7 ms·

Generally speaking the more important an issue is, the less it is allowed to be affected by democratic processes. That's why Brexit was such a big upset, it buc

Generally speaking the more important an issue is, the less it is allowed to be affected by democratic processes. That's why Brexit was such a big upset, it bucked the trend (the management miscalculated, nobody expected the result and would not have put it to referendum otherwise).

xienze 1mo ago
> nobody expected the result and would not have put it to referendum otherwise I think you're right, you see this sometimes where the powers that be are extremely over-confident in themselves and think "sure, let's put this thing up for referendum and show those stupid right-wingers how unpopular they really are." Which works until it doesn't. A US example was Proposition 8 in California (banning same-sex marriage) in 2008. I have zero doubt the thinking was "sure, let's put it up for a vote and show those morons how behind the times they really are." When it passed, in _California_ no less, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth and accusations of all sorts of treachery. Anything but doing a little self-reflection and considering that maybe it wasn't as popular an idea as they thought. Didn't matter in the end, courts said "yeah well too bad, you can't ban it anyway, sorry" (kind of funny those legal arguments never came up BEFORE it could even be put up for a vote, again showing the level of confidence on display). What's shocking of course is that the Brexit vote didn't end up the same way ("ok the vote passed but it can't be done anyway").
- optimalsolver 1mo ago
  >What's shocking of course is that the Brexit vote didn't end up the same way All that happened was that Britain exchanged limited Eastern Euro immigration for unlimited non-EU immigration. https://x.com/RichardHanania/status/2060561179408548029 https://x.com/RichardHanania/status/2060561179408548029
- Nursie 1mo ago
  > What's shocking of course is that the Brexit vote didn't end up the same way ("ok the vote passed but it can't be done anyway"). There was an attempt. A campaigner managed to get the courts to issue a verdict that the referendum was not binding, and Parliament must then have a vote on whether or not to implement the result. Remain voters rejoiced and lauded her as a hero. Brexit voters demonised her as an enemy of democracy. Parliament then duly voted to implement the result. (Edit - looking back this may have been counterproductive. The argument that the referendum was not legally binding could have continued for some time, maybe even long enough to try to change something. But forcing a parliamentary vote to affirm the result put all that to bed)
  - andrewaylett 1mo ago
    Which was, procedurally, the correct course of action: the referendum was non-binding, because the UK's constitution only allows for non-binding referendums. Parliament is sovereign, whether you and I like it or not (and I'm generally ambivalent about it). Given one of the major themes of the leave campaign was "restoring parliamentary sovereignty", it's darkly ironic that leave also campaigned against parliament actually using that sovereignty, and indeed came closer than anyone else (including the EU) to restricting parliamentary sovereignty.
    - TheOtherHobbes 1mo ago
      I wouldn't call it ironic. The forces behind Leave were - still are - far-right nationalists and wannabe autocrats. They consider democracy an annoyance - ideally a temporary one. Their idea of sovereignty is telling everyone else what to do. They wrap this up in flags and Sptifire biscuit tin patriotism for the poorly educated, but it's all for show. What they want is unlimited power over others. The EU has always been an obstacle to that. The different nationalists - the Republicans in the US, the Putinists in Russia, the Zionists in Israel, the Brexiters in the UK, the Saudi oil imperialists - are all tentacles of the same creature, and more likely to cooperate with each other against their native populations than act independently.
- rsynnott 1mo ago
  It's even a bit sillier than that. David Cameron promised a dumb thing to get elected, on the assumption that he'd be in another libdem coalition, and the libdems wouldn't allow it. Then he got a majority. And campaigned against his own dumb thing. Not only was it expected to fail at referendum, but the referendum itself was never really meant to happen. > What's shocking of course is that the Brexit vote didn't end up the same way ("ok the vote passed but it can't be done anyway"). It went very much the opposite; they went for almost the most extreme possible version of the thing. A lot of people voting for Brexit had been sold on, basically, Norway's status (effectively in the EU, but can pretend not to be, and has its own rules on fish and can have whatever weird passports it wants). This is part of why support for it evaporated so quickly (the last time any serious poll showed staying out as having more support for rejoining was early 2022); the delivered product was simply not what most people had been sold.
