Brexit and General UK politics thread

[Jub]

If the referendum was held again today would it succeed? If not, why is the current will of the people less important than the past will of the people?

You can't claim a thing to be against democracy when, if asked the same question again, the majority would vote differently.

-----

Yeah, Parliament voting to withdraw Article 50 would most likely torpedo both the Tories and Labour's chances in any election. We'd wind up with an even more hung parliament at best. Too many MP's and the two largest parties have staked too much on making Brexit happen and work - never mind that whatever the outcome is a significant fraction of the voters will be deeply unhappy with it.

Sounds like a few egos need to be bruised and a few swords fallen on to me. This is the kind of disaster that should result in parties losing power and people losing their careers.

[Crazedwraith]

If the referendum was held again today, it would still likely be as close as it was the first time around. That is if the issue of having a 2nd referendum at all didn't skew the results one way or the other.

The logic of your argument doesn't actually stand in the way of political rhetoric. A 2nd referendum gives plenty of opportunity for brexiters to talk about subverting the will of the people and they would have a point. A referendum that is only final when the people in power get the result they want is not democratic at all.

Perhaps politician should be falling on their swords, I wouldn't ever hold my breath on it though.

[Jub]

If the referendum was held again today, it would still likely be as close as it was the first time around. That is if the issue of having a 2nd referendum at all didn't skew the results one way or the other.

The logic of your argument doesn't actually stand in the way of political rhetoric. A 2nd referendum gives plenty of opportunity for brexiters to talk about subverting the will of the people and they would have a point. A referendum that is only final when the people in power get the result they want is not democratic at all.

Perhaps politician should be falling on their swords, I wouldn't ever hold my breath on it though.

If the choice was made without proper knowledge of the consequences one can hardly call it a valid decision, especially when there is time between the acquisition of said knowledge and the consequences of said choice. I doubt most yes voters expected this outcome and the chaos and suffering that would come of it. I wonder how many still backing the idea of Brexit, for various reasons, have any true understanding of just how badly fucked the UK will be the second they no longer have proper trade deals with the European mainland.

This result is one of the worst pitfalls of allowing the uninformed to be swayed by rhetoric and a solid argument that democracy isn't always capable of taking care of the needs of the public even when it exactly follows the will of that very public.

[Crazedwraith]

If the referendum was held again today, it would still likely be as close as it was the first time around. That is if the issue of having a 2nd referendum at all didn't skew the results one way or the other.

The logic of your argument doesn't actually stand in the way of political rhetoric. A 2nd referendum gives plenty of opportunity for brexiters to talk about subverting the will of the people and they would have a point. A referendum that is only final when the people in power get the result they want is not democratic at all.

Perhaps politician should be falling on their swords, I wouldn't ever hold my breath on it though.

If the choice was made without proper knowledge of the consequences one can hardly call it a valid decision, especially when there is time between the acquisition of said knowledge and the consequences of said choice. I doubt most yes voters expected this outcome and the chaos and suffering that would come of it. I wonder how many still backing the idea of Brexit, for various reasons, have any true understanding of just how badly fucked the UK will be the second they no longer have proper trade deals with the European mainland.

This result is one of the worst pitfalls of allowing the uninformed to be swayed by rhetoric and a solid argument that democracy isn't always capable of taking care of the needs of the public even when it exactly follows the will of that very public.

Dude, you are coming in here and trying to preach stuff we've all known for years. I'm not saying they are wrong or without merit, but they will not fly in the current political climate.

[Jub]

Dude, you are coming in here and trying to preach stuff we've all known for years. I'm not saying they are wrong or without merit, but they will not fly in the current political climate.

It doesn't seem like anything is flying in the current political climate, how is this any worse than the current vote losing by the widest ever margin followed by an almost immediate no-confidence vote. At the current rate of progress, Brexit happens with no deals in place, Article 50 isn't repealed, and you have a new party at the helm wondering what they can do to stop the bleeding when the country is out of bandages.

I know I haven't been posting actively in this thread, but I do follow the situation. Are any of my solutions any less viable than the unviable solutions being voted down at literally record setting rates?

[Crazedwraith]

Dude, you are coming in here and trying to preach stuff we've all known for years. I'm not saying they are wrong or without merit, but they will not fly in the current political climate.

