Britain's own Trump

[treee]

(07-26-2019, 10:54 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So, we don't like democracy now?

A second referendum 3 years later is hardly anti-democratic. What if a lot of people's minds have changed after learning new information?

Quote:Not sure I agree with politicians changing the rules after the game. I'd definitely not like for it to happen in this country. I'm sure most in this forum would have been happy with after 2016 Trump won the election but the Dems took Congress and then decided to re-vote for POTUS because Hills won the popular and after all it's such an important decision

One non-binding resolution that was pretty much evenly split is should not be interpreted as a mandate to completely change the economy. How is anyone supposed to have consistency in their government if you can completely do a 180 every time a wedge issue goes back and forth by one percent?

[Dill]

(07-26-2019, 04:19 AM)treee Wrote: Not necessarily. It is not unreasonable to posit that such a drastic change shouldn't be made by a simple majority, but a super majority.

(07-26-2019, 01:13 PM)treee Wrote: A second referendum 3 years later is hardly anti-democratic. What if a lot of people's minds have changed after learning new information?

One non-binding resolution that was pretty much evenly split is should not be interpreted as a mandate to completely change the economy. How is anyone supposed to have consistency in their government if you can completely do a 180 every time a wedge issue goes back and forth by one percent?

Excellent points.

[*bfine32*]

(07-26-2019, 01:13 PM)treee Wrote: A second referendum 3 years later is hardly anti-democratic. What if a lot of people's minds have changed after learning new information?


One non-binding resolution that was pretty much evenly split is should not be interpreted as a mandate to completely change the economy. How is anyone supposed to have consistency in their government if you can completely do a 180 every time a wedge issue goes back and forth by one percent?

Of course it's anti-democratic. How can a government by by the people, of the people and for the people if we have Politicians second guessing or worse yet voiding their wishes?

This is nothing more than Parliament telling the population "You don't know what is good for you" and I honestly do not see how anyone that believes in freedom of choice can support the stance.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-26-2019, 01:13 PM)treee Wrote: A second referendum 3 years later is hardly anti-democratic. What if a lot of people's minds have changed after learning new information?

It most certainly is.  So, the answer to a vote going the way you don't like is to ensure the will of the voters isn't carried out long enough for you to say the original result is no longer valid?  That seems like the antithesis of democracy to me.  It also smacks of the "leave voters will be dead soon and their vote shouldn't count" argument.

Quote:One non-binding resolution that was pretty much evenly split is should not be interpreted as a mandate to completely change the economy. How is anyone supposed to have consistency in their government if you can completely do a 180 every time a wedge issue goes back and forth by one percent?

It wasn't "pretty much evenly split".  Leave got well over a million more votes than remain.  Brexit was also advanced as a final word on the subject prior to the vote occurring.  Not getting the result you want is not sufficient grounds for calling for a new vote.  It's the same thing with the EC, we've had it for centuries, but now lets get rid of it because we don't like the result it gave.  If the rules don't favor you then change the rules.  If Brexit doesn't happen it will be a massive betrayal of the democratic system and yet more proof of Europe sliding away from the principles of western democracy.

[GMDino]

(07-26-2019, 01:13 PM)treee Wrote: A second referendum 3 years later is hardly anti-democratic. What if a lot of people's minds have changed after learning new information?


One non-binding resolution that was pretty much evenly split is should not be interpreted as a mandate to completely change the economy. How is anyone supposed to have consistency in their government if you can completely do a 180 every time a wedge issue goes back and forth by one percent?

But that would be like having elections every so many years in case we want to change the people in office.  

The people have spoken!  Elected for life! 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-26-2019, 02:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: But that would be like having elections every so many years in case we want to change the people in office.  

The people have spoken!  Elected for life! 

Not the same thing, horrible point.

[GMDino]

(07-26-2019, 02:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It most certainly is.  So, the answer to a vote going the way you don't like is to ensure the will of the voters isn't carried out long enough for you to say the original result is no longer valid?  That seems like the antithesis of democracy to me.  It also smacks of the "leave voters will be dead soon and their vote shouldn't count" argument.



It wasn't "pretty much evenly split".  Leave got well over a million more votes than remain.  Brexit was also advanced as a final word on the subject prior to the vote occurring.  Not getting the result you want is not sufficient grounds for calling for a new vote.  It's the same thing with the EC, we've had it for centuries, but now lets get rid of it because we don't like the result it gave.  If the rules don't favor you then change the rules.  If Brexit doesn't happen it will be a massive betrayal of the democratic system and yet more proof of Europe sliding away from the principles of western democracy.

ooohhhh...Hyperbole!



