Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Hiberno-Britannic Politics] My Better Brexit Deal Goes To Another School

1858688909194

Posts

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Bogart wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    Which is why they should be ignored and we should Remain. They'll never be happy and Leaving won't make them become reasonable suddenly.

    The whole fiasco is an awfully silly thing to be doing.

    Overturning a democratic referendum result that may have been unbinding but which was agreed to be respected by all the main political parties and which then was pushed through Parliament via a massive majority in favour of triggering Article 50 cannot just be 'ignored', much as doing so would make me happy.

    Thee are a few ways it could be challenged (via the illegality of the Leave campaigns, for instance) and a few ways it could be overturned (a second referendum, electing a government who campaigned on remaining) but no one with any power is currently pursuing any of them.

    Holding a referendum was a stupid idea that provided the wrong, stupid result which was then absolutely ballsed up royally by the worst, most stupid government we've had in fifty years while the stupid opposition did almost nothing to improve things. If any of this has swayed public opinion by fifteen or twenty points in favour of Remain you might have people in actual power pushing for a second referendum, but since people have largely not changed their minds we're ploughing on at full speed into the brick wall.

    People have not changed their minds, but sufficient old racists have died and new young people have become 18 that remain would win any new, fair referendum.

    It is a far more democratic idea to simply ignore the referendum than to act on it.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • Brovid HasselsmofBrovid Hasselsmof [Growling historic on the fury road] Registered User regular
    Thirith wrote: »
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    When someone has voted a certain way because of a belief they hold that something demonstrably impossible will happen, their vote is essentially irrelevant. They don't matter. You could round up every Leave voter and kick them off the island and not actually lose a single valuable member of society. So of what value is their opinion in a referendum?
    As deplorable as I find this whole Brexit shitheap, I find that sort of statement difficult to take. I believe that many, if not most, Brexit voters are ignorant in one way or another - but ignorance does not make you entirely worthless as a valuable member of society, and you had an entire campaign that peddled in feeding that ignorance. I also believe that a fair number of Brexit voters are racists to some extent, but all of them? They don't matter, they don't have any social value whatsoever - that kind of rhetoric is pretty much indistinguishable from the worst examples of those on the other side of the argument.

    One of my friends voted Brexit. We argued like hell about it and got to the point where we couldn't even talk about it any more. He was still my mate. He died a few weeks ago and I can confirm that this country is in fact worse off without him.

  • BogartBogart Because I hate you Registered User, Moderator mod
    tbloxham wrote: »
    People have not changed their minds, but sufficient old racists have died and new young people have become 18 that remain would win any new, fair referendum.

    It is a far more democratic idea to simply ignore the referendum than to act on it.

    I don't really see how that is the case unless you're arguing that polls should replace votes. The polls suggest that a second referendum would see Remain win by a greater margin than Leave won the last one. Whether that would reflect reality I dunno. I hope it would.

    a5ehrenH3KnucklesLord_AsmodeusFencingsaxMartini_Philosopher
  • ThirithThirith Registered User regular
    edited February 11
    Bogart wrote: »
    I dunno, I'm plenty mad at ignorant voters who constantly vote for nonsense on stilts or cheers on con men like Boris Johnson or racists like Farage. I'm more mad at knowing liars and the Tory press for propagating the sort of xenophobic miasma of bad feeling that fuelled Brexit, but I'm still mad at gammon faced scrotes who voted Leave.
    Certainly, me too. I rarely have the opportunity to do so, but if I were to talk to my Leave-voting uncle who decided that the UK was a bit shit these days anyway so he'd emigrate to Turkey, I'm not sure I'd be very pleasant.

    Thirith on
    webp-net-resizeimage.jpg
    "Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    Which is why they should be ignored and we should Remain. They'll never be happy and Leaving won't make them become reasonable suddenly.

    The whole fiasco is an awfully silly thing to be doing.

    When someone has voted a certain way because of a belief they hold that something demonstrably impossible will happen, their vote is essentially irrelevant. They don't matter. You could round up every Leave voter and kick them off the island and not actually lose a single valuable member of society. So of what value is their opinion in a referendum?

    They are the people who are going to be hurt the most by Brexit.

    Look at Sunderland with Nissan reversing their investment plans ( and probably the whole future of the plant there isn't looking too bright either).

    The bad guys are the Conservative Politicians who started this for their own ambition with no regard for consequences, their corrupt wanker banker mates with dubious Russian money (Aaron Banks investigation) and the media machine they employ.

    The victims of the propaganda are not the right target for anger.

    People absolutely have moral responsibility for their votes.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
    shrykeRichyYoutubejmcdonaldAegisZilla360Lord_AsmodeusAistanFencingsaxShadowenStabbity StyleDhalphir
  • surrealitychecksurrealitycheck the search for the means to put an end to things an end to speech is what enables the discourse to continue ~ * ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) excelsior * ~Registered User regular
    edited February 11
    Bogart wrote: »
    I dunno, I'm plenty mad at ignorant voters who constantly vote for nonsense on stilts or cheers on con men like Boris Johnson or racists like Farage. I'm more mad at knowing liars and the Tory press for propagating the sort of xenophobic miasma of bad feeling that fuelled Brexit, but I'm still mad at gammon faced scrotes who voted Leave.

    i am 100% willing to bet that there is a direct correlation between brexit voting and sharing fake news stories on facebook just because of the age relationship and people over 65 being 8x more likely to share stories like that on facebook

    this purely provides me with Smugness, which is a Virtue
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    Which is why they should be ignored and we should Remain. They'll never be happy and Leaving won't make them become reasonable suddenly.