It doesn't seem like anything is flying in the current political climate, how is this any worse than the current vote losing by the widest ever margin followed by an almost immediate no-confidence vote. At the current rate of progress, Brexit happens with no deals in place, Article 50 isn't repealed, and you have a new party at the helm wondering what they can do to stop the bleeding when the country is out of bandages.

I know I haven't been posting actively in this thread, but I do follow the situation. Are any of my solutions any less viable than the unviable solutions being voted down at literally record setting rates?

What solutions? What the fuck are you talking about?

Please do find me a majority of MP willing to fall on their swords to repeal Article 50? They don't exist.

I'm sure lots of remainers in this thread wish they do but they don't. Babbling about the damage they'll do doesn't change a damn thing does it? Again, the brits in this thread telling you why it won't happen, know the damage better than you, we're in the firing line here but we can't magically make Parliament come to a consensus just because they should.

[Jub]

What solutions? What the fuck are you talking about?

Please do find me a majority of MP willing to fall on their swords to repeal Article 50? They don't exist.

That's the only viable solution and the one which causes the least harm. That it isn't realistic doesn't make it any less valid a suggestion when, at present, no solution seems to be realistic. This isn't like I'm suggesting something outrageous in the face viable alternatives actively being worked on.

I'm sure lots of remainers in this thread wish they do but they don't. Babbling about the damage they'll do doesn't change a damn thing does it? Again, the brits in this thread telling you why it won't happen, know the damage better than you, we're in the firing line here but we can't magically make Parliament come to a consensus just because they should.

So what are you doing to fix things? I doubt you're typing these on your phone out in front of parliament with the protestors.

[Crazedwraith]

What solutions? What the fuck are you talking about?

Please do find me a majority of MP willing to fall on their swords to repeal Article 50? They don't exist.

That's the only viable solution and the one which causes the least harm. That it isn't realistic doesn't make it any less valid a suggestion when, at present, no solution seems to be realistic. This isn't like I'm suggesting something outrageous in the face viable alternatives actively being worked on.

Again, find me the majority of MPs that will go along with it. It doesn't matter how good your solution is if no-one will enact it.

For the umpteenth time, and read carefully, I agree that would be the ideal solution. I am not saying it's not logical or anything else. I'm simply pointing out the reality of the situation.

I'm sure lots of remainers in this thread wish they do but they don't. Babbling about the damage they'll do doesn't change a damn thing does it? Again, the brits in this thread telling you why it won't happen, know the damage better than you, we're in the firing line here but we can't magically make Parliament come to a consensus just because they should.

So what are you doing to fix things? I doubt you're typing these on your phone out in front of parliament with the protestors.
[/quote]

Go fuck yourself you sanctimonious little shit.

Seriously, you asked a question why something isn't happening. We told you. You don't get to tell me I'm wrong just because you don't think I meet some criteria you've set for doing enough.

[Jub]

in an age where we have Trump in power in the US, Brexit in full meltdown mode, Russian chewing up its neighbors, and an ongoing international refugee crisis, it just feels like we should be doing more than bitching on a message board. Be mad at me all you like but don't tell me that just voting against these things is an acceptable form of protest.

I'm lucky enough that my nation and province is doing okay right now but if, and hopefully they don't anytime soon, things get that bad here I won't be staying home and crying to you about it. The closest issue like this that I'm geographically able to change is probably a pipeline that may or may not get built at this stage. If I had the means to travel to them I'd spend time on the picket lines myself, but seeing as I don't and, for now, the project is still pretty stalled, I'm less guilty than I could be for not doing so.

If you guys want to suggest local Vancouver stuff I should be doing something about and guilt me into participating more actively in it feel free, I could use something to fill time at the moment.

[madd0ct0r]

Generally? Give us a thread with your skillset ill line them up for you.
---

On topic.

While its finally happened no actual surprises.

General feeling in media is government will survive no confidence vote. Theresa May cannot be shamed into retirement. Establishment fear of corbyn still higher then brexit.

Norway+ would be my personal bet except i think May is still fixated on immigration since being home sec, and she might accept no-deal just to lock down immigration. Its an irrational sense of finishing a job.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Be mad at me all you like but don't tell me that just voting against these things is an acceptable form of protest.

Why not? Isn't that what democracy is about- voting against shit you don't like?

There's no arguing with the Brexit Bunch, for the simple reason that intelligent argument is wasted on the stupid. I've yet to meet one who's managed to solve the Icing Irish Border Problem.

