Brexit Bungle

[Dill]

(12-10-2018, 08:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose you could keep calling for votes until you get the decision you want. Not sure that's Democracy in action though. 

You still can't get "the decision you want" unless you win the votes. 

I.e., still democracy.

In this case it's quite possible that many/most people voted the first time around with a less clear idea of the consequences, and intending merely to send a message to British politicians. 

Referendums can't go on forever, but there is nothing inherently anti-democratic about a running a second one two or three years later if the public's mood changes--as it certainly could as the break and its consequences become more concretely imagined. Remember, this break was not something could have been implemented in a month. Silly to remain locked into a position which may no longer have majority support.

[*bfine32*]

(12-11-2018, 01:11 AM)Dill Wrote: You still can't get "the decision you want" unless you win the votes. 

I.e., still democracy.

In this case it's quite possible that people voted the first time around with a less clear idea of the consequences, and intending merely to send a message to British politicians. 

Referendums can't go on forever, but there is nothing inherently democratic about a running a second one two or three years later if the public's mood changes.  Silly to remain locked into a position which no longer has majority support.

Could be why I said keep calling for elections.

Roll with the government delaying a decision made by the citizenry in hopes they can get another election to go in their favor as democracy if you want. We'll just disagree of the definition. 

[*michaelsean*]

I’m not too informed on this but I will say that I think Matt came up with a great username for a new English member to these boards.

[GMDino]

(12-11-2018, 01:18 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Could be why I said keep calling for elections.

Roll with the government delaying a decision made by the citizenry in hopes they can get another election to go in their favor as democracy if you want. We'll just disagree of the definition. 

Couple things:

1) If the government cannot come up with a plan that's not delaying on purpose.  That's government at work.  If the next election comes up before the changes then voters have a say in what changes are made going forward.

2) Is that not what the GOP in America did anyway?  Under Obama they tried to delay, refused to vote, etc until the next election to see "what the people wanted".

Seems you and right were quite happy with that result.

[Dill]

(12-10-2018, 09:37 PM)hollodero Wrote: ? Right now, they make it difficult on the EU, not the other way round.
And as for working with the US. I don't think that's a particularly compelling alternative right now.

As I understand it, GB would still have to conform to EU legislation for access to the continental tariff-free market.  Only, as a non-member they would have no shot at shaping policy there.

Many small companies can now easily truck products to Europe through the Chunnel or by an hour channel crossing by boat. Hard to see how the US can make up for such losses, if they now have to ship across the Atlantic. 

[*bfine32*]

(12-11-2018, 09:50 AM)GMDino Wrote: Couple things:

1) If the government cannot come up with a plan that's not delaying on purpose.  That's government at work.  If the next election comes up before the changes then voters have a say in what changes are made going forward.

2) Is that not what the GOP in America did anyway?  Under Obama they tried to delay, refused to vote, etc until the next election to see "what the people wanted".

Seems you and right were quite happy with that result.

I get that you keep coming up with Red Herrings in an attempt to support your attempt that revoting a referendum is a shining example of democracy in action.

The GOP was wrong to delay the confirmation of Obama's SCOTUS choice and the DEMs were wrong for the circus they recently produced; however, these are not even similar to this. Now if the citizenry had voted for Merrick, then you may have a point; but that's not what happened

[GMDino]

(12-11-2018, 05:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I get that you keep coming up with Red Herrings in an attempt to support your attempt that revoting a referendum is a shining example of democracy in action.

The GOP was wrong to delay the confirmation of Obama's SCOTUS choice and the DEMs were wrong for the circus they recently produced; however, these are not even similar to this. Now if the citizenry had voted for Merrick, then you may have a point; but that's not what happened

The people vote for representatives.  I get that as a separate referendum Brexit passed.  But if the representatives change and want to revote why is that wrong?

Other than because you said so?

