The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums: Politics:
UK Elections & Politics

Voting

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2 3 4 ...6 7 8 · >>
Leon On June 21, 2020




San Diego, California
#16New Post! Mar 02, 2019 @ 03:40:52
@bob_the_fisherman Said

I think the UK system is a bit different to the US. The UK (and Australia) very rarely hold referenda, and it is not simply a matter of getting a number of signatures. I really can't be bothered looking at it more thoroughly, but a referendum is almost a matter of consent by the people through prolonged pressure - the UK has only had 2 -3 of them in total.

Lets use a different example than yours.

In Australia in 1967 we held a referendum to give Aboriginal people voting rights. By the time it was done it was already a foregone conclusion due to consistent long running pressure, and got a yes vote.

Now, if the Australian government had then started adding on other things like making Aboriginal people kings with absolute power over whitey, then started handing them billions of dollars and millions of acres of land, then said, let's revote and people voted no, is that legitimate?

It's not the role of government to punish wrongvote and force people to get it right by tearing everything down. It seems like a really dangerous precedent to set to me.

The government should hand negotiations to people who are qualified and pro Brexit.


Okay yeah your referendum system is a lot different. Thanks. So in your system, how many years should pass before it’s okay, democratically-speaking, in your mind, to have an reversal referendum on something?
nooneinparticular On August 05, 2020




, Hawaii
#17New Post! Mar 02, 2019 @ 03:41:28
@bob_the_fisherman Said

I was using a hypothetical scenario. Australia did not say now that Aborignals can vote they're now our kings. What I am saying is, if we held a referendum to give Aboriginal people the vote, then our government (who, for the sake of this hypothetical opposed allowing them to vote), started drafting legislation to make Aboriginals kings and give them all the homes, farmland etc, and then told people to revote on that referendum, is that legitimate? Of course not.

The government can't reasonably sabotage a vote because they don't like it and then ask people to vote again on whether they get the sabotaged version that is terrible, or, get to remain in a system they voted out of. There is no sense in which that is legitimate.


Then vote them out. If it's the will of the people that it's unfair then they go, if it's not then they don't. It's that simple. Any other argument is merely a means to impose a minority opinion on the majority of people, no matter the pros or cons of the situation.
bob_the_fisherman On August 01, 2020
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#18New Post! Mar 02, 2019 @ 03:44:44
@Leon Said

Okay yeah your referendum system is a lot different. Thanks. So how many years of should pass before it’s okay, democratically-speaking, in your mind, to have an reversal referendum on something?


Hmm, I said I was outsky for the day but I'll answer this.

I suppose it comes down to intent. So, let's assume that the government was not actively trying to destroy the Brexit deal. Once Brexit was done, and the wrinkles had been ironed out, and if people kept saying they wanted back in the EU, and especially if people who supported Brexit were saying they wanted back in, it would be appropriate then (which is probably going to be in the 5 -10 year range).

Otherwise, never. You don't reward anti democratic practices by your leaders and expect it not to bite you.
bob_the_fisherman On August 01, 2020
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#19New Post! Mar 02, 2019 @ 03:46:03
@nooneinparticular Said

Then vote them out. If it's the will of the people that it's unfair then they go, if it's not then they don't. It's that simple. Any other argument is merely a means to impose a minority opinion on the majority of people, no matter the pros or cons of the situation.


The problem the UK has is that neither party wanted Brexit. Voting them out means you get another anti Brexit party (unless the most unlikely thing happens and a third party like UKIP wins). If Nigel Farage wasn't such a muppet he could side with Tommy Robinson and Batten and they could possibly make a serious dent in the establishment, which would be better than awesome.
nooneinparticular On August 05, 2020




, Hawaii
#20New Post! Mar 02, 2019 @ 03:51:25
@bob_the_fisherman Said

Hmm, I said I was outsky for the day but I'll answer this.

I suppose it comes down to intent. So, let's assume that the government was not actively trying to destroy the Brexit deal. Once Brexit was done, and the wrinkles had been ironed out, and if people kept saying they wanted back in the EU, and especially if people who supported Brexit were saying they wanted back in, it would be appropriate then (which is probably going to be in the 5 -10 year range).

Otherwise, never. You don't reward anti democratic practices by your leaders and expect it not to bite you.


Which is totally and completely arbitrary.
bob_the_fisherman On August 01, 2020
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#21New Post! Mar 02, 2019 @ 03:54:41
@nooneinparticular Said

Which is totally and completely arbitrary.


Not really. It is based on the premise that the will of the people was done (Brexit was enacted in the best way that a good faith negotiation could achieve), but then the people realised that Brexit was not so good after all.