  - DarkUranium 1mo ago
    Little did they know that the UK effectively already had Norway's status and then some, what with all the special privileges they were granted in the EU.
    - rsynnott 1mo ago
      BUT THE FISH. (The British fisheries industry actually largely suffered due to Brexit, as British people don’t eat much fish, especially the fish available around Britain, and the industry was largely dependent on exports. But it’s the thought that counts, I suppose.)
- danaris 1mo ago
  > (kind of funny those legal arguments never came up BEFORE it could even be put up for a vote, again showing the level of confidence on display) Actually, IMO, it shows one of the weaknesses of our legal system. The courts can't rule on something that someone's talking about doing. They can only rule on actual legislation. It would genuinely be great if there were a formal legal process for writing a bill, submitting it to some particular court (maybe the top state appeals court?) for review, and only after that review letting it be voted into law.
  - 1718627440 1mo ago
    I think that's a bit of the purpose of the scientific service of the parliament (e.g. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wissenschaftliche_Dienste_des_Deutschen_Bundestages https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wissenschaftliche_Dienste_des_..., not sure how this is called in other countries) Also you can ask anyone you like about your legislative proposal, including the judges of a court.
IndySun 1mo ago
It was virtually 50/50 and should not have proceeded. The bar to leave was set too low. 2/3rd better, and larger turnout should have been mandated. 16 year olds should have voted. The campaign to stay too weak. Mass confusion. Some particularly pernicious lies on the leave side too convincing. Brexit wasn't 100% going to happen, it was more like... Leave 17,410,742 51.89% Remain 16,141,241 48.11%
- bingbong4748 1mo ago
  “In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it." - Nigel Farage, May 2016
- TulliusCicero 1mo ago
  I dunno about 2/3rds, but there should definitely be some kind of supermajority required for things like joining or leaving the EU. Even a 55% requirement would be a lot better than a simple majority imo.
  - FartyMcFarter 1mo ago
    Then we'd have to hear the Brexiteers whining on and on about democracy. This way we get to see their project fail. I don't know which one is worse.
    - danaris 1mo ago
      Hm, which is worse: An entire country of millions of people suffers from the shortsighted actions of a few with reduced quality of products, increased prices, worse access to other countries, and a host of other problems... ...or we have to listen to some people whine?
      - FartyMcFarter 1mo ago
        That's a good point, but sometimes it's a good thing for people to see the consequences of their (and others') choices. Perhaps it could have some good medium / long-term effects.
alex1138 1mo ago
I see some public intellectuals who do support Brexit so that's fair enough but I do get mad when I see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQSMr-3GGvQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQSMr-3GGvQ These were not only ads, but shadow ads; they were different per person and effectively couldn't be vetted (if I have the technical underpinnings wrong do let me know) It's bad regardless of which political side or issue you support. You go on FB to talk to your friends and you get... that? Come on now, Zuck. Remember the human
- 1718627440 1mo ago
  [dead]
mrtksn 1mo ago
> nobody expected the result Including those who pushed for Brexit. Farage gave a speech accepting a defeat around midnight, the value of GBP skyrocketed for a moment etc. The referendum was supposed to be a tool for the political class to wrestle each other, not a real life changing decision. Turns out if you fuel enough BS you may not be able to control it. The same for this fear mongering about evil people messaging in secret each other. It’s not a real discussion, if someone should lose their privacy its the people in power. Make it illegal having secret messaging for politicians and people rich beyond some point. The danger doesn’t come from some regular people talking about something nasty in secret, the danger comes from billionaires talking secretly with politicians. We should have been able to see the messages that led the pro-brexit billionaire "gifting" Farage 5 million GBP. Of course the secrecy is needed even for the politicians and the super rich but we should be able to "debug" them, we should be able to have a committee or something of that sort that will be able to decrypt and check all their communications when needed.
