SubJeff on 16/1/2019 at 22:44
Quote Posted by Medlar
The problem of a second referendum of course; where does it end? The best of 3 or 5. Democracy demands good losers.
Not this again.
We have general elections again and again.
The thing with democracy is you're allowed to reassess and vote on new info.
heywood on 16/1/2019 at 23:08
@demagogue - You're making an argument for authoritarianism.
I think Brexit is exactly the sort of thing that's appropriate for a national referendum.
They weren't voting on the technicalities of policy making, they were voting on what general direction the country should follow. On one hand, they could choose to remain a member state of a increasingly federal system that was slowly heading towards a United States of Europe. Or they could choose to break off and be independent from Europe. There are some basic tradeoffs for people to consider involving economic stability and prosperity, autonomy in policy making, freedom of movement, multiculturalism, etc. It was a simple question of where do we want to go as a country that doesn't require a legislative background to answer.
Once that direction is decided, then it is up to bureaucrats to figure out the details of how to make it happen. The reason why they can't square the circle after months of work is because they are trying to square a circle! It's sort of a Brexit and sort of not a Brexit. May's government has been trying to pursue a middle of the road solution that least offends all the interested parties, and finding that balance point is hard. Besides, Brexit is a big fundamental change of direction and I think it's unreasonable to expect the details to be worked out in short order. There's been too much brinksmanship and posturing and use of unnecessary deadlines as a negotiating tactic.
caffeinatedzombeh on 16/1/2019 at 23:24
The issue they're having is that they don't actually want to leave, they just want to be able to do the things that being a member prevents them from doing.
On May's side of things it's stuff like compulsory membership of the ECHR, illegal mass surveillance of everyone all the time etc. and for Corbyn it's mass nationalisation of everything in sight without paying anyone for any of it.
What ought to have been the subject of a referendum were all the treaties signed to get us to this point. Saying "well it's all very complicated you wouldn't understand" instead of taking the many opportunities to explain in detail what the planned direction of the EEC/EU was, why that was good for the UK and why the UK being a member was good for the EU is precisely why we are where we are.
Pyrian on 16/1/2019 at 23:24
I don't agree with any Heywood's post - Brexit isn't a "general direction" (it's a specific mandate) and isn't a particularly good candidate for a referendum either way. But that's kind of besides the point. What I really want to say is that conflating representative government with authoritarianism to tar your opposition is a particularly low and galling argument to make, especially in this context.
heywood on 16/1/2019 at 23:35
When a government decides to ignore the will of the majority of the population on a major issue because they don't think the population is fit to decide, that's authoritarianism.
demagogue's suggestion that the Constitution can be ignored when the democratic process produces the "wrong" answer, that's authoritarianism.
TBH, I find his (oft stated) views on setting aside the will of the people in favor of rule by technocrats to be abhorrent.
Edit: I think demagogue and I are probably pretty close to each other's positions when it comes to actual policy, but I think I have a very different view of the nature of government. The primary role of government is to collectivize decision making, not to rule for the benefit of society. I believe very strongly that people have an innate right to self determination and self government. These are two of the most basic and most important freedoms, and way more important than clean streets or economic prosperity. Of course, everybody wants clean streets and economic prosperity, but the ends don't justify the means. A well intentioned, benevolent dictator is still a dictator.
I also disagree that people are too ignorant to be part of the decision making process. Perhaps some are, but their vote still counts as much as mine or yours (as it should), and it's our fault if we can't make our case.
demagogue on 17/1/2019 at 01:51
Huh? 99.9% of democracy is representative decision-making. I didn't say decision by technocrats. I said decision by duly elected representatives of the people. That's how we do democracy in the US & UK. Yes their vote counts ... for their representative. People don't literally vote on bills on the floor of the parliament. My point was this kind of policy should have been decided like almost every other policy the government deals with, in parliament. So when they figure out by deliberation it can't be done that's the answer. It's also still perfectly democratic & respecting of the will of the people.