    The whole fiasco is an awfully silly thing to be doing.

    When someone has voted a certain way because of a belief they hold that something demonstrably impossible will happen, their vote is essentially irrelevant. They don't matter. You could round up every Leave voter and kick them off the island and not actually lose a single valuable member of society. So of what value is their opinion in a referendum?

    They are the people who are going to be hurt the most by Brexit.

    Look at Sunderland with Nissan reversing their investment plans ( and probably the whole future of the plant there isn't looking too bright either).

    The bad guys are the Conservative Politicians who started this for their own ambition with no regard for consequences, their corrupt wanker banker mates with dubious Russian money (Aaron Banks investigation) and the media machine they employ.

    The victims of the propaganda are not the right target for anger.

    People absolutely have moral responsibility for their votes.

    this is true, and it is simultaneously the case we can say "well there was misinformation, lying etc and thus Some Were Duped" and "we have to take seriously the idea that democracy requires Responsibility and Self-Education from voters" which is of course the painful doublethink of all democracies but hey we need our fictions plus it lets us flame people which is great for Maximising Smugness

    surrealitycheck on
    obF2Wuw.png
    CroakerBCGnome-InterruptusH3KnucklesMoridin889
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Bogart wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    People have not changed their minds, but sufficient old racists have died and new young people have become 18 that remain would win any new, fair referendum.

    It is a far more democratic idea to simply ignore the referendum than to act on it.

    I don't really see how that is the case unless you're arguing that polls should replace votes. The polls suggest that a second referendum would see Remain win by a greater margin than Leave won the last one. Whether that would reflect reality I dunno. I hope it would.

    My argument is that it is not democratic to bind the future to an irrevocable change without a clear popular mandate which suggests that the change reflects the views of the future rather than anchoring it to the past.

    Brexit without a titanic mandate is inherently undemocratic because democratic actions taken after it cannot undo it.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • ThirithThirith Registered User regular
    Basically the way the referendum went and the way Brexit is being enacted makes it a clear example of wannabe democracy without any of the checks and balances that democracy requires.

    webp-net-resizeimage.jpg
    "Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
    YoutubeH3Knuckles
  • BogartBogart Because I hate you Registered User, Moderator mod
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Bogart wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    People have not changed their minds, but sufficient old racists have died and new young people have become 18 that remain would win any new, fair referendum.

    It is a far more democratic idea to simply ignore the referendum than to act on it.

    I don't really see how that is the case unless you're arguing that polls should replace votes. The polls suggest that a second referendum would see Remain win by a greater margin than Leave won the last one. Whether that would reflect reality I dunno. I hope it would.

    My argument is that it is not democratic to bind the future to an irrevocable change without a clear popular mandate which suggests that the change reflects the views of the future rather than anchoring it to the past.

    Brexit without a titanic mandate is inherently undemocratic because democratic actions taken after it cannot undo it.

    It absolutely can be undone by democratic actions after it. The fact that neither leader of the two main parties wants to have a second referendum doesn't invalidate the first one.

    And this referendum's democratic mandate will be satisfied once we leave the EU. It says nothing about stopping people immediately campaigning to have us rejoin the single market and the customs union, or even the EU. Though no doubt Leavers will demand the issue is now settled 'for a generation'.

    You can absolutely argue that the referendum should have had more conditions on it. Perhaps a margin of victory condition that would have demanded two thirds, or 60% to pass a Leave decision. But there wasn't one, so we are where we are. There is less than two months left till we leave the EU. Arguing that the referendum should be set aside is an absolute non-starter of an idea that no one with any authority is going to get behind.

    I agree the referendum should never have been held. But it was, and we are where we are.

    monikerShadowhopeFencingsaxH3Knuckles
  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    Thirith wrote: »
    Basically the way the referendum went and the way Brexit is being enacted makes it a clear example of wannabe democracy without any of the checks and balances that democracy requires.

    Potemkin democracy. If they had been serious about it being Democratic, they would have at the very least required it to get a majority in each of the four constituent countries. Nobody cared though because it was just supposed to be a political stunt to get the UKIP to shut up for a year or two.

    ThirithYoutubeGnome-InterruptustynicLord_AsmodeusElldrenFencingsaxH3Knuckles
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
  • BogartBogart Because I hate you Registered User, Moderator mod
    Amazing. I've glanced at Twitter on and off during the day and yup, Corbyn supporters are claiming this is all fine and totally in line with the conference vote and anyone saying different is a traitor. Like Trump, he could shoot a stranger in the street and his fan club wouldn't desert him.

    monikerElldrenshrykeH3KnucklesPreacherShadowenStabbity Style
  • JazzJazz UKRegistered User regular
    It's worth seeing Peston's following tweets as well:




    (Robert Peston is ITV's political editor.)

  • kaidkaid Registered User regular
    Corbyn seems to be hoping for the worst possible outcome so he can whiteknight in and pick up the pieces if this really blows up in the Tory's face. I think maybe we need to start calling corbyn little finger.