[Jub]

Why not? Isn't that what democracy is about- voting against shit you don't like?

In theory, yes. In practice... I question the wisdom of letting a group as generally ignorant as the voting population of most democracies to set policy. It's why we've seen a steady trend of immediate gratification in politics that's only accelerated with the 24/7 news cycle. You simply can't plan anything long term because if you don't deliver promises fast enough you won't get a second term to see that plan through. In most cases, your party won't even get that chance as in most nations because people tend to vote for parties and not Presidents/Prime Ministers. When you train people to vote on reality TV, is it any wonder when they start to treat all voting as trivially as they do that same vapid programming?

A better system would be to allow the public to vote on social topics as well as things which directly impact them but have little real consequence. Like should gay marriage be allowed or should grocery stores be allowed to continue selling tobacco products? Then, each election cycle randomly selects a cross-section of people from across all levels of society, and in a jury duty like fashion, take a month to have that elections campaign issues presented to them be a non-partisan panel confirmed with at least a 2/3rds majority by the house and senate (or local equivalent). Those that pass a simple test to ensure comprehension of the material presented to them (example: Did party A promise this or that with regards to the issue of education?) are then allowed to vote.

It gives the people as a whole a voice but allows you to ensure that voters have at least a base level of exposure to each politician's policies and platform and some explanation of what those policies will entail. Such a system would likely have prevented things like Brexit or Trump's election as you wouldn't have people voting who don't know that the ACA is Obamacare.

[Zaune]

A better system would be to allow the public to vote on social topics as well as things which directly impact them but have little real consequence. Like should gay marriage be allowed or should grocery stores be allowed to continue selling tobacco products? Then, each election cycle randomly selects a cross-section of people from across all levels of society, and in a jury duty like fashion, take a month to have that elections campaign issues presented to them be a non-partisan panel confirmed with at least a 2/3rds majority by the house and senate (or local equivalent). Those that pass a simple test to ensure comprehension of the material presented to them (example: Did party A promise this or that with regards to the issue of education?) are then allowed to vote.

And who gets to decide what topics are okay to let the hoi polloi have a say and which ones are so important that only smart people should vote on them, and indeed who qualifies as smart enough to vote?

[Jub]

And who gets to decide what topics are okay to let the hoi polloi have a say and which ones are so important that only smart people should vote on them, and indeed who qualifies as smart enough to vote?

That's the rub, isn't it? Though I never said that people had to be smart enough to vote on anything, you take a limited number of people, say 2-3% of your total population, from a broad cross-section of classes, careers, income brackets, ethnic backgrounds, and levels of education and ensure they're educated on the issues for that election cycle. The testing is only to ensure that they paid attention to the material presented and can remember minimal details about what was presented to them. Ideally, you'd do this for the whole population, but the cost and loss of economic output make that completely out of the question.

[The_Saint]

Why not? Isn't that what democracy is about- voting against shit you don't like?

In theory, yes. In practice... I question the wisdom of letting a group as generally ignorant as the voting population of most democracies to set policy. It's why we've seen a steady trend of immediate gratification in politics that's only accelerated with the 24/7 news cycle. You simply can't plan anything long term because if you don't deliver promises fast enough you won't get a second term to see that plan through. In most cases, your party won't even get that chance as in most nations because people tend to vote for parties and not Presidents/Prime Ministers. When you train people to vote on reality TV, is it any wonder when they start to treat all voting as trivially as they do that same vapid programming?

A better system would be to allow the public to vote on social topics as well as things which directly impact them but have little real consequence. Like should gay marriage be allowed or should grocery stores be allowed to continue selling tobacco products? Then, each election cycle randomly selects a cross-section of people from across all levels of society, and in a jury duty like fashion, take a month to have that elections campaign issues presented to them be a non-partisan panel confirmed with at least a 2/3rds majority by the house and senate (or local equivalent). Those that pass a simple test to ensure comprehension of the material presented to them (example: Did party A promise this or that with regards to the issue of education?) are then allowed to vote.

It gives the people as a whole a voice but allows you to ensure that voters have at least a base level of exposure to each politician's policies and platform and some explanation of what those policies will entail. Such a system would likely have prevented things like Brexit or Trump's election as you wouldn't have people voting who don't know that the ACA is Obamacare.