- NoddingPudding 1mo ago
  The Farage speech just seemed to be part of a pump and dump on the pound.
  - gjm11 1mo ago
    In my more cynical moments I think that was the whole point of Brexit. An awful lot of the big names in the pro-Brexit movement were in one sort of investment-management business or another, and I'd love to see what positions they and their companies held in June 2016.
bluebarbet 1mo ago
This is conspiracism-adjacent, IMO. Plenty of consequential decisions have been put to referendums, if only because the political class may not want to take responsibility for them. And the outcome of a referendum is never certain. The more interesting difference is surely in how the elite responds to unexpected referendum results. Plenty of mainland Europeans assumed that Brexit would somehow be canceled (which was surely the right thing to do on paper). That was never going to happen. British political culture sacralizes majorities. Canceling a referendum "victory" is as anathema as proportional representation, coalition government, or limits on parliamentary sovereignty. This (IMO archaic) understanding of democracy partly explains the Brexit result itself.
- tux1968 1mo ago
  > British political culture sacralizes majorities. I'm genuinely curious what you would offer as an alternative? Democracy should ignore the majority if it disagrees with the controlling cabal who hold the correct opinions?
  - bluebarbet 1mo ago
    Perhaps a misunderstanding. In this case "majority" (or "majoritarianism") really means plurality. British (and US) democracy fetishizes winners, i.e. whoever comes first, whether or not they represent a majority of the electorate. In Britain you get all the power with 30% of the vote. Some might call that undemocratic.
    - Nursie 1mo ago
      As a Brit, I certainly think it’s a problem, because as you say, you can end up with a government with a large majority of seats based on a small proportion of electoral support. I much prefer the ranked choice system here in Australia. I’m sure there are flaws, but you tend to end up with candidates who are more representative of the wishes of the electorate, and you eliminate that “I’d better vote for A in case B gets in” vote-splitting thing.
      - 1mo ago
armchairhacker 1mo ago
"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all others that have been tried". If the people aren't capable of handling an issue, who is? Bureaucrats who are...elected democratically? Brexit's issue is that it can't be easily reversed, I don't understand why they don't just hold another referendum and undo everything.
- mrkeen 1mo ago
  The government is not the people. The process goes something like: A) I get voted in if I give the people what they want B) The people don't want to be spied on C) I increase spying D) ??? E) Profit! I'm still hazy on the details. But the politicians really can't plead ignorance. At least in the US you regularly hear things like "the Senate convened at 11:30pm on Friday night to push through unpopular legislation". They know.
- ZenoArrow 1mo ago
  > I don't understand why they don't just hold another referendum and undo everything. I see you follow the EU model of democracy; keep putting matters up for a vote until you get the result you want. Despite what you may have been led to believe, there's still a substantial number of British people that reject EU membership, and this goes beyond the "racist" and "economically illiterate" arguments that remainers typically fall back on. I would suggest you do what your predecessors did not and consider the consequences of losing.
- teamonkey 1mo ago
  Because the UK had a preferential agreement with the EU and a leadership position. It would be impossible to restore that state. Even if there were a UK referendum where a clear majority voted to rejoin the EU as a member state, not at the top table, our return to the EU depends on the EU accepting our application. We burned a lot of bridges on exit that we need to rebuild. And also the favourite party to win in the next election is spearheaded by the very people who orchestrated Brexit. The EU will not be receptive while it seems that a majority of people are still voting for an anti-EU party. The sensible course for rejoining is to work towards Schengen or similar, while acting as a partner state in good faith for a decade or two.
ifwinterco 1mo ago
Yep, for once we had actual direct democracy in this country, they won't make that mistake again