  • BogartBogart Because I hate you Registered User, Moderator mod
    There's a rule on the forums about not calling politicians by nicknames, so no. "Chaos is a ladder" seems to describe his Brexit strategy to a tee, though.

    KetBramonikerGnome-InterruptusCommander ZoomZilla360Lord_AsmodeusElldrenshrykeFencingsaxH3KnucklesMartini_PhilosopherShadowenForarStabbity StyleSporkAndrew
  • JazzJazz UKRegistered User regular
    His view (of his future tenure as PM, of course) seems to be best summed up as "better to reign in Hell".

    Shadow DemonV1mFencingsaxH3KnucklesShadowenStabbity StyleGvzbgul
  • [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven. - Corbyn, probably.

    Sic transit gloria mundi.
    JazzH3KnucklesShadowen
  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Thirith wrote: »
    Basically the way the referendum went and the way Brexit is being enacted makes it a clear example of wannabe democracy without any of the checks and balances that democracy requires.

    Potemkin democracy. If they had been serious about it being Democratic, they would have at the very least required it to get a majority in each of the four constituent countries. Nobody cared though because it was just supposed to be a political stunt to get the UKIP to shut up for a year or two.

    Giving Wales/Scotland/NI a veto over England (who has more population than the others combined) isn't really "democratic" in any meaningful definition of the word. It's federalist or republican, I guess?

    JusticeforPluto
  • surrealitychecksurrealitycheck the search for the means to put an end to things an end to speech is what enables the discourse to continue ~ * ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) excelsior * ~Registered User regular
    edited February 11
    Bogart wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Bogart wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    People have not changed their minds, but sufficient old racists have died and new young people have become 18 that remain would win any new, fair referendum.

    It is a far more democratic idea to simply ignore the referendum than to act on it.

    I don't really see how that is the case unless you're arguing that polls should replace votes. The polls suggest that a second referendum would see Remain win by a greater margin than Leave won the last one. Whether that would reflect reality I dunno. I hope it would.

    My argument is that it is not democratic to bind the future to an irrevocable change without a clear popular mandate which suggests that the change reflects the views of the future rather than anchoring it to the past.

    Brexit without a titanic mandate is inherently undemocratic because democratic actions taken after it cannot undo it.

    It absolutely can be undone by democratic actions after it. The fact that neither leader of the two main parties wants to have a second referendum doesn't invalidate the first one.

    And this referendum's democratic mandate will be satisfied once we leave the EU. It says nothing about stopping people immediately campaigning to have us rejoin the single market and the customs union, or even the EU. Though no doubt Leavers will demand the issue is now settled 'for a generation'.

    You can absolutely argue that the referendum should have had more conditions on it. Perhaps a margin of victory condition that would have demanded two thirds, or 60% to pass a Leave decision. But there wasn't one, so we are where we are. There is less than two months left till we leave the EU. Arguing that the referendum should be set aside is an absolute non-starter of an idea that no one with any authority is going to get behind.

    I agree the referendum should never have been held. But it was, and we are where we are.

    yes, the fundamental problem is that nobody learns democratic theory oddly

    the idea that straight majoritarian voting is the highest possible form of democracy and everything else is degenerate is a complete misunderstanding; the idea is that you want to represent the views of the population while avoiding the degenerate cases such as majorities voting to oppress minorities, and dealing with the fundamental truth that voters can only be so informed - and there are certain categories of decision you actively want experts or elites to make. the fact that this devolves into a complex series of decisions about how exposed you want each bit of your government to be to popular voting, how you construct those votes and what the electorate should be and so on

    the fact that this detail matters hugely - eg you can't just devolve every parliamentary decision to plebiscite - means that you are ALWAYS negotiating about when and where votes should happen even if you grant that referendums are the REAL DEAL

    so its totally reasonable to be both "pro democracy" and pro the idea a referendum should be held only under different terms - eg with specific legislation to be voted on, or a supermajority requirement, or whatever

    but nobody cares and our political class have conspired to make this as stupid as possible by also refusing to discuss this
    a5ehren wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Thirith wrote: »
    Basically the way the referendum went and the way Brexit is being enacted makes it a clear example of wannabe democracy without any of the checks and balances that democracy requires.

    Potemkin democracy. If they had been serious about it being Democratic, they would have at the very least required it to get a majority in each of the four constituent countries. Nobody cared though because it was just supposed to be a political stunt to get the UKIP to shut up for a year or two.

    Giving Wales/Scotland/NI a veto over England (who has more population than the others combined) isn't really "democratic" in any meaningful definition of the word. It's federalist or republican, I guess?

    its absolutely democratic if you consider regional differences in priorities to be a minority interest worth protecting - eg in australia they need a majority of voting areas to agree to a ref as well as a total majority

    surrealitycheck on
    obF2Wuw.png
    ThirithEddyAegisJazzGnome-InterruptusMrMistertynicCommander ZoomLord_AsmodeusBurnageElldrenShadowhopeAngelHedgieshrykeFencingsaxH3KnucklesjmcdonaldShadowenArdol
  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    a5ehren wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Thirith wrote: »
    Basically the way the referendum went and the way Brexit is being enacted makes it a clear example of wannabe democracy without any of the checks and balances that democracy requires.

