Quantcast
View Post

Politics Discussion - Brexit - View Post

fatslob-:O said:

You ought to consider formatting your posts so that it's a little bit more readable ... 

HylianSwordsman said:

Lol, if you dont apply calling for elections before a politician's term has ended? Your own prime minister called snap elections! And nearly lost them! Now that's something I'd have found "beautiful". Past precedent matters only to a point. If "we haven't ever had a referendum capable of overturning a previous one" is what you call a precedent, then I'm sorry, but I don't see how that's a good enough reason to not hold a new election if that's what the people want? Simply never having done something before doesn't make it a precedent not to do it. Again, why does democracy only need to be respected when it works your way? When it's the first referendum, it's sacred democracy, when it's the second, you pull the "precedent" nonsense because a second referendum could make you lose, and that scares you, so now the formerly sacred democracy must be protected from its own will so that its own will can be carried out. That's ridiculous.

Theresa May did not call for snap elections. That's on the consensus from the parliament (2/3rds of it in fact) and even if May did piss away at her strong majority she and her party still has the mandate to decide on what terms her party wants to leave the EU and if she's not going to take no-deal off the table then that's the end of the story ... 

I mean sure, but the point is elections were called before a politician's term was ended. And I never suggested no-deal or any Brexit should be taken off the table.

It's NOT about what the people want, it's about what the PARLIAMENT WANTS and if the vast majority of them don't want to hold another referendum but they still want to respect the vote more than overturning the possibility of no-deal then you have to terms with result despite your cries for another referendum ... 

The parliament STILL wants to respect the democratic result unlike you and they see it my way, not yours ... (they obviously know better than you if their the ones in charge)

Sure, if they don't want hold a referendum they don't have to. That's how parliaments work. I never suggested otherwise. If they say no, then it's not happening, and the whole world will just have to come to terms with it. Very true. I don't think they know better than me, but I'm sure you think you know better than them on several matters. I mean for Christ's sake, surely you wanted Brexit before the referendum was even called for, no? And yet they didn't hold a referendum for the longest time, no? Do they only know better when they finally come around to agreeing with you?

HylianSwordsman said:

I have. Multiple times. It's because in my case, you have a more accurate way of measuring the result, and public understanding has increased so they can make a more informed choice. And black people couldn't vote before Abraham Lincoln's ascension to the White House either. Some precedents need to be broken. And if you're that obsessed with precedent, there's no reason they couldn't have a "Rejoin" referendum, where instead of overturning the first referendum, the choices are "Leave" or "Rejoin" and "Rejoin" means that Britain makes a deal with the EU to rejoin the EU immediately after leaving. Technically this doesn't break precedent, it just isn't very satisfying for leavers, but then neither would staying out for a couple years before a new referendum rejoined you later. Yes, elections have consequences, and you're scared of the consequences of a second referendum. Again, it COULD go your way. I think you know you'd lose though, which is why you're so scared of it. Now stop squirming away from good arguments and give me a reason why things have to be so extreme to have a second referendum.

@Underlined You really haven't ... 

Public understanding always increases with respect to the past but hindsight is always 20/20 so that's not a good reason for holding another vote especially since Leavers had to deal 43 years of it. Some precedents do need to be broken, however that should only apply in times of chaos and the union states were right to abolish slavery while the confederate states were wrong wage a civil war. Similarly, it's wrong for the Remainers to try and overturn the result of the first referendum regardless of whatever method they deem ... 

Of course hindsight is a good reason. Like you said, Leavers had to deal with 43 years of it. And do you not think the current time is chaos? Ireland certainly thinks so. But it doesn't always have to be chaos. Giving women the vote was against precedent, but there was no chaos to prompt it. It was just the right thing to do.

I have no qualms about "Rejoining" but then the UK would lose out on many of their opt outs such as having an independent currency or not having to participate within the Schengen Area and I suspect this is the reason why you won't consider this route more strongly instead is because the UK might well NEVER return to the EU on these terms which is why you're in a desperate bid to struggle as much as possible to vouch for a second referendum before the UK's exit ... 

Not necessarily. The UK could work out a deal with Europe to rejoin under the same terms they left with. I'm not nearly as desperate as you seem to think I am. As I've said, I'm an American. It makes little difference to me. It's just my honest opinion on the subject.

It was wrong for the confederate states to deny social social change from democracy and it's wrong for Remainers to do the same so it's time for the latter to come to terms with it or face the possibility of a losing civil war ... 

