of the stalling that we wrote medical marijuana into a 2016 constitutional amendment initiative, since that's the only way to get something approaching a law without legislative cooperation.
      • thatguy0900 6y ago
        I would think that would have just encouraged the "creative" interpretations of the constitution in use now to justify themselves
      • alasdair_ 6y ago
  • macintux 6y ago
    It’s rarely a good idea for everyone’s freedom to blindly follow the will of the majority. Too often minorities are suppressed. Plus, voters are terrible at understanding the long-term implications of what they think they want.
    • roamerz 6y ago
      The last sentence sounds like many politicians in my state if Oregon. Voters are to dumb to be able to vote. Point in case the voters of Oregon have multiple times voted (overwhelmingly) to not issue driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. The legislature this year voted to give illegal aliens driver’s licenses. Is this not a prime example of tyranny?
      • macintux 6y ago
        It’s a prime example of a republic instead of a true democracy. Tyranny would be if you couldn’t vote them out of office.
        • roamerz 6y ago
          I do agree with that however if you truly represent the citizens why would you vote for something that is demonstrably contrary to their will? Granted they probably are counting on that by election time this particular vote may be forgotten or outweighed by other factors. Probably more disingenuous than tyrannical but still..
          • macintux 6y ago
            This question has been discussed for hundreds of years. “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”—Edmund Burke
      • triceratops 6y ago
        > Point in case the voters of Oregon have multiple times voted to not issue driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. I don't understand why. Licensed or not, they're going to drive. If they're in the country illegally, they're not gonna care they're driving illegally. Isn't it safer for others on the road if they're made to take the appropriate tests and have insurance like everyone else? If you're involved in an accident with an undocumented person, isn't it better to be able to get their insurance information? In this case, I think the voters really are being dumb. Or they're being fed a pack of lies, such as getting driver's licenses will make undocumented aliens eligible for other benefits. Maybe these legislators are able to see both sides of the issue and believe that giving driver's licenses will be a net benefit to their constituents. Even if those constituents don't realize it themselves.
  • jimnotgym 6y ago
    I think it may be argued that holding referendums is not necessarily democratic. Referendums are not historically part of the UK electoral system. There have only ever been three UK wide referendums, two on Europe and one on the electoral system. We have none of the safeguards, of super-majorities for instance, that some countries have. It could be argued that having failed to get your own way in the established electoral system, inventing a new unstoppable electoral system is undemocratic.
• cultus 6y ago
  To me it's an argument that there isn't enough democracy. Brexit would never had happened if the British political class (including Labour and libdems) were not totally hostile to the interests of the British working class over a period of several decades. When a government isn't responsive to the people, bad stuff happens.
• throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  One man's "cutting off your nose to spite your face" is another man's "sticking to your ideological guns even when you make less money that way". If anything being able to occasionally execute on controversial things like this seems like an argument in favor of democracy. How often have we heard of X or Y is easier in a dictatorship because the approximate half of the population that disagree can just be steamrolled and progress can happen without them? To me things like Brexit are proof that democracy can be just as versatile when it wants to.
  • andrewflnr 6y ago
    Broadly, yes, but I don't see the ideology in play in Brexit.
    • throwaway0a5e 6y ago
      People wanted out (for a variety of reasons, some better than others). They got out (with some find print). They're gonna pay for it. But nothing is ever free. It might be stupid, but the people get what they want even if it's stupid. Welcome to democracy, the system that sucks less than all the alternatives.
      • andrewflnr 6y ago
        That rather confirms my point.
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • gorgoiler 6y ago
      Ideology wasn’t thin in the ground for either the leftist Brexiteers, “Nationalists”, paternalistic One Nation stories or for the Ever Closer Union lot. The main complaint about the whole process was that it was far too ideological instead of being benignly technocratic.
• rsynnott 6y ago
  It's not an argument against democracy, it's an argument for sensible government. It's a very, very bad idea to hold a referendum along the lines of "vote no for the status quo, vote yes for, erm, something, we'll let the Yes side make up some stuff about unicorns and cricket playing vicars for you". The vote should have been for a realistic deal, with article 50 notification contingent on having agreed said deal in principle. People had _no_ idea what they were voting for, and that's entirely Cameron's government's fault. That doesn't mean that referendums are necessarily bad in principle, though. In Ireland we have quite a few of these, but generally the government will say what it intends to do with a Yes result. When people voted yes on the abortion referendum, say, they weren't just voting for "more abortions, please" in the abstract, they were told ahead of time what would happen if they did vote yes.
  • dageshi 6y ago
    The EU doesn't allow negotiation on withdrawal until article 50 is invoked. There was no ability to negotiate any deal of any kind until the UK confirmed it was leaving.