    Potemkin democracy. If they had been serious about it being Democratic, they would have at the very least required it to get a majority in each of the four constituent countries. Nobody cared though because it was just supposed to be a political stunt to get the UKIP to shut up for a year or two.

    Giving Wales/Scotland/NI a veto over England (who has more population than the others combined) isn't really "democratic" in any meaningful definition of the word. It's federalist or republican, I guess?

    Given the different level of impact Brexiting would have on the different countries (regions? anyone?) I think not allowing them an outsized say in the matter is worse than adhering to the standard definition of democracy. EU membership was no small part of the Scotland independence referendum back in the day, and Northern Ireland obviously has certain concerns about Brexit that the powers that be in London were either ignorant of or just didn't care about.

    The fact that Ireland via the EU is looking out for at least some of the concerns of the 55% of NI peeps who voted remain is certainly a thing. And the fact that nobody seems to be giving a damn about the 65% of Scotland that voted remain certainly isn't going to help hold the UK together.

    H3Knuckles
  • milskimilski Their Will comes, at last, to Earth, to the Neath, as a storm crosses the sea. Registered User regular
    daveNYC wrote: »
    a5ehren wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Thirith wrote: »
    Basically the way the referendum went and the way Brexit is being enacted makes it a clear example of wannabe democracy without any of the checks and balances that democracy requires.

    Potemkin democracy. If they had been serious about it being Democratic, they would have at the very least required it to get a majority in each of the four constituent countries. Nobody cared though because it was just supposed to be a political stunt to get the UKIP to shut up for a year or two.

    Giving Wales/Scotland/NI a veto over England (who has more population than the others combined) isn't really "democratic" in any meaningful definition of the word. It's federalist or republican, I guess?

    Given the different level of impact Brexiting would have on the different countries (regions? anyone?) I think not allowing them an outsized say in the matter is worse than adhering to the standard definition of democracy. EU membership was no small part of the Scotland independence referendum back in the day, and Northern Ireland obviously has certain concerns about Brexit that the powers that be in London were either ignorant of or just didn't care about.

    The fact that Ireland via the EU is looking out for at least some of the concerns of the 55% of NI peeps who voted remain is certainly a thing. And the fact that nobody seems to be giving a damn about the 65% of Scotland that voted remain certainly isn't going to help hold the UK together.

    "Standard definition of Democracy" feels like giving away too much. There's nothing standard (or unstandard) about a given level of concern for specific minority interests/anti-degenerate voting protections

    High, cold, eternal, immobile, minuscule. You endure; you burn.
    tynicFencingsax
  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    Which is why they should be ignored and we should Remain. They'll never be happy and Leaving won't make them become reasonable suddenly.

    The whole fiasco is an awfully silly thing to be doing.

    When someone has voted a certain way because of a belief they hold that something demonstrably impossible will happen, their vote is essentially irrelevant. They don't matter. You could round up every Leave voter and kick them off the island and not actually lose a single valuable member of society. So of what value is their opinion in a referendum?

    They are the people who are going to be hurt the most by Brexit.

    Look at Sunderland with Nissan reversing their investment plans ( and probably the whole future of the plant there isn't looking too bright either).

    The bad guys are the Conservative Politicians who started this for their own ambition with no regard for consequences, their corrupt wanker banker mates with dubious Russian money (Aaron Banks investigation) and the media machine they employ.

    The victims of the propaganda are not the right target for anger.

    People absolutely have moral responsibility for their votes.

    Nah.

    There are people out there that are so easily fleeced that an angry person on the end of a telephone or an email full of spelling errors will get them to do anything.
    And there's enough of them that scam artists have not needed to lift their game at least as long as I've been alive.

    If someone is so easily led, how can they have moral responsibility for the actions driven by the lies of others?

    You could say they should think more critically, but I don't know whether that failing would be placed on the shoulders of the education system, or may just be as impossible as demanding the sky turn crimson.

    In any case, I think getting mad at people for those people being led is generally counterproductive, as those people are unlikely to understand why you're angry at them, and will simply disassociate with you.
    Better to be mad at the people who pushed the lie into their heads.

    Steam Community page: http://steamcommunity.com/id/discrider/
    Oh hey! A knife!
  • SharpyVIISharpyVII Registered User regular
    Could businesses hold the key into forcing the government to stop a no deal Brexit?



    I doubt the government will actually listen, this is just another group of businesses that they'll ignore.

    Youtube
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    Trade benefits the system
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Thirith wrote: »
    Basically the way the referendum went and the way Brexit is being enacted makes it a clear example of wannabe democracy without any of the checks and balances that democracy requires.

    Potemkin democracy. If they had been serious about it being Democratic, they would have at the very least required it to get a majority in each of the four constituent countries. Nobody cared though because it was just supposed to be a political stunt to get the UKIP to shut up for a year or two.

    If there was another referendum that followed those rules and everywhere but Wales voted Remain and thus the original wasn't overturned you probably wouldn't feel that way.

    The issue was direct democracy is a garbage way to govern.

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    I don't have a lot of time for the idea that people just didn't know and were fooled, poor victims that they are

    The rest of us fucking knew, and it's not like we were born with the information injected in our brains. What's their excuse?

    Shadow DemonaltidElldrenLord_AsmodeusFencingsaxjmcdonaldJazzShadowenYoutubeMoridin889
  • H3KnucklesH3Knuckles Jack of all interests... ...master of noneRegistered User regular
    edited February 11
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    PLA wrote: »
    Why would Corbyn want to endanger brexit?