Deny social change? That's what you think this is about? Social change? You can't compare ending slavery to Brexit on the grounds of social change, my friend. It sounds more like you're concerned with winning a CULTURE war. Which you lost long ago. Brexit is more an economic issue for Remainers, the fact that you try to make stupid economic decisions so that you can feel like you got a victory in a dead culture war just seems ridiculous to them.

HylianSwordsman said:

No it doesn't. Referendums aren't a party. Factions like Leave and Remain are cross-partisan, even non-partisan at times. Referendum's like Turkey's hardly serve as an example with how much manipulation of the process we saw. That was electoral fraud.

@Underlined Not anymore they aren't ...

Factions create new alliances all the time and now the Leaver's have taken root within the Conservatives while remnants of the Remainer's still remain (pun intended) with Labour ... 

So? Leave and Remain may not be now (although they aren't as solidly partisan as you probably think they are) but in general factions are not inherently partisan.

As far as the subject of Turkey is concerned, the electoral process remained pristine in large so the result was indeed legitimate for the most part. Democracy can be used as a tool for enhancing dictatorships so calling a second referendum only enhances the Remainers dictatorship over the UK. Your ploy is all just that and nothing more since you're only interested in using the instrument to further your own ideals but not anymore should Leavers stand for your manipulation of the system since for 43 years they've had no justice served for them but now they should finally look to being more optimistic cause they're finally having justice delivered for them ... (we see this in every day where homeowners are doing everything they can to making it a living hell for new home buyers by voting for installing draconian regulations in place just so they could 'protect' their "precious property value")

There you go again with justice, like they deserve this because they wanted it all along and had to wait for it. So then how long do remainers have to wait to rejoin? They may already have the numbers. Why wait? (I do agree with you about homeowners though, fuck them and their precious property value, but I think there are better ways to deal with that injustice than Brexit)

HylianSwordsman said: 

No it isn't. Because I'm not scared. I'm in America. This doesn't affect me. And I respect the results of the first format, which is why I think ONLY a second referendum could overturn it. That's democratic. Only the current will of the people can overturn the past will of the people, because to me, democracy is always sacred, but to you, it's only when it works for you.

Why isn't my format better?

It absolutely does because it has implications for your pro-globalist movement. Democracy is only sacred if it comes with the social change. Voting comes WITH the mandate! (you don't respect the original result which is why you're strongly proposing for another referendum before the exit and by breaking this precedent you are specifically jeopardizing respecting the mandate in the future) 

Similarly, give me a reason why Republicans have to respect the result of the presidential elections when a Democrat get's elected since Remainers don't have respect the first result ? This is the paradox you have to deal with in your own argument since you still have yet to give an answer in that case ... (changing the format does nothing and in fact Republicans can probably do the same to get a "more accurate result") 

'Accuracy' is up for interpretation but I will layout the problems later on with your proposal ... 

Globalist. That word means nothing to me. I'm not some scheming lizard person orchestrating a new world order, I just occasionally read enough about what's going on in other countries to have an opinion on stuff happening there when it pops up in a worldwide gaming forum. Democracy is sacred with or without social change. It's sacred for its own sake, because power should be divided as much as possible and not concentrated. If I had my way, we'd get rid of the Presidency altogether in my country. Hell, I might even advocate for a system of direct democracy if I saw a model for it that I thought was feasible and sustainable. Democracy can create more than social change. It can create economic change. It can prevent change altogether. Change isn't always good. Sometimes it is, but not always, and democracy doesn't need to carry social change with it in every decision to be sacred. And there's a difference between disagreeing with the result and with not respecting it. I respect it. I didn't say that the Brexit referendum was manipulated. I think the votes were tallied correctly and that it mandated a Brexit. I just think that a mandate can change over time, and that a mandate can be miscalculated. That's something that has to be subject to debate, and like we said above, it's not up to us, it's up to the representatives of our legislative bodies. They have to debate it and come to a conclusion. We can debate it too, but all we can do is talk to our representatives and convince others to do the same, but I don't even have a representative. This is all just a thought exercise for me. As for elections for elected office, if there were a reason to believe a new vote was needed I'd be all for it. I don't actually see such a reason at this time, but if both Trump and Mike Pence were ever impeached, I would say that one would be very warranted, because 3rd in the line of succession is Nancy Pelosi, and the people definitely deserve to have a say in that. In general though, I don't think elected officials should have their terms cut short by a vote, and new votes should only happen if the original vote was illegitimate due to fraud, or if the elected official resigns, dies, is impeached, or the office is otherwise vacated. For referendums, I think a different logic is called for, as these are policy proposals, not terms of office, and there's no reason a policy should have to be enacted just because it was wanted at some point. If the public opinion changes, why can't a new referendum offer a new measurement of that opinion and carry with it a new mandate? If parliament was voting on a law, and it initially had public support but after some debate that support eroded, why should parliament pass it? Just because there was an official measurement of the initial support doesn't mean that the support can't erode or that the first measurement is the only one that will ever be good. Just do another measurement. Especially if you can measure it more accurately, which ranked choice most certainly is. You still haven't argued against ranked choice offering better accuracy.