Could it also not be a sign that an idea became impossible to follow through on?  So there has to be a change?

[GMDino]

(07-26-2019, 02:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not the same thing, horrible point.

'Tis the same!

The people voted for it...after three years nothing is done...people vote again on the subject.

People vote for Obama...he pushes through the ACA...people vote out the people who voted for it to try and change it.

In our system we elect people to make the decisions for us (generally...not including state and local referendums), so our "revote" is every couple years we can change who is making those decisions.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-26-2019, 02:09 PM)GMDino Wrote: ooohhhh...Hyperbole!

Nah.  When people are being arrested and their freedom taken from them for daring to have an opinion that isn't western democracy.  I rather believe the people thus affected would agree with your smarmy accusations of hyperbole.

Quote:Could it also not be a sign that an idea became impossible to follow through on?  So there has to be a change?

No, as it clearly isn't impossible for the UK to leave the EU.  Difficult to be sure, but no one said it was going to be like switching off a light switch. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-26-2019, 02:11 PM)GMDino Wrote: 'Tis the same!

Not even remotely.  When you vote for a candidate for office their term of office is clearly indicated before you vote.  Brexit was advanced as the "final word" on the subject.  hence the terms of the vote were clearly described and illustrated prior to the vote taking place.  ONce again, your analogy is childishly inaccurate.

Quote:The people voted for it...after three years nothing is done...people vote again on the subject.

People vote for POTUS and then two years later do it again because they don't like the results.  That would be a direct comparison to what you are advocating, changing the rules midstream.  You sound like the Seahawks fans after they lost the SB to us.

Quote:People vote for Obama...he pushes through the ACA...people vote out the people who voted for it to try and change it.

Yup, at the time prescribed by the election that initially put those people in office.

Quote:In our system we elect people to make the decisions for us (generally...not including state and local referendums), so our "revote" is every couple years we can change who is making those decisions.

Yes, and we revote within a set time frame that has been determined well before we make our votes.  We don't change the rules midstream, we abide by them.  What you are describing is the exact opposite of what you apparently believe.

[*bfine32*]

(07-26-2019, 02:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: But that would be like having elections every so many years in case we want to change the people in office.  

The people have spoken!  Elected for life! 

You should be embarrassed for trying to make such a correlation.

[GMDino]

(07-26-2019, 02:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You should be embarrassed for trying to make such a correlation.

Great counter argument.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-26-2019, 02:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: Great counter argument.

It's not a counter-argument, it's a castigation of a childish analogy.

[GMDino]

(07-26-2019, 02:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's not a counter-argument, it's a castigation of a childish analogy.

So it's a personal attack rather than an argument of the point made?  That doesn't seem helpful toward reaching any kind of resolution.

If *I* made a "childish analogy" then perhaps we can discuss it in non black and white terms like, well, "childish analogy".

I maintain that a revote would not "be a massive betrayal of the democratic system and yet more proof of Europe sliding away from the principles of western democracy" because "we" (the US) revote all the time. Just because Brexit was "presented" as a the "end all be all vote and this time we mean it" doesn't mean that the actual circumstances of implementing it have made it out to be awful.  And I'm not even saying that it is.  I'm saying that there is a knee-jerk reaction from some that they vote and now we can't do a damn thing about it. At all.  Except find a way to force the square peg into the round hole and blame the people who voted for it.

I changed my sig...like it better? 

[Belsnickel]

I'm not a big fan of the second referendum movement. The UK made its bed. The only argument that makes me question my stance is the fact that the "leave" side was pushing some serious lies on people. They gave the public the impression that a Brexit would only mean they would gain back their independence and nothing else would change. They made people promises that they would gain control over their laws and borders and they would still enjoy all of the economic benefits and still be able to travel throughout the EU. Those were outright lies.

So what do you do in a situation like that, democratically speaking?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-26-2019, 02:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: So it's a personal attack rather than an argument of the point made?  That doesn't seem helpful toward reaching any kind of resolution.

Back to that old canard?

Quote:If *I* made a "childish analogy" then perhaps we can discuss it in non black and white terms like, well, "childish analogy".

That was done, above.  For some reason you chose not to respond.