    I can only hope, that on a warm early summer night in 400 years, small children will go around for a collection to burn him in effigy

    kiloquid for the jezza?

    Remember Remember the 29th of march doesn't have the same ring.

    But IIRC the parliament vote to approve invocation of article 50 for March 2019 (isn't that the one Corbyn three-line whipped in support of?) was on the 7th of December (2016), which does rhyme, and is already a day which will live in infamy.

    H3Knuckles on
    If you're curious about my icon; it's an update of the early Lego Castle theme's "Black Falcons" faction.
    camo_sig2-400.png
    Fencingsax
  • ThirithThirith Registered User regular
    edited February 11
    PantsB wrote: »
    The issue was direct democracy is a garbage way to govern.
    Switzerland seems to be doing pretty well with it. Seriously, saying that direct democracy is the problem here is the same as listening to a six-year-old playing the violin for the first time and deciding that string instruments are a garbage way to make music. The problem here wasn't direct democracy so much as it was a stab at direct democracy enacted by a country/political system that had zero experience with it and that by and large didn't attempt it in good faith.

    Which isn't to say that direct democracy is perfect and flawless and y'all simply got it wrong. But taking Brexit as an indictment of direct (or at least more direct) democracy is facile IMO.

    Thirith on
    webp-net-resizeimage.jpg
    "Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
    Sleep
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    .
    Thirith wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    The issue was direct democracy is a garbage way to govern.
    Switzerland seems to be doing pretty well with it. Seriously, saying that direct democracy is the problem here is the same as listening to a six-year-old playing the violin for the first time and deciding that string instruments are a garbage way to make music. The problem here wasn't direct democracy so much as it was a stab at direct democracy enacted by a country/political system that had zero experience with it and that by and large didn't attempt it in good faith.

    Which isn't to say that direct democracy is perfect and flawless and y'all simply got it wrong. But taking Brexit as an indictment of direct (or at least more direct) democracy is utterly facile.

    Switzerland doesn't have direct democracy, they have a democratic republic with some direct democratic referendums. There were all of 12 in 120 years until very recently, where there's been 10 in the last 20 years and those have tended to be xenophobic and fairly harmful/hateful (such are minaret ban, and immigration ban).

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
    tynicshrykeElldrenmonikerAegisAldoJusticeforPlutoFencingsaxCommander ZoomHerrCronGnome-InterruptusPreacher[Expletive deleted]ShadowenNiryaPLALordSolarMachariusLoisLane
  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    discrider wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    Which is why they should be ignored and we should Remain. They'll never be happy and Leaving won't make them become reasonable suddenly.

    The whole fiasco is an awfully silly thing to be doing.

    When someone has voted a certain way because of a belief they hold that something demonstrably impossible will happen, their vote is essentially irrelevant. They don't matter. You could round up every Leave voter and kick them off the island and not actually lose a single valuable member of society. So of what value is their opinion in a referendum?

    They are the people who are going to be hurt the most by Brexit.

    Look at Sunderland with Nissan reversing their investment plans ( and probably the whole future of the plant there isn't looking too bright either).

    The bad guys are the Conservative Politicians who started this for their own ambition with no regard for consequences, their corrupt wanker banker mates with dubious Russian money (Aaron Banks investigation) and the media machine they employ.

    The victims of the propaganda are not the right target for anger.

    People absolutely have moral responsibility for their votes.

    Nah.

    There are people out there that are so easily fleeced that an angry person on the end of a telephone or an email full of spelling errors will get them to do anything.
    And there's enough of them that scam artists have not needed to lift their game at least as long as I've been alive.

    If someone is so easily led, how can they have moral responsibility for the actions driven by the lies of others?

    You could say they should think more critically, but I don't know whether that failing would be placed on the shoulders of the education system, or may just be as impossible as demanding the sky turn crimson.

    In any case, I think getting mad at people for those people being led is generally counterproductive, as those people are unlikely to understand why you're angry at them, and will simply disassociate with you.
    Better to be mad at the people who pushed the lie into their heads.

    Bosh. To say that they can't be responsible for their vote is to say that they shouldn't have it.

    RichyShadow DemonshrykejmcdonaldYoutubeLoisLane
  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    V1m wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    Which is why they should be ignored and we should Remain. They'll never be happy and Leaving won't make them become reasonable suddenly.

    The whole fiasco is an awfully silly thing to be doing.

    When someone has voted a certain way because of a belief they hold that something demonstrably impossible will happen, their vote is essentially irrelevant. They don't matter. You could round up every Leave voter and kick them off the island and not actually lose a single valuable member of society. So of what value is their opinion in a referendum?

    They are the people who are going to be hurt the most by Brexit.

    Look at Sunderland with Nissan reversing their investment plans ( and probably the whole future of the plant there isn't looking too bright either).

    The bad guys are the Conservative Politicians who started this for their own ambition with no regard for consequences, their corrupt wanker banker mates with dubious Russian money (Aaron Banks investigation) and the media machine they employ.

    The victims of the propaganda are not the right target for anger.

    People absolutely have moral responsibility for their votes.

    Nah.

    There are people out there that are so easily fleeced that an angry person on the end of a telephone or an email full of spelling errors will get them to do anything.
    And there's enough of them that scam artists have not needed to lift their game at least as long as I've been alive.