That's getting into the same debate territory as the concept of professional juries and likely falls to the same arguments: that as soon as you limit access (to vote) to a certain portion of society (those who are politically literate) you have divided society into two classes and placed restrictions on one of those. Sure becoming politically literate has smaller hurdles than changing ones skin colour or sex but you'd be pushing shit uphill to get society as a whole to accept it.

The true solution would (and should) be to make the wider public more literate in political science matters. (As an aside I find it baffling that certain extended parts of my family tree who reside in the UK seem fairly ambivalent at best and at worst wilfully ignorant on Brexit matters. How can one not give two shits about the society they reside in???).

Here in Aus there's a political ... movement ... ? party ? that is trying to introduce the concept of issue based direct democracy. wiki link
The theory is that people can either directly and individually influence a vote OR delegate their vote on an issue to someone they feel might have a better grasp of what's going on. While this might not actually change the outright results of something like the initial Brexit referendum I'd like to think it might change the result of those who don't care to vote / don't turn up... "the silent majority" if you will. At best it makes it clear when MPs do dumb shit things like claim they have the will of the people and then make a stupid decision that arguably is NOT the will of the people.

[Jub]

That's getting into the same debate territory as the concept of professional juries and likely falls to the same arguments: that as soon as you limit access (to vote) to a certain portion of society (those who are politically literate) you have divided society into two classes and placed restrictions on one of those. Sure becoming politically literate has smaller hurdles than changing ones skin colour or sex but you'd be pushing shit uphill to get society as a whole to accept it.

That's why my idea has a selected number of people crash course educated over a month before the vote is cast. Not everybody gets selected each election, but anybody could be selected. The main limits would be finding a properly neutral and well-educated panel to design and present the educational package.

Here in Aus there's a political ... movement ... ? party ? that is trying to introduce the concept of issue based direct democracy. wiki link
The theory is that people can either directly and individually influence a vote OR delegate their vote on an issue to someone they feel might have a better grasp of what's going on. While this might not actually change the outright results of something like the initial Brexit referendum I'd like to think it might change the result of those who don't care to vote / don't turn up... "the silent majority" if you will. At best it makes it clear when MPs do dumb shit things like claim they have the will of the people and then make a stupid decision that arguably is NOT the will of the people.

My issue with that is you have people that can't balance their household finances voting on issues of trade and taxation. You have people who didn't graduate science getting an equal say to scientists on climate change. You're ensuring that the voices of those who know what they're talking about must be filtered through a figurehead to be voted on not based on fact but on how good the presenter is at emotional manipulation.

Matters of state shouldn't be a popularity contest.

[The Romulan Republic]

A better system would be to allow the public to vote on social topics as well as things which directly impact them but have little real consequence. Like should gay marriage be allowed or should grocery stores be allowed to continue selling tobacco products? Then, each election cycle randomly selects a cross-section of people from across all levels of society, and in a jury duty like fashion, take a month to have that elections campaign issues presented to them be a non-partisan panel confirmed with at least a 2/3rds majority by the house and senate (or local equivalent). Those that pass a simple test to ensure comprehension of the material presented to them (example: Did party A promise this or that with regards to the issue of education?) are then allowed to vote.

And who gets to decide what topics are okay to let the hoi polloi have a say and which ones are so important that only smart people should vote on them, and indeed who qualifies as smart enough to vote?

Yeah, every now and then you get some idiot saying that "we should only let the smart people vote", or something to that effect. But that is ultimately antithetical to democracy in any form, and it will inevitably lead to people rigging the game to make sure that only the people they agree with vote.

We got a lot of that shit after Trump won: Democracy has failed, we need to have tests for voting so the unwashed masses don't elect a demagogue. Only the unwashed masses didn't elect a demagogue. They elected Hillary Clinton. The Electoral Colleges- the very institution that's supposed to keep the unwashed masses from electing a demagogue, was the one that ended up electing the demagogue.

The worst tyrannies and injustices in America have always been about the corrupt in power rigging the game to keep themselves in power. It has never been because we had too much democracy.

[Crazedwraith]

All I'm seeing from Jub is bullshit about how the world should be and what he thinks a good system would be. Ignoring the fact we were always talking about the reality about what is actually happening and possible.

[Lost Soal]

My issue with that is you have people that can't balance their household finances voting on issues of trade and taxation. You have people who didn't graduate science getting an equal say to scientists on climate change. You're ensuring that the voices of those who know what they're talking about must be filtered through a figurehead to be voted on not based on fact but on how good the presenter is at emotional manipulation.