[*bfine32*]

(12-11-2018, 05:59 PM)GMDino Wrote: The people vote for representatives.  I get that as a separate referendum Brexit passed.  But if the representatives change and want to revote why is that wrong?

Other than because you said so?

I'm not the only one that says so. Both Matt and SSF have stated the exact same thing.

As I told the poster that "you speak for" we'll just disagree of the definition of Democracy if you view revoting the referendum passed by the citizenry as a shining example of Democracy.

[Belsnickel]

My view of referendums is that they should only be put up again if there are circumstances that alter the policy outcomes of the referendum in a significant and potentially harmful way. It's a high bar for me, though. I don't think that Brexit will turn out well for Britain, but this isn't a change from 2.5 years ago. This was the reality then, the people were just fed a load of bullshit about it. This is why I don't think that a second referendum should happen.

[Dill]

(12-11-2018, 06:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: My view of referendums is that they should only be put up again if there are circumstances that alter the policy outcomes of the referendum in a significant and potentially harmful way. It's a high bar for me, though. I don't think that Brexit will turn out well for Britain, but this isn't a change from 2.5 years ago. This was the reality then, the people were just fed a load of bullshit about it. This is why I don't think that a second referendum should happen.

Not clear.

Maybe it's the pronoun "this."  Are you saying that people were fed a load of bullshit, and so based their votes on bullshit, but even so the vote that many, perhaps a majority would now change since they can see through the bullshit, should still stand years later?

[Dill]

(12-11-2018, 06:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm not the only one that says so. Both Matt and SSF have stated the exact same thing.

As I told the poster that "you speak for" we'll just disagree of the definition of Democracy if you view revoting the referendum passed by the citizenry as a shining example of Democracy.

Sounds like you are putting it to a vote.

Lol, if Dino agrees a revote is NOT democratic (at least a vote on a revote!), especially after 700,000 people just marched on Parliament to protest it, then he speaks for me no longer.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-11-2018, 06:52 PM)Dill Wrote: Not clear.

Maybe it's the pronoun "this."  Are you saying that people were fed a load of bullshit, and so based their votes on bullshit, but even so the vote that many, perhaps a majority would now change since they can see through the bullshit, should still stand years later?

People are responsible for educating themselves on issues.  Adults should not expect to have their hand held as they walk through life.  This is a common theme for you and Dino, abdication of personal responsibility.  

(12-11-2018, 06:58 PM)Dill Wrote: Sounds like you are putting it to a vote.

Rather it sounds like he's pointing out that two people who are hardly in ideological lockstep have a completely similar opinion on this issue.  That would seem rather pertinent.

Quote:Lol, if Dino agrees a revote is NOT democratic (at least a vote on a revote!), especially after 700,000 people just marched on Parliament to protest it, then he speaks for me no longer.

And you and Dino are so ideological similar as to make your posts interchangeable, hence his support of your position is both unsurprising and virtually meaningless.

[GMDino]

(12-11-2018, 06:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm not the only one that says so. Both Matt and SSF have stated the exact same thing.

As I told the poster that "you speak for" we'll just disagree of the definition of Democracy if you view revoting the referendum passed by the citizenry as a shining example of Democracy.

Matt gave a good, personal reason.

Thanks though for not explaining anything.  

[Belsnickel]

(12-11-2018, 06:58 PM)Dill Wrote: Sounds like you are putting it to a vote.

Lol, if Dino agrees a revote is NOT democratic (at least a vote on a revote!), especially after 700,000 people just marched on Parliament to protest it, then he speaks for me no longer.

Not all of those were on the remain side, though. What is going on right now is that nobody in the UK is happy with this deal. You have the remain side unhappy because they want to stay in the EU. The leave side isn't happy it's been taking this long. The hard Brexit types see the deal as keeping too many ties to the EU, the soft Brexit folks see it as not enough.

My point is that 700,000 may have marched on Parliament to protest this deal, but how many actually want to remain is up for debate. The polling is inconsistent on the issue to this day.