    If someone is so easily led, how can they have moral responsibility for the actions driven by the lies of others?

    You could say they should think more critically, but I don't know whether that failing would be placed on the shoulders of the education system, or may just be as impossible as demanding the sky turn crimson.

    In any case, I think getting mad at people for those people being led is generally counterproductive, as those people are unlikely to understand why you're angry at them, and will simply disassociate with you.
    Better to be mad at the people who pushed the lie into their heads.

    Bosh. To say that they can't be responsible for their vote is to say that they shouldn't have it.

    I mean maybe?
    If you can be bought by bus ads, what are you adding to the vote?

    Steam Community page: http://steamcommunity.com/id/discrider/
    Oh hey! A knife!
  • HerrCronHerrCron It that wickedly supports taxation Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    .
    Thirith wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    The issue was direct democracy is a garbage way to govern.
    Switzerland seems to be doing pretty well with it. Seriously, saying that direct democracy is the problem here is the same as listening to a six-year-old playing the violin for the first time and deciding that string instruments are a garbage way to make music. The problem here wasn't direct democracy so much as it was a stab at direct democracy enacted by a country/political system that had zero experience with it and that by and large didn't attempt it in good faith.

    Which isn't to say that direct democracy is perfect and flawless and y'all simply got it wrong. But taking Brexit as an indictment of direct (or at least more direct) democracy is utterly facile.

    Switzerland doesn't have direct democracy, they have a democratic republic with some direct democratic referendums. There were all of 12 in 120 years until very recently, where there's been 10 in the last 20 years and those have tended to be xenophobic and fairly harmful/hateful (such are minaret ban, and immigration ban).

    And that immigration ban is one where the Swiss government decided "No, this is stupid, you're all stupid" and really watered it down, and last I paid attention they are looking to pass legislation that would either reverse the result of that, or basically make future referendums of the same kind impossible.
    So, it's not like the Swiss are doing super well on that front.

    sig.gif
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    discrider wrote: »
    V1m wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    Which is why they should be ignored and we should Remain. They'll never be happy and Leaving won't make them become reasonable suddenly.

    The whole fiasco is an awfully silly thing to be doing.

    When someone has voted a certain way because of a belief they hold that something demonstrably impossible will happen, their vote is essentially irrelevant. They don't matter. You could round up every Leave voter and kick them off the island and not actually lose a single valuable member of society. So of what value is their opinion in a referendum?

    They are the people who are going to be hurt the most by Brexit.

    Look at Sunderland with Nissan reversing their investment plans ( and probably the whole future of the plant there isn't looking too bright either).

    The bad guys are the Conservative Politicians who started this for their own ambition with no regard for consequences, their corrupt wanker banker mates with dubious Russian money (Aaron Banks investigation) and the media machine they employ.

    The victims of the propaganda are not the right target for anger.

    People absolutely have moral responsibility for their votes.

    Nah.

    There are people out there that are so easily fleeced that an angry person on the end of a telephone or an email full of spelling errors will get them to do anything.
    And there's enough of them that scam artists have not needed to lift their game at least as long as I've been alive.

    If someone is so easily led, how can they have moral responsibility for the actions driven by the lies of others?

    You could say they should think more critically, but I don't know whether that failing would be placed on the shoulders of the education system, or may just be as impossible as demanding the sky turn crimson.

    In any case, I think getting mad at people for those people being led is generally counterproductive, as those people are unlikely to understand why you're angry at them, and will simply disassociate with you.
    Better to be mad at the people who pushed the lie into their heads.

    Bosh. To say that they can't be responsible for their vote is to say that they shouldn't have it.

    I mean maybe?
    If you can be bought by bus ads, what are you adding to the vote?

    The purpose of Democracy is to arrive at the most broadly legitimate choice, not the correct one.

    This is also why referendums that will have unfathomably significant impact on the lives and livelihoods of a Nation either shouldn't happen or should require a supermajority rather than 50+1%.

    Gnome-InterruptusRhesus PositivediscriderMartini_PhilosopherFencingsaxShadowenJansonH3KnucklesArdolV1mGvzbgul
  • surrealitychecksurrealitycheck the search for the means to put an end to things an end to speech is what enables the discourse to continue ~ * ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) excelsior * ~Registered User regular
    hearing rumours of a may election (curse the pms surname)?

    but also hearing rumours of her possibly going for no deal

    nobody has a fucking clue

    obF2Wuw.png
    shrykeSolarElldren
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    V1m wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    Which is why they should be ignored and we should Remain. They'll never be happy and Leaving won't make them become reasonable suddenly.

    The whole fiasco is an awfully silly thing to be doing.

    When someone has voted a certain way because of a belief they hold that something demonstrably impossible will happen, their vote is essentially irrelevant. They don't matter. You could round up every Leave voter and kick them off the island and not actually lose a single valuable member of society. So of what value is their opinion in a referendum?

    They are the people who are going to be hurt the most by Brexit.

    Look at Sunderland with Nissan reversing their investment plans ( and probably the whole future of the plant there isn't looking too bright either).

    The bad guys are the Conservative Politicians who started this for their own ambition with no regard for consequences, their corrupt wanker banker mates with dubious Russian money (Aaron Banks investigation) and the media machine they employ.

