Britain's own Trump

[BmorePat87]

You had essentially a non-binding government sanctioned opinion poll of the electorate that the current leadership agreed to follow but which made no legal requirement to be followed. Any individual member of parliament only has their constituents to follow, regardless of what leadership agreed to.

Conservative Party leaders wrote a check they couldn't cash. Future leadership and other members of parliament are respecting democracy so long as they are respecting the wishes of their constituents. It's a representative democracy not a direct democracy.

The popular vote in 2016 was as legally binding as the referendum was. The masses didn't get their wishes in either and Democracy goes on.

[BmorePat87]

(07-26-2019, 03:55 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You had essentially a non-binding government sanctioned opinion poll of the electorate that the current leadership agreed to follow but which made no legal requirement to be followed. Any individual member of parliament only has their constituents to follow, regardless of what leadership agreed to.

Conservative Party leaders wrote a check they couldn't cash. Future leadership and other members of parliament are respecting democracy so long as they are respecting the wishes of their constituents. It's a representative democracy not a direct democracy.

The popular vote in 2016 was as legally binding as the referendum was. The masses didn't get their wishes in either and Democracy goes on.

Much like my response to 2016, the solution would be for reform to ensure that the will of the people is followed. Just as I have advocated for ridding the US of the electoral college in its current form, I would also advocate that the UK enact reforms to make referendums legally binding. 

[*bfine32*]

(07-26-2019, 03:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What about Wales?


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?

Wales voted for Brexit just like England

Should we null and void the election of a POTUS if he fails to deliver Campaign promises? Seems it's the opposition's responsibility to educate the citizens prior to the vote.

To be honest I cannot see why any American would want to England to go against the vote of its people. Is it because the Conservatives won? Now I could see our good friends from Europe wanting a re-vote. It's amazing that we heard all these bad things that will/may happen to UK if they exit, but the rest of the EU wants them to stay.

[*bfine32*]

(07-26-2019, 03:55 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You had essentially a non-binding government sanctioned opinion poll of the electorate that the current leadership agreed to follow but which made no legal requirement to be followed. Any individual member of parliament only has their constituents to follow, regardless of what leadership agreed to.

Conservative Party leaders wrote a check they couldn't cash. Future leadership and other members of parliament are respecting democracy so long as they are respecting the wishes of their constituents. It's a representative democracy not a direct democracy.

The popular vote in 2016 was as legally binding as the referendum was. The masses didn't get their wishes in either and Democracy goes on.

Sure that's the scope but I think the principle outweighs the scope. The country voted, their government promised to abide by their vote, now some are wanting to renege. I personally find that troubling.

[Belsnickel]

(07-26-2019, 04:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Should we null and void the election of a POTUS if he fails to deliver Campaign promises? Seems it's the opposition's responsibility to educate the citizens prior to the vote.

This is a false analogy. A politician breaking promises can get voted out if they don't keep their word. It is a person making promises that may not work when they are faced with the reality of governing. These rules were in place long before Brexit was on the ballot as to how things would proceed given a country leaving the EU and how non-member states gain privileges in dealing with the EU. They just flat out lied. The result is something that isn't reversed as simply as a new election when the term is up.

(07-26-2019, 04:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: To be honest I cannot see why any American would want to England to go against the vote of its people. Is it because the Conservatives won? Now I could see our good friends from Europe wanting a re-vote. It's amazing that we heard all these bad things that will/may happen to UK if they exit, but the rest of the EU wants them to stay.

I'm not really sure what this has to do with my post, but whatever.

[GMDino]

(07-26-2019, 03:55 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You had essentially a non-binding government sanctioned opinion poll of the electorate that the current leadership agreed to follow but which made no legal requirement to be followed. Any individual member of parliament only has their constituents to follow, regardless of what leadership agreed to.

Conservative Party leaders wrote a check they couldn't cash. Future leadership and other members of parliament are respecting democracy so long as they are respecting the wishes of their constituents. It's a representative democracy not a direct democracy.

The popular vote in 2016 was as legally binding as the referendum was. The masses didn't get their wishes in either and Democracy goes on.

It was non-binding?  I was told it was presented as the final word and there would be no going back.

Sidenote:  Do this board NOT have a member from the UK on it?  Just thinking I've never heard from one on this subject one way or the other.

