3 ms·

Yup and 5 million people that can vote in a general election weren’t allowed to vote.

by pacifika 5y ago

blibble 5y ago
the franchise was exactly the same as for general elections
- jlokier 5y ago
  General elections don't affect the people who were not allowed to vote nearly as much. The Brexit outcome (not just the vote but political decisions afterwards rejecting all "soft" versions) has literally stripped citizenship rights and rights akin to citizenship from millions of people who were not allowed to vote on their own future. My take on democracy is that the people most affected by a major decision must be allowed to contribute to the decision. If they are excluded at scale, then it's not democracy, it's just a vote by one group of people to control another.
  - blibble 5y ago
    the UK is hardly unique in that votes on constitutional changes are reserved for citizens (+ a few extras due to the country's complicated history) changing the franchise in this way you have suggested would have been seen as the Remain campaign changing the rules to benefit itself, and would not have been accepted > The Brexit outcome (not just the vote but political decisions afterwards rejecting all "soft" versions) has literally stripped citizenship rights and rights akin to citizenship this is a (yet another) common misconception: EU "citizenship" is really quite limited, and is not at all the same as national citizenship I think without exception: every right has been grandfathered in for those that were living in the UK at the time, for all intents and purposes "EU citizenship" has simply been renamed for those present in the UK prior to leaving
    - jlokier 5y ago
      > the UK is hardly unique in that votes on constitutional changes are reserved for citizens (+ a few extras due to the country's complicated history) I agree with you, letting the people most affected have a say wouldn't have been accepted, and that's usually how these things go. I argue that it's still unethical and fails the basic principle of democracy, though. I personally do not respect the result as honouring the civic principles underlying democracy, but I respect that most people take a cruder "my team won" view, and if the 51% foxes vote to eat the 49% hens for dinner, that's democracy to them. > I think without exception: every right has been grandfathered in for those that were living in the UK at the time, for all intents and purposes We were talking about the vote being denied to UK citizens abroad too - UK citizens affected by Brexit who had no say. They don't have anything like the rights they used to have. I've found it interesting for years that when rights are mentioned, most people focus entirely on non-UK citizens in the UK, not the lost rights of UK citizens. But a huge section of the UK population used to travel freely and work, and are deeply unhappy at losing their personal EU rights and seeing access to jobs they used to do closed, and (in my experience) even more distressed that their children won't grow up able to exercise those freedoms to travel, study and work abroad in the way that they themselves were. I guess people who didn't exercise those rights tend not to think about them, and people who did are on the losing side of the result.
      - blibble 5y ago
        > I argue that it's still unethical and fails the basic principle of democracy, though. this is the very much the norm for democracies off the top of my head: Ireland won't let EU citizens vote in referendums (or for president), France won't let EU citizens vote for president (and so-on) > We were talking about the vote being denied to UK citizens abroad too - UK citizens affected by Brexit who had no say. the franchise is still quite generous (you can vote for 15 years without being resident) (anecdotally... everyone I know that voted from abroad voted Leave)

Yup and 5 million people that can vote in a general election weren’t allowed to vote.

blibble 5y ago

the franchise was exactly the same as for general elections

jlokier 5y ago
General elections don't affect the people who were not allowed to vote nearly as much. The Brexit outcome (not just the vote but political decisions afterwards rejecting all "soft" versions) has literally stripped citizenship rights and rights akin to citizenship from millions of people who were not allowed to vote on their own future. My take on democracy is that the people most affected by a major decision must be allowed to contribute to the decision. If they are excluded at scale, then it's not democracy, it's just a vote by one group of people to control another.
- blibble 5y ago
  the UK is hardly unique in that votes on constitutional changes are reserved for citizens (+ a few extras due to the country's complicated history) changing the franchise in this way you have suggested would have been seen as the Remain campaign changing the rules to benefit itself, and would not have been accepted > The Brexit outcome (not just the vote but political decisions afterwards rejecting all "soft" versions) has literally stripped citizenship rights and rights akin to citizenship this is a (yet another) common misconception: EU "citizenship" is really quite limited, and is not at all the same as national citizenship I think without exception: every right has been grandfathered in for those that were living in the UK at the time, for all intents and purposes "EU citizenship" has simply been renamed for those present in the UK prior to leaving
  - jlokier 5y ago
    > the UK is hardly unique in that votes on constitutional changes are reserved for citizens (+ a few extras due to the country's complicated history) I agree with you, letting the people most affected have a say wouldn't have been accepted, and that's usually how these things go. I argue that it's still unethical and fails the basic principle of democracy, though. I personally do not respect the result as honouring the civic principles underlying democracy, but I respect that most people take a cruder "my team won" view, and if the 51% foxes vote to eat the 49% hens for dinner, that's democracy to them. > I think without exception: every right has been grandfathered in for those that were living in the UK at the time, for all intents and purposes We were talking about the vote being denied to UK citizens abroad too - UK citizens affected by Brexit who had no say. They don't have anything like the rights they used to have. I've found it interesting for years that when rights are mentioned, most people focus entirely on non-UK citizens in the UK, not the lost rights of UK citizens. But a huge section of the UK population used to travel freely and work, and are deeply unhappy at losing their personal EU rights and seeing access to jobs they used to do closed, and (in my experience) even more distressed that their children won't grow up able to exercise those freedoms to travel, study and work abroad in the way that they themselves were. I guess people who didn't exercise those rights tend not to think about them, and people who did are on the losing side of the result.
    - blibble 5y ago
      > I argue that it's still unethical and fails the basic principle of democracy, though. this is the very much the norm for democracies off the top of my head: Ireland won't let EU citizens vote in referendums (or for president), France won't let EU citizens vote for president (and so-on) > We were talking about the vote being denied to UK citizens abroad too - UK citizens affected by Brexit who had no say. the franchise is still quite generous (you can vote for 15 years without being resident) (anecdotally... everyone I know that voted from abroad voted Leave)