    The victims of the propaganda are not the right target for anger.

    People absolutely have moral responsibility for their votes.

    Nah.

    There are people out there that are so easily fleeced that an angry person on the end of a telephone or an email full of spelling errors will get them to do anything.
    And there's enough of them that scam artists have not needed to lift their game at least as long as I've been alive.

    If someone is so easily led, how can they have moral responsibility for the actions driven by the lies of others?

    You could say they should think more critically, but I don't know whether that failing would be placed on the shoulders of the education system, or may just be as impossible as demanding the sky turn crimson.

    In any case, I think getting mad at people for those people being led is generally counterproductive, as those people are unlikely to understand why you're angry at them, and will simply disassociate with you.
    Better to be mad at the people who pushed the lie into their heads.

    Bosh. To say that they can't be responsible for their vote is to say that they shouldn't have it.

    I mean maybe?
    If you can be bought by bus ads, what are you adding to the vote?

    The purpose of Democracy is to arrive at the most broadly legitimate choice, not the correct one.

    This is also why referendums that will have unfathomably significant impact on the lives and livelihoods of a Nation either shouldn't happen or should require a supermajority rather than 50+1%.

    That's the crazy part. It's literally 50%+1 of the UK deciding to strip the EU citizenship from 50%-1. It's like the exact textbook reason we don't just run everything by a majority vote.

    Martini_PhilosopheraltidJazzFencingsaxBurnageAistanElldrenStabbity StyleCaptain InertiascherbchenCommander ZoommrondeauH3KnucklesQanamilAridholRozMoridin889
  • [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    hearing rumours of a may election (curse the pms surname)?

    but also hearing rumours of her possibly going for no deal

    nobody has a fucking clue

    I mean, we are talking about Brexit here, so…

    Sic transit gloria mundi.
    Youtube
  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    V1m wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    Which is why they should be ignored and we should Remain. They'll never be happy and Leaving won't make them become reasonable suddenly.

    The whole fiasco is an awfully silly thing to be doing.

    When someone has voted a certain way because of a belief they hold that something demonstrably impossible will happen, their vote is essentially irrelevant. They don't matter. You could round up every Leave voter and kick them off the island and not actually lose a single valuable member of society. So of what value is their opinion in a referendum?

    They are the people who are going to be hurt the most by Brexit.

    Look at Sunderland with Nissan reversing their investment plans ( and probably the whole future of the plant there isn't looking too bright either).

    The bad guys are the Conservative Politicians who started this for their own ambition with no regard for consequences, their corrupt wanker banker mates with dubious Russian money (Aaron Banks investigation) and the media machine they employ.

    The victims of the propaganda are not the right target for anger.

    People absolutely have moral responsibility for their votes.

    Nah.

    There are people out there that are so easily fleeced that an angry person on the end of a telephone or an email full of spelling errors will get them to do anything.
    And there's enough of them that scam artists have not needed to lift their game at least as long as I've been alive.

    If someone is so easily led, how can they have moral responsibility for the actions driven by the lies of others?

    You could say they should think more critically, but I don't know whether that failing would be placed on the shoulders of the education system, or may just be as impossible as demanding the sky turn crimson.

    In any case, I think getting mad at people for those people being led is generally counterproductive, as those people are unlikely to understand why you're angry at them, and will simply disassociate with you.
    Better to be mad at the people who pushed the lie into their heads.

    Bosh. To say that they can't be responsible for their vote is to say that they shouldn't have it.

    I mean maybe?
    If you can be bought by bus ads, what are you adding to the vote?

    The purpose of Democracy is to arrive at the most broadly legitimate choice, not the correct one.

    This is also why referendums that will have unfathomably significant impact on the lives and livelihoods of a Nation either shouldn't happen or should require a supermajority rather than 50+1%.

    Well..
    If you could get accessible learning materials to the entire populace, and preface the vote with 'Multiple Choice; 10 Basic facts about Brexit. Answer 5/10 correct or your vote is void', then you could get perhaps a more correct vote.

    And then I would be more happy with getting angry at people who submitted a valid yet self-destructive vote.

    Steam Community page: http://steamcommunity.com/id/discrider/
    Oh hey! A knife!
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    discrider wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    V1m wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    Which is why they should be ignored and we should Remain. They'll never be happy and Leaving won't make them become reasonable suddenly.

    The whole fiasco is an awfully silly thing to be doing.

    When someone has voted a certain way because of a belief they hold that something demonstrably impossible will happen, their vote is essentially irrelevant. They don't matter. You could round up every Leave voter and kick them off the island and not actually lose a single valuable member of society. So of what value is their opinion in a referendum?

    They are the people who are going to be hurt the most by Brexit.

    Look at Sunderland with Nissan reversing their investment plans ( and probably the whole future of the plant there isn't looking too bright either).

    The bad guys are the Conservative Politicians who started this for their own ambition with no regard for consequences, their corrupt wanker banker mates with dubious Russian money (Aaron Banks investigation) and the media machine they employ.

    The victims of the propaganda are not the right target for anger.

    People absolutely have moral responsibility for their votes.

    Nah.

    There are people out there that are so easily fleeced that an angry person on the end of a telephone or an email full of spelling errors will get them to do anything.
    And there's enough of them that scam artists have not needed to lift their game at least as long as I've been alive.

