3 ms·

Stupid things like brexit was put to a vote, but really important things such as age verification and mass surveillance are never put to any vote.

by chii 3mo ago

godwinson__4-8 3mo ago
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QFgcqB8-AxE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QFgcqB8-AxE
shevy-java 3mo ago
But Brexit was a vote, by the people. Yes, the pro-leave campaign lied to no ends, but people still made a choice on their own and the majority for leave was quite slim. This is very different to age sniffing here. Age sniffing is not being queried via public votum - lobbyists push it through without any resistance. It's amazing how this works.
- graemep 3mo ago
  The pro-remain campaign lied too and I would argue a great deal more. Take a look at the predictions of the immediate effect of Brexit vote (for 1017-18) on page 9 of the Treasury report: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a80772140f0b62305b8b510/hm_treasury_analysis_the_immediate_economic_impact_of_leaving_the_eu_web.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a80772140f0b... This whole argument is why we do not have more direct democracy. The people in power and people who benefit from the status quo do not want the hoi polloi taking the "wrong" decisions. We might end up nationalising things or taxing big business effectively or all sorts of terrible things. Better to just give people the illusion of choice by letting them choose between two "neo-liberal" parties.
  - graemep 3mo ago
    That should read for 2017-18
teiferer 3mo ago
In what way was Brexit a stupid thing? It was an extemely important decision, directly affecting everybody's life. If asking people about anything then isn't that what it should be? You might not like the outcome (I don't) but I consider the question of Brexit important.
- epihelix 3mo ago
  Should we also have a referendum on reducing the tax rate to zero? It would also be an extremely important decision, directly affecting everybody's life. If asking people about anything, then isn't that what it should be? Not all referenda that might win a "yes" vote are sensible to propose.
  - teiferer 3mo ago
    If you ask me personally, then no, we don't need to have such a vote. But if the point is that country wide referendums should only be held for important questions but then exclude Brexit because "it's stupid" then that's an inconsistent argument. Surely the question whether the UK should leave the EU was a very important decision to make. That the vote went a certain way which you don't like does not make it less important of a decision. Unless the actual point is "referendums should only be held for questions that are important and will go the way I like". You can have that opinion but then please be honest about it instead of disguising it with supposedly neutral musings about democracy. (Hint: Democracy does not mean that only what you want will happen.)
    - chii 3mo ago
      for such a wide ranging effects, brexit's vote had only 2% margin of error, with 48% against. The people's stupidity is why "important" questions like that should not be put to a vote; they can't be expected to understand the entirety of the outcome and consequences. As the other comment has posted: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QFgcqB8-AxE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QFgcqB8-AxE
- ben_w 3mo ago
  Analogy: Cancer surgery is an extremely important decision, directly affecting many people's lives. What happened with Brexit was a analogous a bunch of salesmen on TV saying "that mysterious ache you have, don't listen to doctors who say it's fine, call our surgical team today! It's cancer! We can fix this quickly and you'll be back to your old self within a week!" for two decades, then the country agreeing, going to surgery, and waking up to find they'd had half their liver removed, the post-surgical biopsy results said it was fine and not cancerous at all, it took 6 months to recover and they could never drink alcohol again. And the ache was still there. If it had been an honest "we know it will cost X, we are willing to spend this because otherwise what is the point of money", that would have been totally fair. Instead, problems that weren't caused by the EU were blamed on it for decades, while the benefits of membership were treated as the natural state of the world to the extent that talk of losing them was equated with "being punished".

Stupid things like brexit was put to a vote, but really important things such as age verification and mass surveillance are never put to any vote.

by chii 3mo ago

Stupid things like brexit was put to a vote, but really important things such as age verification and mass surveillance are never put to any vote.

godwinson__4-8 3mo ago

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QFgcqB8-AxE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QFgcqB8-AxE

shevy-java 3mo ago

But Brexit was a vote, by the people. Yes, the pro-leave campaign lied to no ends, but people still made a choice on their own and the majority for leave was quite slim. This is very different to age sniffing here. Age sniffing is not being queried via public votum - lobbyists push it through without any resistance. It's amazing how this works.

graemep 3mo ago
The pro-remain campaign lied too and I would argue a great deal more. Take a look at the predictions of the immediate effect of Brexit vote (for 1017-18) on page 9 of the Treasury report: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a80772140f0b62305b8b510/hm_treasury_analysis_the_immediate_economic_impact_of_leaving_the_eu_web.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a80772140f0b... This whole argument is why we do not have more direct democracy. The people in power and people who benefit from the status quo do not want the hoi polloi taking the "wrong" decisions. We might end up nationalising things or taxing big business effectively or all sorts of terrible things. Better to just give people the illusion of choice by letting them choose between two "neo-liberal" parties.
- graemep 3mo ago
  That should read for 2017-18

teiferer 3mo ago

In what way was Brexit a stupid thing? It was an extemely important decision, directly affecting everybody's life. If asking people about anything then isn't that what it should be? You might not like the outcome (I don't) but I consider the question of Brexit important.

epihelix 3mo ago
Should we also have a referendum on reducing the tax rate to zero? It would also be an extremely important decision, directly affecting everybody's life. If asking people about anything, then isn't that what it should be? Not all referenda that might win a "yes" vote are sensible to propose.
- teiferer 3mo ago
  If you ask me personally, then no, we don't need to have such a vote. But if the point is that country wide referendums should only be held for important questions but then exclude Brexit because "it's stupid" then that's an inconsistent argument. Surely the question whether the UK should leave the EU was a very important decision to make. That the vote went a certain way which you don't like does not make it less important of a decision. Unless the actual point is "referendums should only be held for questions that are important and will go the way I like". You can have that opinion but then please be honest about it instead of disguising it with supposedly neutral musings about democracy. (Hint: Democracy does not mean that only what you want will happen.)
  - chii 3mo ago
    for such a wide ranging effects, brexit's vote had only 2% margin of error, with 48% against. The people's stupidity is why "important" questions like that should not be put to a vote; they can't be expected to understand the entirety of the outcome and consequences. As the other comment has posted: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QFgcqB8-AxE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QFgcqB8-AxE
ben_w 3mo ago
Analogy: Cancer surgery is an extremely important decision, directly affecting many people's lives. What happened with Brexit was a analogous a bunch of salesmen on TV saying "that mysterious ache you have, don't listen to doctors who say it's fine, call our surgical team today! It's cancer! We can fix this quickly and you'll be back to your old self within a week!" for two decades, then the country agreeing, going to surgery, and waking up to find they'd had half their liver removed, the post-surgical biopsy results said it was fine and not cancerous at all, it took 6 months to recover and they could never drink alcohol again. And the ache was still there. If it had been an honest "we know it will cost X, we are willing to spend this because otherwise what is the point of money", that would have been totally fair. Instead, problems that weren't caused by the EU were blamed on it for decades, while the benefits of membership were treated as the natural state of the world to the extent that talk of losing them was equated with "being punished".