xienze 1mo ago

> nobody expected the result and would not have put it to referendum otherwise I think you're right, you see this sometimes where the powers that be are extremely over-confident in themselves and think "sure, let's put this thing up for referendum and show those stupid right-wingers how unpopular they really are." Which works until it doesn't. A US example was Proposition 8 in California (banning same-sex marriage) in 2008. I have zero doubt the thinking was "sure, let's put it up for a vote and show those morons how behind the times they really are." When it passed, in _California_ no less, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth and accusations of all sorts of treachery. Anything but doing a little self-reflection and considering that maybe it wasn't as popular an idea as they thought. Didn't matter in the end, courts said "yeah well too bad, you can't ban it anyway, sorry" (kind of funny those legal arguments never came up BEFORE it could even be put up for a vote, again showing the level of confidence on display). What's shocking of course is that the Brexit vote didn't end up the same way ("ok the vote passed but it can't be done anyway").

optimalsolver 1mo ago
>What's shocking of course is that the Brexit vote didn't end up the same way All that happened was that Britain exchanged limited Eastern Euro immigration for unlimited non-EU immigration. https://x.com/RichardHanania/status/2060561179408548029 https://x.com/RichardHanania/status/2060561179408548029
Nursie 1mo ago
> What's shocking of course is that the Brexit vote didn't end up the same way ("ok the vote passed but it can't be done anyway"). There was an attempt. A campaigner managed to get the courts to issue a verdict that the referendum was not binding, and Parliament must then have a vote on whether or not to implement the result. Remain voters rejoiced and lauded her as a hero. Brexit voters demonised her as an enemy of democracy. Parliament then duly voted to implement the result. (Edit - looking back this may have been counterproductive. The argument that the referendum was not legally binding could have continued for some time, maybe even long enough to try to change something. But forcing a parliamentary vote to affirm the result put all that to bed)
- andrewaylett 1mo ago
  Which was, procedurally, the correct course of action: the referendum was non-binding, because the UK's constitution only allows for non-binding referendums. Parliament is sovereign, whether you and I like it or not (and I'm generally ambivalent about it). Given one of the major themes of the leave campaign was "restoring parliamentary sovereignty", it's darkly ironic that leave also campaigned against parliament actually using that sovereignty, and indeed came closer than anyone else (including the EU) to restricting parliamentary sovereignty.
  - TheOtherHobbes 1mo ago
    I wouldn't call it ironic. The forces behind Leave were - still are - far-right nationalists and wannabe autocrats. They consider democracy an annoyance - ideally a temporary one. Their idea of sovereignty is telling everyone else what to do. They wrap this up in flags and Sptifire biscuit tin patriotism for the poorly educated, but it's all for show. What they want is unlimited power over others. The EU has always been an obstacle to that. The different nationalists - the Republicans in the US, the Putinists in Russia, the Zionists in Israel, the Brexiters in the UK, the Saudi oil imperialists - are all tentacles of the same creature, and more likely to cooperate with each other against their native populations than act independently.
rsynnott 1mo ago
It's even a bit sillier than that. David Cameron promised a dumb thing to get elected, on the assumption that he'd be in another libdem coalition, and the libdems wouldn't allow it. Then he got a majority. And campaigned against his own dumb thing. Not only was it expected to fail at referendum, but the referendum itself was never really meant to happen. > What's shocking of course is that the Brexit vote didn't end up the same way ("ok the vote passed but it can't be done anyway"). It went very much the opposite; they went for almost the most extreme possible version of the thing. A lot of people voting for Brexit had been sold on, basically, Norway's status (effectively in the EU, but can pretend not to be, and has its own rules on fish and can have whatever weird passports it wants). This is part of why support for it evaporated so quickly (the last time any serious poll showed staying out as having more support for rejoining was early 2022); the delivered product was simply not what most people had been sold.
- DarkUranium 1mo ago
  Little did they know that the UK effectively already had Norway's status and then some, what with all the special privileges they were granted in the EU.
  - rsynnott 1mo ago
    BUT THE FISH. (The British fisheries industry actually largely suffered due to Brexit, as British people don’t eat much fish, especially the fish available around Britain, and the industry was largely dependent on exports. But it’s the thought that counts, I suppose.)
danaris 1mo ago
> (kind of funny those legal arguments never came up BEFORE it could even be put up for a vote, again showing the level of confidence on display) Actually, IMO, it shows one of the weaknesses of our legal system. The courts can't rule on something that someone's talking about doing. They can only rule on actual legislation. It would genuinely be great if there were a formal legal process for writing a bill, submitting it to some particular court (maybe the top state appeals court?) for review, and only after that review letting it be voted into law.
- 1718627440 1mo ago
  I think that's a bit of the purpose of the scientific service of the parliament (e.g. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wissenschaftliche_Dienste_des_Deutschen_Bundestages https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wissenschaftliche_Dienste_des_..., not sure how this is called in other countries) Also you can ask anyone you like about your legislative proposal, including the judges of a court.

IndySun 1mo ago

It was virtually 50/50 and should not have proceeded. The bar to leave was set too low. 2/3rd better, and larger turnout should have been mandated. 16 year olds should have voted. The campaign to stay too weak. Mass confusion. Some particularly pernicious lies on the leave side too convincing. Brexit wasn't 100% going to happen, it was more like... Leave 17,410,742 51.89% Remain 16,141,241 48.11%

bingbong4748 1mo ago
“In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it." - Nigel Farage, May 2016
TulliusCicero 1mo ago
I dunno about 2/3rds, but there should definitely be some kind of supermajority required for things like joining or leaving the EU. Even a 55% requirement would be a lot better than a simple majority imo.
- FartyMcFarter 1mo ago
  Then we'd have to hear the Brexiteers whining on and on about democracy. This way we get to see their project fail. I don't know which one is worse.
  - danaris 1mo ago
    Hm, which is worse: An entire country of millions of people suffers from the shortsighted actions of a few with reduced quality of products, increased prices, worse access to other countries, and a host of other problems... ...or we have to listen to some people whine?
    - FartyMcFarter 1mo ago
      That's a good point, but sometimes it's a good thing for people to see the consequences of their (and others') choices. Perhaps it could have some good medium / long-term effects.

alex1138 1mo ago

I see some public intellectuals who do support Brexit so that's fair enough but I do get mad when I see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQSMr-3GGvQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQSMr-3GGvQ These were not only ads, but shadow ads; they were different per person and effectively couldn't be vetted (if I have the technical underpinnings wrong do let me know) It's bad regardless of which political side or issue you support. You go on FB to talk to your friends and you get... that? Come on now, Zuck. Remember the human