[Belsnickel]

(12-11-2018, 06:52 PM)Dill Wrote: Not clear.

Maybe it's the pronoun "this."  Are you saying that people were fed a load of bullshit, and so based their votes on bullshit, but even so the vote that many, perhaps a majority would now change since they can see through the bullshit, should still stand years later?

People vote based on lies all the times. As frustrating as it is, that's democracy.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-11-2018, 08:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Not all of those were on the remain side, though. What is going on right now is that nobody in the UK is happy with this deal. You have the remain side unhappy because they want to stay in the EU. The leave side isn't happy it's been taking this long. The hard Brexit types see the deal as keeping too many ties to the EU, the soft Brexit folks see it as not enough.

My point is that 700,000 may have marched on Parliament to protest this deal, but how many actually want to remain is up for debate. The polling is inconsistent on the issue to this day.

Matt, you're making it hard for them to pretend you're on their side.  

[Dill]

(12-11-2018, 07:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: People are responsible for educating themselves on issues.  Adults should not expect to have their hand held as they walk through life.  This is a common theme for you and Dino, abdication of personal responsibility.  

Rather it sounds like he's pointing out that two people who are hardly in ideological lockstep have a completely similar opinion on this issue.  That would seem rather pertinent.

And you and Dino are so ideological similar as to make your posts interchangeable, hence his support of your position is both unsurprising and virtually meaningless.

LOL the personal attack is your "common theme."    So "personal accountability" and self-education regarding political issues are your standards today, for this thread.  Your "abdication" charge is not clearly connected to my comments about voters changing their minds. Perhaps you would argue that sticking to a vote after one has changed one's mind demonstrates personal accountability?

The U.S. is full of people who march in ideological lockstep while insisting their views are "individual" and their own. When asked to explain or defend those views, they can't do much more than reassert them or shout "it's obvious."

Individuality appears, among other things, in how well people think through their positions and answer for them, as opposed to just throwing up ad hoc and frequently conflicting assertions, and then simply "standing by" them when questioned.  (I bet Dino agrees . . . lockstep!)

Agreement is only meaningful if it comes from people with dissimilar positions?   If Lucy were here backing the views of the EU you express in post # 10, as he likely would, would that render his agreement with you on the referendum issue "virtually meaningless"?

[Dill]

(12-11-2018, 08:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: People vote based on lies all the times. As frustrating as it is, that's democracy.

So I do understand you?  You are saying that 1) even if the vote two years ago was based upon disinformation, and though 2) for many voters now consequences are clearer so they would not vote for Brexit, 3) there still should be no re-vote?  Just making sure.

[Belsnickel]

(12-11-2018, 08:26 PM)Dill Wrote: So I do understand you?  You are saying that 1) even if the vote two years ago was based upon disinformation, and though 2) for many voters now consequences are clearer so they would not vote for Brexit, 3) there still should be no re-vote?  Just making sure.

The real information was out there. Just because one side was spreading lies doesn't mean that the people didn't have access to the real information. They made their choice.

[Dill]

(12-11-2018, 08:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The real information was out there. Just because one side was spreading lies doesn't mean that the people didn't have access to the real information. They made their choice.

I do understand you then.

(12-11-2018, 08:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: My point is that 700,000 may have marched on Parliament to protest this deal, but how many actually want to remain is up for debate. The polling is inconsistent on the issue to this day.

As I understood it, the march was for a second referendum. Hence all the EU flags waving about. It was not an amalgamated protest.

But I have a different question now. This is the Brits' vote, not ours. But is it just their problem?

Do you think Brexit, if it happens, will affect the U.S. much, or Anlgo-American relations?  Or is that just too far into the looking glass at this point?  I know some US corporations are moving their headquarters out of London on the assumption they can better access the EU market from, for example, Ireland.

If Hollo is out there I wouldn't mind hearing if, or how, he thinks Brexit might measurably affect the EU/Austria.