Edit: It's also not controversial that many issues are decided by technocrats in ministries, things like food or drug safety, interest rates, etc, etc. People that think that's still authoritarian are the kind of people that think taxation is slavery and money and the military should be privatized; you'd be joining a fringe opinion if that's the point you want to make. The catch here is Brexit is mixing exactly issues like food safety (that are better fit for experts in relevant ministries) and constitutional issues like being bound to ECJ decisions (that are better fit for political decision-making). The case I was making is that leaving it to parliament is the best way to thread the needle here, all things considered. I don't think it should be decided by referendum (I think it'd be wrong for the same reason I think leaving food safety up to referenda is wrong), but I don't think it should be decided by the the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (technocrats) either since it's still a political decision that requires democratic legitimacy.
Edit2: Also I didn't mean to suggest the referendum should just be ignored or overruled by fiat. I believe I said somewhere (and in any event meant in what I did say) that there should of course be a second referendum to get you back to the status quo of "this is the kind of thing only parliament should be dealing with". That's what the +1 -1 = 0 meant. I thought, just on advocacy grounds, it'd be better to frame another referendum as a "zeroing" referendum (handing it permanently back to parliament) rather than a "second" one, to give some response to Medlar's legit point (if 2 why not 3, 4, 5...?).* The decision can and should still be decided democratically, just via elected representatives.
* For the record of course, in a point you see a lot, the Brexit vote was the 2nd referendum. If you only wanted one referendum on it, that happened in 1975 with the ECC accession, and there's a case that the changed circumstances (ECC->EU, etc) doesn't really justify handing it back to a referendum in 2016. (Or if did, the "changed circumstances" from 2016 to 2019 is even bigger than that and justifies another one even more so.) But "not having a 2nd take" after 1975 is part of the "zeroing" argument too. Yes, why have more than one? (My thinking is still Parliament should still have the power to make a decision on it though. I just don't think it's fit for a referendum, just a part of the reason being Medlar's own reasoning.)
Starker on 17/1/2019 at 09:53
One thing to consider is that this was a vote made based on a massive campaign of disinformation. Inventing EU myths has been something of a sport for the British press, and not just tabloids either, which the Leave campaign capitalised on. This left a lot of the voters with a very untrue picture of the issues based on decades of fantasies, like how somehow sovereignty was at stake or how Turkey was somehow going to join the EU and overflow the UK with hordes of brown people.
As a result, there was (and is) a lot of misunderstanding what the EU actually is. Essentially, it's a union of sovereign nations, and it can never be more than that, or it will cease to be the EU. By design, it has no power other than what has been given to it in the treaties, and the vast majority of this power is aimed at making the single market work. Furthermore, the UK was never some powerless victim who had to cater to the EU. As one of the big three EU nations, it had extraordinary power to make and shape EU policy and to negotiate exemptions from basically anything they didn't like. The UK had opt-outs from the eurozone and the Schengen area, for example. Of course, if you belong to an international organisation, naturally you're going to have some obligations in exchange to being able to have your say and there are things that are fundamental to the EU, like the four freedoms*, but in most areas, the UK had the power to veto anything and everything (and it did do that a lot).
* the four freedoms are also misunderstood a lot. For example, the freedom of movement doesn't mean you can just about live in any country. To stay anywhere for more than three months, you need to have a good reason for it (studying, working) or have a steady source of income and full healthcare coverage from your host country (which is how British pensioners have been able to live in Spain).
caffeinatedzombeh on 17/1/2019 at 18:58
Quote Posted by demagogue
Edit2: Also I didn't mean to suggest the referendum should just be ignored or overruled by fiat. I believe I said somewhere (and in any event meant in what I did say) that there should of course be a second referendum to get you back to the status quo of "this is the kind of thing only parliament should be dealing with". That's what the +1 -1 = 0 meant. I thought, just on advocacy grounds, it'd be better to frame another referendum as a "zeroing" referendum (handing it permanently back to parliament) rather than a "second" one, to give some response to Medlar's legit point (if 2 why not 3, 4, 5...?).* The decision can and should still be decided democratically, just via elected representatives.
These are the elected representatives who voted to have the referendum in the first place, stood for reelection (in the vast majority) on a manifesto of enacting the result, voted to do that, and then voted against having another referendum on it?
jay pettitt on 17/1/2019 at 21:59
Quote Posted by Medlar
The problem of a second referendum of course; where does it end? The best of 3 or 5
Article 50 is time constrained.
Renzatic on 17/1/2019 at 22:45
Holy fuck, it's Jay Pettittitt!