1718627440 1mo ago
[dead]

mrtksn 1mo ago

> nobody expected the result Including those who pushed for Brexit. Farage gave a speech accepting a defeat around midnight, the value of GBP skyrocketed for a moment etc. The referendum was supposed to be a tool for the political class to wrestle each other, not a real life changing decision. Turns out if you fuel enough BS you may not be able to control it. The same for this fear mongering about evil people messaging in secret each other. It’s not a real discussion, if someone should lose their privacy its the people in power. Make it illegal having secret messaging for politicians and people rich beyond some point. The danger doesn’t come from some regular people talking about something nasty in secret, the danger comes from billionaires talking secretly with politicians. We should have been able to see the messages that led the pro-brexit billionaire "gifting" Farage 5 million GBP. Of course the secrecy is needed even for the politicians and the super rich but we should be able to "debug" them, we should be able to have a committee or something of that sort that will be able to decrypt and check all their communications when needed.

NoddingPudding 1mo ago
The Farage speech just seemed to be part of a pump and dump on the pound.
- gjm11 1mo ago
  In my more cynical moments I think that was the whole point of Brexit. An awful lot of the big names in the pro-Brexit movement were in one sort of investment-management business or another, and I'd love to see what positions they and their companies held in June 2016.

bluebarbet 1mo ago

This is conspiracism-adjacent, IMO. Plenty of consequential decisions have been put to referendums, if only because the political class may not want to take responsibility for them. And the outcome of a referendum is never certain. The more interesting difference is surely in how the elite responds to unexpected referendum results. Plenty of mainland Europeans assumed that Brexit would somehow be canceled (which was surely the right thing to do on paper). That was never going to happen. British political culture sacralizes majorities. Canceling a referendum "victory" is as anathema as proportional representation, coalition government, or limits on parliamentary sovereignty. This (IMO archaic) understanding of democracy partly explains the Brexit result itself.

tux1968 1mo ago
> British political culture sacralizes majorities. I'm genuinely curious what you would offer as an alternative? Democracy should ignore the majority if it disagrees with the controlling cabal who hold the correct opinions?
- bluebarbet 1mo ago
  Perhaps a misunderstanding. In this case "majority" (or "majoritarianism") really means plurality. British (and US) democracy fetishizes winners, i.e. whoever comes first, whether or not they represent a majority of the electorate. In Britain you get all the power with 30% of the vote. Some might call that undemocratic.
  - Nursie 1mo ago
    As a Brit, I certainly think it’s a problem, because as you say, you can end up with a government with a large majority of seats based on a small proportion of electoral support. I much prefer the ranked choice system here in Australia. I’m sure there are flaws, but you tend to end up with candidates who are more representative of the wishes of the electorate, and you eliminate that “I’d better vote for A in case B gets in” vote-splitting thing.
    - 1mo ago

armchairhacker 1mo ago

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all others that have been tried". If the people aren't capable of handling an issue, who is? Bureaucrats who are...elected democratically? Brexit's issue is that it can't be easily reversed, I don't understand why they don't just hold another referendum and undo everything.

mrkeen 1mo ago
The government is not the people. The process goes something like: A) I get voted in if I give the people what they want B) The people don't want to be spied on C) I increase spying D) ??? E) Profit! I'm still hazy on the details. But the politicians really can't plead ignorance. At least in the US you regularly hear things like "the Senate convened at 11:30pm on Friday night to push through unpopular legislation". They know.
ZenoArrow 1mo ago
> I don't understand why they don't just hold another referendum and undo everything. I see you follow the EU model of democracy; keep putting matters up for a vote until you get the result you want. Despite what you may have been led to believe, there's still a substantial number of British people that reject EU membership, and this goes beyond the "racist" and "economically illiterate" arguments that remainers typically fall back on. I would suggest you do what your predecessors did not and consider the consequences of losing.
teamonkey 1mo ago
Because the UK had a preferential agreement with the EU and a leadership position. It would be impossible to restore that state. Even if there were a UK referendum where a clear majority voted to rejoin the EU as a member state, not at the top table, our return to the EU depends on the EU accepting our application. We burned a lot of bridges on exit that we need to rebuild. And also the favourite party to win in the next election is spearheaded by the very people who orchestrated Brexit. The EU will not be receptive while it seems that a majority of people are still voting for an anti-EU party. The sensible course for rejoining is to work towards Schengen or similar, while acting as a partner state in good faith for a decade or two.

ifwinterco 1mo ago

Yep, for once we had actual direct democracy in this country, they won't make that mistake again