Matters of state shouldn't be a popularity contest.

Congratulations, you've just described elected politicians.

[mr friendly guy]

Er... what? That is not clear to everyone. Brexit won the referendum and still has substantial support among MPs and the general public. Anyone suggesting taking back Article 50 is promptly branded as anti-democratic and as being against the will of the people.

The problem is no one can decide exactly what Brexit means, so it's all factionalised into many different options with no clear winner. May's deal went down because it was too hard for remainers and too soft for brexiteers.

What about a referendum on whether to remain in the custom union, and a few other questions.

[Crazedwraith]

Er... what? That is not clear to everyone. Brexit won the referendum and still has substantial support among MPs and the general public. Anyone suggesting taking back Article 50 is promptly branded as anti-democratic and as being against the will of the people.

The problem is no one can decide exactly what Brexit means, so it's all factionalised into many different options with no clear winner. May's deal went down because it was too hard for remainers and too soft for brexiteers.

What about a referendum on whether to remain in the custom union, and a few other questions.

There's growing support for another Referendum. The 'People's Vote' but as far as I know now clear idea what would be on it. There could be various degrees of leave (may's deal, no-deal, canada+, norway+) and possibly remain, if it was one question. I don't recall anyone suggesting multiple specific questions like that.

But it's mostly from Lib Dem and various random MPs from other parties afaik, no-one who really matters.

[Jub]

All I'm seeing from Jub is bullshit about how the world should be and what he thinks a good system would be. Ignoring the fact we were always talking about the reality about what is actually happening and possible.

It's almost like the current system isn't working and I'm suggesting we change the underlying system instead of whining on a message board and shuffling to the poles every couple of years...

Congratulations, you've just described elected politicians.

Again, it's almost like I don't have faith in the current system based on decades of results and am calling for a large change to the system.

-----

I also feel like people didn't actually read my suggestion if they still think it's a voting restriction or some means of only allowing the smart to vote. I just want to make sure that the votes cast come from people who've at least followed the election and know what the issues are. I've specifically stated that these voters should come from all walks of life and then be educated on the issues by a neutral group of experts. The testing would be only to ensure the material was understood, to ensure some minimal mental competence, and to help improve the system of education for the next election.

[Crazedwraith]

All I'm seeing from Jub is bullshit about how the world should be and what he thinks a good system would be. Ignoring the fact we were always talking about the reality about what is actually happening and possible.

It's almost like the current system isn't working and I'm suggesting we change the underlying system instead of whining on a message board and shuffling to the poles every couple of years...

How are you suggesting that? By whining on a message board!

If you want to talk about the way the world should be according to you, go make your own thread, don't blather on about impossible hypotheticals in a current events thread.

Seriously, you began by asking why X wasn't happening. We explained, now you've gone off into an irrelevant fantasy tangent. Fuck off

[Jub]

How are you suggesting that? By whining on a message board!

If you want to talk about the way the world should be according to you, go make your own thread, don't blather on about impossible hypotheticals in a current events thread.

Seriously, you began by asking why X wasn't happening. We explained, now you've gone off into an irrelevant fantasy tangent. Fuck off.

So faced with a looming disaster, something I'm currently not facing, what are doing to fix things? You seem to agree with the assertion that the current system is broken, so why be upset with suggestions to take a more active part in politics?

I'm pretty happy with how my government is running, the fact that we got a referendum about changing my provinces voting system from FPTP to a more balanced system of tabulation means I don't feel as much need to protest against the base system because change for the better is already looming. I'm here on a message board because I have the luxury of not being faced with a current disaster of my own nation's making.

Can you say the same? Can you say with the benefit of hindsight that you shouldn't have worked harder to prevent a yes vote from winning? That you shouldn't have started protesting when May was elected? If yes to any of these why bitch at me?

Can you really say that the current system is working and serving the people? Can you say that Brexit will bring prosperity and freedom to the UK? If no to any of these why bitch at me?

You're sitting here fiddling while Rome burns. It's not 100% on you that things got this bad, but you could at least grab a bucket and douse the flames closest to you instead of tweeting about how you voted for anti-arson laws at the last city council meeting.

[Crazedwraith]

As expected May's government has survived the vote of no confidence but has yet to present their plan B. Persistent rumours that Plan B is another run of plan A with more incentives to individual MPs.