Anyway that's it. My head hurts

I'll be back
nooneinparticular On August 05, 2020




, Hawaii
#22New Post! Mar 02, 2019 @ 04:02:50
@bob_the_fisherman Said

The problem the UK has is that neither party wanted Brexit. Voting them out means you get another anti Brexit party (unless the most unlikely thing happens and a third party like UKIP wins). If Nigel Farage wasn't such a muppet he could side with Tommy Robinson and Batten and they could possibly make a serious dent in the establishment, which would be better than awesome.


If enough people felt so strongly about it then they SHOULD have switched to a party like UKIP. The fact that they didn't indicates they didn't feel that strongly about it in the first place. If we respect the intelligence and agency of the voting public, then whatever their actions are rightly decides the makeup of Parliament.

It's the same show here. People b**** and moan about the two party system, but if they really cared enough to take the clearly available third option then they would have. Anything else is simply a justification for treating the voting public like they're morons.

Clearly whatever else turned people off from the other parties supporting Brexit could not counteract the fact that they were supporting Brexit. Either get a pro-Brexit party with all the consequences, both good and bad associated with the party that does it, or give up a 'Brexit done right' for another party. Simple as that.
nooneinparticular On August 05, 2020




, Hawaii
#23New Post! Mar 02, 2019 @ 04:04:49
@bob_the_fisherman Said

Not really. It is based on the premise that the will of the people was done (Brexit was enacted in the best way that a good faith negotiation could achieve), but then the people realised that Brexit was not so good after all.

Anyway that's it. My head hurts

I'll be back


The time limit is arbitrary based partly on a vague condition of 'ironed out all the details'. Using the same argument, I could say the voice of the people should always be heard and followed through on, even on matters in progress and for that reason a second referendum is mandatory.
Leon On June 21, 2020




San Diego, California
#24New Post! Mar 02, 2019 @ 04:07:52
@bob_the_fisherman Said

Hmm, I said I was outsky for the day but I'll answer this.

I suppose it comes down to intent. So, let's assume that the government was not actively trying to destroy the Brexit deal. Once Brexit was done, and the wrinkles had been ironed out, and if people kept saying they wanted back in the EU, and especially if people who supported Brexit were saying they wanted back in, it would be appropriate then (which is probably going to be in the 5 -10 year range).

Otherwise, never. You don't reward anti democratic practices by your leaders and expect it not to bite you.


Fair enough.

Honestly though I think part of the problem is the system-induced disconnect between referendum by popular vote and the elected representatives to government. It probably would be better to just have the representatives on ballot with their stated intentions in regards to measures, and people can, essentially vote for Brexit through them.

I’m not a huge fan of our referendum system either, by the way. Over the years it has created a haphazard assortment of budget ultimatums that leaves our representatives severely limited in making sound and long-term management decisions with our tax dollars.
Jennifer1984 On 31 minutes ago
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#25New Post! Mar 02, 2019 @ 05:25:28
Having allowed Bob to blow off his head of steam, his argument that once the people have voted there can be no other vote is acknowledged. Perhaps it's worth pointing out to him that we had a referendum in 1975 and that resulted in a Remain victory by more than two thirds, a far higher majority than the 2016 outcome.

Does that mean there can never be another vote on the issue..?

Of course it doesn't. All democratic decisions are subject to review, which is why we hold general elections at regular intervals.

The Brexit vote wasn't even legally binding. There was no legal requirement for the government to act upon it, but they took that step not because it was in the national interest, or even because that was how the vote went.

They jumped at it because they knew it was going to be the only chance they'd ever get and since then nothing has been allowed to get in the way of that. It isn't about the future... it isn't about democracy... it's about the Brexiters fundamentalist need to spite Europe. The hatred of the French and Germans is
so deeply ingrained in the baby boomer generation - who overwhelmingly delivered the referendum result - that it's become a form of pathology.

Had the vote returned a Remain outcome, Nigel Farage had stated quite publicly before the referendum that UKIP would consider the outcome "Unfinished Business". They intended to campaign for a second referendum had they lost.... which I'm quite sure Bob would have accepted was an entirely democratic thing to do.

So, let's get this right... Remain calling for a second referendum is undemocratic, but Leave doing exactly the same thing would have been democracy in action, right..?

Double standards or what, eh...?

Bob uses very aggressive rhetoric in his arguments. It's as if he has a personal stake in this which surprises me, but there is a fundamental difference to how he interprets democracy and how we do it over here.



Unlike the USA which has strict constitutional rules on such things, the United Kingdom has no such document. Our political system is built upon a set of Statutes which are based upon historical precedent, custom and tradition.

In the case of Brexit there is no precedent nor is there a custom or tradition of responding to such a situation as has arisen here, and therefore the argument of being anti-democratic in an entirely British sense does not apply.

What the we do have a long established and very healthy tradition, custom and precedent for is for not lying down and accepting something that is ill-advised, self- destructive and against-the-national-interest act of self-harm. And that's before we start on criminal and corrupt.