[*bfine32*]

(07-26-2019, 04:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is a false analogy. A politician breaking promises can get voted out if they don't keep their word. It is a person making promises that may not work when they are faced with the reality of governing. These rules were in place long before Brexit was on the ballot as to how things would proceed given a country leaving the EU and how non-member states gain privileges in dealing with the EU. They just flat out lied. The result is something that isn't reversed as simply as a new election when the term is up.


I'm not really sure what this has to do with my post, but whatever.

And as I said: if times get rough outside the EU I'd assume they could always vote to re-enter; seems the EU is all too happy to have them. I didn't mention anything about getting voted out; I said void the election, so the analogy is not false.

My intention is not to be argumentative; simply providing my $0.02, but whatever. 

[*bfine32*]

(07-26-2019, 04:26 PM)GMDino Wrote: It was non-binding?  I was told it was presented as the final word and there would be no going back.

Who the hell told you that? Personally I've said the government should honor the wishes of it's people as expressed in open voting.

I wonder if anyone here would be upset if Congress to us we can vote to legalize marijuana, we vote, the majority votes for legalization, but then Congress stops the vote because you have a couple folks pointing to the side-effects. I know I wouldn't like it much.

[Belsnickel]

(07-26-2019, 04:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And as I said: if times get rough outside the EU I'd assume they could always vote to re-enter; seems the EU is all too happy to have them. I didn't mention anything about getting voted out; I said void the election, so the analogy is not false.

What about the difference between broken promises and the outright lies that I brought up? I gave two reasons it was a false analogy.

[GMDino]

(07-26-2019, 04:26 PM)GMDino Wrote: It was non-binding?  I was told it was presented as the final word and there would be no going back.

Sidenote:  Do this board NOT have a member from the UK on it?  Just thinking I've never heard from one on this subject one way or the other.

(07-26-2019, 04:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Who the hell told you that?

(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.

I bet I'm in trouble now because it says "a final word" and not "the final word".  

Nonetheless if it was NOT "the final word" then they should have options to get out from under it moving forward, IMHO.

[*bfine32*]

(07-26-2019, 04:31 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What about the difference between broken promises and the outright lies that I brought up? I gave two reasons it was a false analogy.

Isn't promising something and not following through with it a lie?

Candidate bfine; "If I am elected president everybody get $1,000"

POTUS bfine "About that $1,000...."

[*bfine32*]

(07-26-2019, 04:31 PM)GMDino Wrote: I bet I'm in trouble now because it says "a final word" and not "the final word".  

Nonetheless if it was NOT "the final word" then they should have options to get out from under it moving forward, IMHO.

Your bolding only part of your statement aside: I'll leave it to SSF to point out the obvious difference or maybe someone from "your side" will step up.

[GMDino]

(07-26-2019, 04:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Your bolding only part of your statement aside: I'll leave it to SSF to point out the obvious difference or maybe someone from "your side" will step up.

I don't have a "side".

But whatever the "obvious difference" that will be "pointed out" that is what was said.  And he and you (personal) have argued that this cannot be voted on again because that was it.  One vote for all the marbles and changing that would not be allowed for different reasons.  So I am assuming that he and you (personal) feel that the Brexit vote was the "final word" with no chance of a new vote or change in plan one a decision was voted on.

[*bfine32*]

(07-26-2019, 04:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: I don't have a "side".

But whatever the "obvious difference" that will be "pointed out" that is what was said.  And he and you (personal) have argued that this cannot be voted on again because that was it.  One vote for all the marbles and changing that would not be allowed for different reasons.  So I am assuming that he and you (personal) feel that the Brexit vote was the "final word" with no chance of a new vote or change in plan one a decision was voted on.

2funny. my analogies have be dubbed "false". Yet those that assign falsehood to analogies do not chime in with the obvious error in your assertion. I wonder why.

No one has ever said it cannot be voted on again (you know that, it is why you didn't bold that part of your sentence). I'm saying it should not; the citizenry voted. I feel it's their government's responsibility to follow through on their wishes, not tell them they are wrong, or at least I would hope it is.

[Belsnickel]

(07-26-2019, 04:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Isn't promising something and not following through with it a lie?