Quote:I maintain that a revote would not "be a massive betrayal of the democratic system and yet more proof of Europe sliding away from the principles of western democracy" because "we" (the US) revote all the time. Just because Brexit was "presented" as a the "end all be all vote and this time we mean it" doesn't mean that the actual circumstances of implementing it have made it out to be awful.  And I'm not even saying that it is.  I'm saying that there is a knee-jerk reaction from some that they vote and now we can't do a damn thing about it. At all.  Except find a way to force the square peg into the round hole and blame the people who voted for it.

We are aware of what you maintain and we disagree.

[GMDino]

(07-26-2019, 02:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm not a big fan of the second referendum movement. The UK made its bed. The only argument that makes me question my stance is the fact that the "leave" side was pushing some serious lies on people. They gave the public the impression that a Brexit would only mean they would gain back their independence and nothing else would change. They made people promises that they would gain control over their laws and borders and they would still enjoy all of the economic benefits and still be able to travel throughout the EU. Those were outright lies.

So what do you do in a situation like that, democratically speaking?

I certainly can't say if a second (wouldn't be the third?) referendum is the right thing or the wrong thing.  But as time drags on and it looks more and more like this could be disastrous for the people I don't see the issue with at least considering it.  No just fluffing it off as "anti-democratic" as if we never permitted to change anything within our voting system or the way things are done.

[*bfine32*]

(07-26-2019, 02:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: Great counter argument.

(07-26-2019, 02:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: So it's a personal attack rather than an argument of the point made?  That doesn't seem helpful toward reaching any kind of resolution.

If *I* made a "childish analogy" then perhaps we can discuss it in non black and white terms like, well, "childish analogy".

I maintain that a revote would not "be a massive betrayal of the democratic system and yet more proof of Europe sliding away from the principles of western democracy" because "we" (the US) revote all the time. Just because Brexit was "presented" as a the "end all be all vote and this time we mean it" doesn't mean that the actual circumstances of implementing it have made it out to be awful.  And I'm not even saying that it is.  I'm saying that there is a knee-jerk reaction from some that they vote and now we can't do a damn thing about it. At all.  Except find a way to force the square peg into the round hole and blame the people who voted for it.

I changed my sig...like it better? 

It was not a personal attack. It was pointing to the non-correlation of the argument.  Now if someone were suggesting Boris Johnson should be Prime Minister for life because he supports Brexit then, like your head, you'd have a point (that was personal attack, see the difference?) No one is even saying once they exit the EU they cannot apply for reentry at a later date if the citizenry voted to do so and then I would hope their government would support the wishes of the people.

The Brexit move has nothing to do with our cyclical elections of political figures and I would hope you'd know that; therefore be embarrassed for making such a correlation.

[*bfine32*]

(07-26-2019, 02:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm not a big fan of the second referendum movement. The UK made its bed. The only argument that makes me question my stance is the fact that the "leave" side was pushing some serious lies on people. They gave the public the impression that a Brexit would only mean they would gain back their independence and nothing else would change. They made people promises that they would gain control over their laws and borders and they would still enjoy all of the economic benefits and still be able to travel throughout the EU. Those were outright lies.

So what do you do in a situation like that, democratically speaking?

Once Brexit was announced I suggested that Northern Ireland and Scotland should have the choice to leave the United Kingdom and stay with the EU; as the whole motivation of Brexit it sovereign nation. But I can likewise see that might be sorta like saying California can elected their own President.

As to what will change; we don't know. The US does pretty good economically and is not a member of the EU. UK may just be required to find new trade partners if the rest of EU doesn't want to play ball.

[Belsnickel]

(07-26-2019, 03:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Once Brexit was announced I suggested that Northern Ireland and Scotland should have the choice to leave the United Kingdom and stay with the EU; as the whole motivation of Brexit it sovereign nation. But I can likewise see that might be sorta like saying California can elected their own President.

What about Wales?

(07-26-2019, 03:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to what will change; we don't know. The US does pretty good economically and is not a member of the EU. UK may just be required to find new trade partners if the rest of EU doesn't want to play ball.

I'm not going saying they were promised good economic outcomes and that was a lie. What I'm saying is they were told they could keep up trade as if nothing changed, which is a lie because of the need for renegotiation. They were told they would be allowed free movement while controlling their own borders, which is a lie as the EU requires reciprocity for free movement. The "leave" campaign sold a whole lot of snake oil leading up to the vote.

I tend to go along with Dahl and the criteria he places for a democracy. One of them is an enlightened citizenry. If they're being lied to about what the referendum would do, does that not bring up questions about how democratic that process is?