    If someone is so easily led, how can they have moral responsibility for the actions driven by the lies of others?

    You could say they should think more critically, but I don't know whether that failing would be placed on the shoulders of the education system, or may just be as impossible as demanding the sky turn crimson.

    In any case, I think getting mad at people for those people being led is generally counterproductive, as those people are unlikely to understand why you're angry at them, and will simply disassociate with you.
    Better to be mad at the people who pushed the lie into their heads.

    Bosh. To say that they can't be responsible for their vote is to say that they shouldn't have it.

    I mean maybe?
    If you can be bought by bus ads, what are you adding to the vote?

    The purpose of Democracy is to arrive at the most broadly legitimate choice, not the correct one.

    This is also why referendums that will have unfathomably significant impact on the lives and livelihoods of a Nation either shouldn't happen or should require a supermajority rather than 50+1%.

    Well..
    If you could get accessible learning materials to the entire populace, and preface the vote with 'Multiple Choice; 10 Basic facts about Brexit. Answer 5/10 correct or your vote is void', then you could get perhaps a more correct vote.

    And then I would be more happy with getting angry at people who submitted a valid yet self-destructive vote.

    And now I'd like to talk to you about literacy "tests".

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
    monikerFencingsaxmilskitynicjmcdonaldCommander ZoomKayne Red RobeKetBraDescendant XH3KnucklesCasualLoisLaneAridholGvzbgulMoridin889
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    Nothing that happened in the Commons would surprise me now

    The only thing that I am certain of is that in any given situation things will become more chaotic and less under any kind of direction or control, as that seems to be the overwhelming movement

    I have to say I know the Tories are very much "back up your own" as a Party and I know that May is unbelievably stubborn

    But surely they cannot be looking at the government and thinking "oh yeah this works"

    Like you'd have to be deluded. You'd have to live in another universe. I can't imagine that May, ostensibly a person with a degree of mental capability and political experience, thinks "yeah it's going well" like

    How can they pretend that this is okay? Or normal? Remotely either?

  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    edited February 11
    Polaritie wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    V1m wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    Which is why they should be ignored and we should Remain. They'll never be happy and Leaving won't make them become reasonable suddenly.

    The whole fiasco is an awfully silly thing to be doing.

    When someone has voted a certain way because of a belief they hold that something demonstrably impossible will happen, their vote is essentially irrelevant. They don't matter. You could round up every Leave voter and kick them off the island and not actually lose a single valuable member of society. So of what value is their opinion in a referendum?

    They are the people who are going to be hurt the most by Brexit.

    Look at Sunderland with Nissan reversing their investment plans ( and probably the whole future of the plant there isn't looking too bright either).

    The bad guys are the Conservative Politicians who started this for their own ambition with no regard for consequences, their corrupt wanker banker mates with dubious Russian money (Aaron Banks investigation) and the media machine they employ.

    The victims of the propaganda are not the right target for anger.

    People absolutely have moral responsibility for their votes.

    Nah.

    There are people out there that are so easily fleeced that an angry person on the end of a telephone or an email full of spelling errors will get them to do anything.
    And there's enough of them that scam artists have not needed to lift their game at least as long as I've been alive.

    If someone is so easily led, how can they have moral responsibility for the actions driven by the lies of others?

    You could say they should think more critically, but I don't know whether that failing would be placed on the shoulders of the education system, or may just be as impossible as demanding the sky turn crimson.

    In any case, I think getting mad at people for those people being led is generally counterproductive, as those people are unlikely to understand why you're angry at them, and will simply disassociate with you.
    Better to be mad at the people who pushed the lie into their heads.

    Bosh. To say that they can't be responsible for their vote is to say that they shouldn't have it.

    I mean maybe?
    If you can be bought by bus ads, what are you adding to the vote?

    The purpose of Democracy is to arrive at the most broadly legitimate choice, not the correct one.

    This is also why referendums that will have unfathomably significant impact on the lives and livelihoods of a Nation either shouldn't happen or should require a supermajority rather than 50+1%.

    Well..
    If you could get accessible learning materials to the entire populace, and preface the vote with 'Multiple Choice; 10 Basic facts about Brexit. Answer 5/10 correct or your vote is void', then you could get perhaps a more correct vote.

    And then I would be more happy with getting angry at people who submitted a valid yet self-destructive vote.

    And now I'd like to talk to you about literacy "tests".

    Accessible!
    But yeah, the test would need to be accessible also.

    discrider on
    Steam Community page: http://steamcommunity.com/id/discrider/
    Oh hey! A knife!
  • BurnageBurnage Registered User regular
    Solar wrote: »
    Nothing that happened in the Commons would surprise me now

    The only thing that I am certain of is that in any given situation things will become more chaotic and less under any kind of direction or control, as that seems to be the overwhelming movement

    I have to say I know the Tories are very much "back up your own" as a Party and I know that May is unbelievably stubborn

    But surely they cannot be looking at the government and thinking "oh yeah this works"

    Like you'd have to be deluded. You'd have to live in another universe. I can't imagine that May, ostensibly a person with a degree of mental capability and political experience, thinks "yeah it's going well" like

    How can they pretend that this is okay? Or normal? Remotely either?

    It's amazing what people will be willing to put up with if they think the alternative might be even worse.

Sign In or Register to comment.