Candidate bfine; "If I am elected president everybody get $1,000"

POTUS bfine "About that $1,000...."

I consider that sort of thing, which I covered in my post, to be different then lying about what was even possible. Two different sort of things. A candidate may make a promise with all intentions of keeping it, but discovers the reality is different when in office. In the case of Brexit, the reality was there all along and they lied about it to the people of the UK.

[GMDino]

(07-26-2019, 04:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 2funny. my analogies have be dubbed "false". Yet those that assign falsehood to analogies do not chime in with the obvious error in your assertion. I wonder why.

No one has ever said it cannot be voted on again (you know that, it is why you didn't bold that part of your sentence). I'm saying it should not; the citizenry voted. I feel it's their government's responsibility to follow through on their wishes, not tell them they are wrong, or at least I would hope it is.

Your (personal) argument is that it should not be voted on again because it was voted on once.  But there was nothing to say it CAN'T be voted on again...you (personal) just don't think it should be because of the desired result.  (At the same time you (personal) are using the argument that anyone wanting a new vote just doesn't like the result. )

If there is nothing saying there can NOT be a new vote and the current situation as a result of the vote make it appear that the end result of the vote is not going to happen then why not another vote?

You (universal) can't just say "this vote was it...no more" without that being the actual case.  

If I'm wrong that there can NOT be another vote then this is moot.  But I'm gathering that was not the case that the Brexit vote was "a final word" so given the difficulties is making it work a new vote would be a sign of the end of democracy in Europe (paraphrasing).

And if there CAN be another vote then the argument that there CAN'T simply because it was voted on once is silly.

[*bfine32*]

(07-26-2019, 05:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I consider that sort of thing, which I covered in my post, to be different then lying about what was even possible. Two different sort of things. A candidate may make a promise with all intentions of keeping it, but discovers the reality is different when in office. In the case of Brexit, the reality was there all along and they lied about it to the people of the UK.

Your consideration has been noted; however, it doesn't make the analogy I made "false".

It is quite conservative of you to not think POTUS lied about Mexico building the wall among other things.

[Belsnickel]

(07-26-2019, 04:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 2funny. my analogies have be dubbed "false". Yet those that assign falsehood to analogies do not chime in with the obvious error in your assertion. I wonder why.

It could be because I didn't care. It wasn't a conversation I was a part of and so I didn't feel the need to interject in such a way. I try to stay out of the drama between Dino, Dill, and SSF as much as possible and try to resist stirring the pot. I would kindly as that you not try to drag me into that.

[Belsnickel]

(07-26-2019, 05:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Your consideration has been noted; however, it doesn't make the analogy I made "false".

It is quite conservative of you to not think POTUS lied about Mexico building the wall among other things.

I think he believed they would. I think a lot of the promises he made and cannot follow through on were rooted in ignorance. That has been my position all along: Trump did not understand, and continues to have trouble understanding, how government works.

[BmorePat87]

(07-26-2019, 04:26 PM)GMDino Wrote: It was non-binding?  I was told it was presented as the final word and there would be no going back.

Sidenote:  Do this board NOT have a member from the UK on it?  Just thinking I've never heard from one on this subject one way or the other.

Referendums in the UK are non-binding. Conservative Party leaders said they'd honor it (and did try) but no one else is bound by their promise. If I did not support Brexit and my constituents don't, why would I honor a promise made by a few colleagues that I did not agree to?

Who in 2019 is bound by campaign promises made by David Cameron in 2009 and 2013? Who in the 2017 election? Who following the 2016 referendum?

Hell, whether or not the referendum itself was democratic can be questioned. How would the voting had differed if all ex-pat Brits were allowed to vote? Anyone who was a citizen but had been living abroad for over 15 years couldn't vote, even though they allowed non citizen residents to vote (but only those non citizens from non EU nations...).

You also have to ask how the voting may have differed if there existed more than just "remain" or "leave" as options or if there had been a commission funded by the government study options and their impact. If I am frustrated with the status quo, but prefer negotiations, I may still be inclined to vote leave as it seems to imply that there's a solution to the problem and not just more of a problem. Things like this need to be worked out in a legislative setting where multiple options  can be weighed, multiple opinions taken into account, not a highly complex policy being reduced to a binary choice.