I respect Bob's right to have his say on the issue, and I can understand his point of view because he is looking at it as an American. But this aint America, mate. And our political system pre-dates yours by several hundred years. It isn't called "The Mother Of All Parliaments" for nothing.

By all means apply your own rules to your own political system, but don't attempt to impose it here. We're quite capable of making a rats arse of our own future. We don't need the help of people who'd elect a monster like Trump to tell us how to screw ourselves.

Now, Bob's offensive, bigoted, insulting and frankly disgraceful language in his earlier messages is nothing short of attempted bullying. But we don't lie down to bullies in this country.

Yes, we will march. Yes, we will demonstrate. And yes, we will make our voices heard. Whether or not it does us any good isn't a reason not to do it.

Personally, I don't think we'll get a second referendum and even if we did, it could easily return a Leave vote again. Such is the bloody mindedness of the British people. Even as we fall over the cliff edge we tell ourselves that somehow, we'll survive being splattered on the rocks below and anyway, it's a price worth paying to spite the bloody French and Germans.

That's what we're like and as monumentally stupid as such behaviour is, it's our behaviour and I wouldn't change that for the world.

So, Bob.... I don't expect you to understand us or our ways. You don't read like the sort of man who respects the feelings, beliefs and opinions of others who you know nothing about.

You don't understand us and I don't think you'll even try. So here's a deal for you. You stay where you are and enjoy your system, and we'll stay here and do the best we can to survive the next thousand years or so without your interference from across the big pond.

We will probably crash out of the EU on the 29th of March. That is likely.

But if we do, the campaign to rejoin the EU begins on the 30th of March. Bloody minded bastards that we are.
Jennifer1984 On 31 minutes ago
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#26New Post! Mar 02, 2019 @ 05:46:18
@Leon Said

Okay yeah your referendum system is a lot different. Thanks. So in your system, how many years should pass before it’s okay, democratically-speaking, in your mind, to have an reversal referendum on something?



That's the point I was making... there is no "OK" period. We do things when it is necessary to do them.

In politics... world affairs.... things happen suddenly. A former Prime Minister, Harold Wilson once said "A week is a long time in politics." He was alluding to how rapidly things can change.

Ask yourself.... did you know how things were going to change for America when you got out of bed on the morning of 11 September 2001...?

This process of responding to unforseen events is a natural process for us. The disgrace of Brexit is that everything that has happened since June 2016 was not unforeseen. It was very much foreseen and many of us shouted long and loud at the time

But we were howled down by slogans such as "Project Fear." That became a catch phrase for everything. All warnings were automatically dismissed as "Project Fear".... and yet... the Brexiters issued their own Project Fear warnings about things such as migration:

12 Million Turks Moving To Britain

People actually believed that 12 million migrants from Turkey were poised to come here at a moment's notice if Britain voted remain.

Of course it was a lie. The Daily Express knew it was a lie, or at the very least, a flawed statement (a retraction was later printed) but they printed it just the same because it fitted their agenda. But the headline gained traction with the voters. By the time the retraction was printed, the headline had done it's work.

Is that how democracy works..? Not in my view it doesn't.

Bob might argue that the end justifies the means, but if those are his standards, then what gives him any moral right to lecture me on democracy...?

A referendum can be called at any time. There is no time restraint. Of course, I don't propose that we keep having them until we get the result we want.

What we want is a vote that is taken on the knowledge we now have that we didn't have in 2016. A vote that, this time, is based on an honest campaign because by heavens, we'll watch those bastards like bloody hawks next time. They won't get away with the lies, propaganda and criminal activity that they got away with then.

If a second referendum, after a fair and honest campaign resulted in a Leave outcome, returned by a voting public that is now aware of the consequences of leaving the EU, I would accept it because it was fair and took all the factors honestly into account.

If we vote with our eyes open, there can be no arguing with that.
bob_the_fisherman On August 01, 2020
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#27New Post! Mar 02, 2019 @ 06:14:26
@nooneinparticular Said

The time limit is arbitrary based partly on a vague condition of 'ironed out all the details'. Using the same argument, I could say the voice of the people should always be heard and followed through on, even on matters in progress and for that reason a second referendum is mandatory.


Of course. You can choose to argue that we should vote every single day on what party we want ruling us, and who we trade with, and how many scoops of ice cream is acceptable for a leader. That would be dumb though, which is why we don't do it.

And your other post conflating major parties with a single issue voted on in a referendum is not valid. I agree that mainstream parties across the west need to die yesterday, or better yet, around the time of Reagan and Thatcher who started the one party state globalism that has led to violent unrest in France and people wanting out of the EU across Europe. that's a separate issue to a referendum though. It's not the job of political parties to get elected then do things the people don't want, or, hold a referendum and ignore it.