    • jimnotgym 6y ago
      The UK could have asked for several different deals and got them. EEA would have taken zero negotiation, for instance.
      • dageshi 6y ago
        I don't believe there's any mechanism to go from full EU membership to the EEA when you're already a member? That is more or less the same thing as negotiating to leave before article 50 is invoked. I'm not entirely sure what you're referring too?
      • samsonradu 6y ago
        Why is it granted they would have gotten an EEA-like deal?
• mhh__ 6y ago
  The thing with Brexit is that the referendum itself was unbelievably stupid, not democracy as a concept. If you are going to have a referendum it should require a supermajority because the turnout is never going to be good enough for a real consensus.
• twblalock 6y ago
  It's an argument against referendums, especially when they only require a simple majority required to pass. The Brexit referendum passed with about 52% of votes in favor -- not exactly a landslide. Really big changes ought to have a higher bar than just a simple majority. A 2/3 majority is a much higher bar to overcome, and in the case of a referendum, it would mean the result represents the consensus view of the people, not just one side in a bitterly divided close fight.
  • vidarh 6y ago
    I've long argued referendums ought to require supermajorities based on how easy the change voted on is to undo and an assessment of the extent of the change. It encourages the side that wants change to aim to find ways to minimise the change they ask for and maximise the viability of reversal to lower the bar for the vote. Achieving a reasonably objective assessment of what the required majority should be would be very hard, though.
  • sgnelson 6y ago
    I was literally typing up the same thing when I read this. Anytime a simple majority can have such a large impact, it's probably a bad idea. It might not be tyranny of the majority in the classic sense, but it's "tyranny of the half plus one."
  • ben_w 6y ago
    While it’s very tempting to say that (especially since Farage said something like “52% would be unfinished business” shortly before the result), IIRC the distribution of Leave voters was much more politically relevant than it merely being 52% – from what I remember it was such that, under the FPTP/constituency combination, it represented an overwhelming majority of constituencies if it had been a GE.
• darth_avocado 6y ago
  It's not an argument against Democracy. It's an argument against how much of the decision making for a country needs to be a popularity contest. If you left everything up to the public, there would be 0 taxes, free education, healthcare, housing and monthly paychecks of a $1000 for everyone. But that's a terrible idea, and it doesn't get implemented anywhere, because you literally choose people to represent the population and to make sensible decisions.
  • vagrantJin 6y ago
    > But that's a terrible idea, and it doesn't get implemented anywhere, because you literally choose people to represent the population and to make sensible decisions. Haha. My beloved country has free healthcare, education and government social grants for women mostly and a lot of free actual legit housing for the poor. Don't get me wrong, the whole thing is crashing in slowmo for a few decades now because we really don't have anyone driving the vehicle but Jesus. I'll never abondon ship though. </RANT>
    • thesuitonym 6y ago
      You missed the 0 taxes though.
    • darth_avocado 6y ago
      None of that comes with 0 taxes and that was the whole premise.
  • alasdair_ 6y ago
    The Saudis and a few other resource-rich countries essentially have this for citizens. I still wouldn't want to live there.
    • darth_avocado 6y ago
      That is true. The only reason it works is because they have a commodity that they can sell that everyone wants (for now), that is just dug from the earth and sold on the market with little cost/effort. Such economies are rare (and work because the other economies aren't the same). Also, they have a small life span and can easily not work (Venezuela).
• busterarm 6y ago
  Brexit is equally an argument against giving up your national sovereignty to a coalition government. Regardless of opinions, this plays out like a bad marriage and divorce. Joining the EU requires good will to get in, but there's no amicable way to leave. Why would anyone join now seeing these circumstances? Once you're in, you're in for life. Ride or die. Might as well join a gang.
  • twblalock 6y ago
    Except, the UK was allowed to leave, and the deal they got is probably not that different from the kind of trade deal they would have had with the EU if they had never joined. The UK didn't revert to WTO rules in their trade with the EU. Instead, they got a deal that gave them fewer trade barriers with the EU than most countries have to deal with.
    • busterarm 6y ago
      I actually agree with you, but then Brexit isn't such a big deal then, isn't it. The complainers are trying to get all the upside with none of the down.
      • JoeAltmaier 6y ago
        Well that would be called the ideal arrangement. Its business, not a moral issue. Everybody wants what works for them.
    • mnd999 6y ago
      It’s a good deal, but only for the EU. They have a goods trade surplus with the UK and they retain their free trade agreement. The UK has a services trade surplus with the EU (particularly financial services) and that is not included in the deal. It’s not all that surprising that the UK lost out in the negotiations - this is what tends to happen when a smaller economy negotiates with a larger one.
      • busterarm 6y ago