Trust me, I understand that democracy is not fashionable now among the tolerant, but that does not mean we should ignore it or accede to their violence, crying or threats etc.
bob_the_fisherman On August 01, 2020
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#28New Post! Mar 02, 2019 @ 06:16:30
@Jennifer1984 Said

Perhaps it's worth pointing out to him that we had a referendum in 1975 and that resulted in a Remain victory by more than two thirds, a far higher majority than the 2016 outcome.

Does that mean there can never be another vote on the issue..?



I never said that. In fact, I said there could be. If you addressed my specific points I apologise. I stopped reading here. If you make your point succinctly I'm happy to read it and respond if you like.
bob_the_fisherman On August 01, 2020
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#29New Post! Mar 02, 2019 @ 06:22:37
@Jennifer1984 Said

That's the point I was making... there is no "OK" period. We do things when it is necessary to do them.

In politics... world affairs.... things happen suddenly. A former Prime Minister, Harold Wilson once said "A week is a long time in politics." He was alluding to how rapidly things can change.

Ask yourself.... did you know how things were going to change for America when you got out of bed on the morning of 11 September 2001...?

This process of responding to unforseen events is a natural process for us. The disgrace of Brexit is that everything that has happened since June 2016 was not unforeseen. It was very much foreseen and many of us shouted long and loud at the time

But we were howled down by slogans such as "Project Fear." That became a catch phrase for everything. All warnings were automatically dismissed as "Project Fear".... and yet... the Brexiters issued their own Project Fear warnings about things such as migration:

12 Million Turks Moving To Britain

People actually believed that 12 million migrants from Turkey were poised to come here at a moment's notice if Britain voted remain.

Of course it was a lie. The Daily Express knew it was a lie, or at the very least, a flawed statement (a retraction was later printed) but they printed it just the same because it fitted their agenda. But the headline gained traction with the voters. By the time the retraction was printed, the headline had done it's work.

Is that how democracy works..? Not in my view it doesn't.

Bob might argue that the end justifies the means, but if those are his standards, then what gives him any moral right to lecture me on democracy...?

A referendum can be called at any time. There is no time restraint. Of course, I don't propose that we keep having them until we get the result we want.

What we want is a vote that is taken on the knowledge we now have that we didn't have in 2016. A vote that, this time, is based on an honest campaign because by heavens, we'll watch those bastards like bloody hawks next time. They won't get away with the lies, propaganda and criminal activity that they got away with then.

If a second referendum, after a fair and honest campaign resulted in a Leave outcome, returned by a voting public that is now aware of the consequences of leaving the EU, I would accept it because it was fair and took all the factors honestly into account.

If we vote with our eyes open, there can be no arguing with that.



Ok, so I skimmed through and saw some errors I'll ignore (I'm Australian, not American).

Now, if the UK got some competent people to work on a Brexit deal rather than an anti-Brexit muppet like May or a socialist terror supporter like Corbyn, fine. I would say, sure, take the best Brexit deal that genuine, competent, pro Brexit negotiators could get back to the people if you want. I don't like it, but that at least is reasonable. This current effort where May deliberately runs Brexit into the ground should absolutely be unacceptable to anyone who thinks democracy has meaning.
nooneinparticular On August 05, 2020




, Hawaii
#30New Post! Mar 02, 2019 @ 07:53:36
@bob_the_fisherman Said

Of course. You can choose to argue that we should vote every single day on what party we want ruling us, and who we trade with, and how many scoops of ice cream is acceptable for a leader. That would be dumb though, which is why we don't do it.

And your other post conflating major parties with a single issue voted on in a referendum is not valid. I agree that mainstream parties across the west need to die yesterday, or better yet, around the time of Reagan and Thatcher who started the one party state globalism that has led to violent unrest in France and people wanting out of the EU across Europe. that's a separate issue to a referendum though. It's not the job of political parties to get elected then do things the people don't want, or, hold a referendum and ignore it.

Trust me, I understand that democracy is not fashionable now among the tolerant, but that does not mean we should ignore it or accede to their violence, crying or threats etc.


Correct. Instead we elect officials to figure that stuff out for us. Thus we elect new people when they don't figure that stuff out to the public's satisfaction.

If you don't like the direction of Brexit because of the party in charge's handling of Brexit, then vote new people in. I was not attempting to conflate a single issue with political affiliation. I'm quite literally stating that if you hate the party, get them out.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: << · 1 2 3 4 ...6 7 8 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Politics Forum - Some Rudeness Allowed

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Politics
Mon Apr 04, 2011 @ 11:45
6 935
New posts   Politics
Wed Oct 26, 2011 @ 11:55
9 765
New posts   Gaming
Wed Jan 05, 2011 @ 09:36
5 907
New posts   UK Elections & Politics
Tue Dec 02, 2014 @ 20:29
55 6865
New posts   Politics
Tue May 10, 2011 @ 19:27
55 5950