HylianSwordsman said:

I do see it as sacred. All the time. I'm saying for you, it's only sacred when it works for you. A second referendum wouldn't profane the sacredness of democracy, it would enhance the sacredness, because it measures the will of the people more accurately and currently with the most informed populace possible. We'd respect the results of the second because we respected the results of the first as well. After all, the second includes the winner of the first, and the first will be done if there is no referendum, it will only be overturned if the people want to. A third referendum wouldn't be needed because people aren't going to get more informed than they are now, and it's doubtful another better format will present itself. If it did, again you have the "referendum referendum" I suggested to see if the people think a new referendum is warranted. Hell, the people might not want to hold another referendum just because they're tired of the stress of politics, in which case they might vote No to the second Brexit referendum.

@Underlined It absolutely would because invalidating the result is fine with different format and never getting to respect the mandate is not in anyway 'democratic' ...

Well sure it is. If a new mandate overturns the first mandate, the new mandate is still a mandate, and the most current mandate is the one that matters. But I don't see what that has to do with the underlined portion. The underlined portion was about the sacredness of democracy. If democracy decided one thing, there is a sacredness to the democracy, but not inherently to the thing it decided. The thing it decided only matters while it has the support of democracy. Because a second referendum is held, it creates a new mandate that aligns the outdated or perhaps altogether inaccurate old one with the current will of the populace, thus enhancing the sacredness of democracy, as I said.

You 'respecting' the first result because you "respected the second result" is nothing more than a falsehood. A second vote DOES NOT absolve the first. In a democracy, opinions change all the time so that's why we settle it with day and date ... (it's paramount in a democracy to care about the time when it happens, not when it will happen again) 

I disagree. There can be multiple days and dates, and honestly, if there were a way to continuously measure the will of the people to keep the mandate continually aligned with its will, I'd be for that, though I don't know what that would look like in any manageable way. As I said above, I'd be for direct democracy if I could figure out how to make it work. For now, since all we have is representative democracy, actual direct democracy initiatives that use directly democratic mechanisms absolutely should stay as continually in touch as is feasible with the will of the people. Continuous referendums would not be feasible, but 2 referendums would be.

Your reasoning for not holding a third referendum is not correct because it's absolutely not true that people AREN'T going to be more informed than they were in the second vote so let that sink in for a moment as to how you've just created another paradox in your argument ...  

No, no paradox there. Two years and tons of revelations of the populace into exactly what the cost of Brexit is creates a substantially more informed populace. Sure, at any given moment people probably know immeasurably slightly more, but probably not enough to warrant a whole referendum. Which is where the "referendum referendum" could come in and allow the people to decide if they think one is called for or not. 

HylianSwordsman said: 

Now see, finally you're actually addressing my proposal instead of just complaining about precedent. I did define them though. Hard Brexit is No Deal. I know that was several responses ago, but hopefully you recall. If you do, you may also recall that soft Brexit was May's deal. Remain then is revoking article 50. The original referendum was NOT watertight precisely because it didn't show exactly what the Brexit deal would be. If things were being done properly, the first referendum would have been to persue a Brexit deal, not actually Brexit. The Brexit talks should have been done BEFORE article 50 was invoked, May would have come out with her deal, and THEN the second referendum would be held to decide on whether to take No Deal, May's Deal, or Remain. In this case, No Deal means invoke 50, let the period expire without pursuing a deal with the EU, use the time to build a trade network with other nations, while May's Deal means invoke 50, use May's deal for the EU, use the time to build a trade network with other nations. Remain would just mean to call of pursuit of the Brexit and remain, the possibility of which would have been written into the first referendum to be perfectly transparent with the people. This reality would be much better as May would have much more time to negotiate a good deal, and the maximum amount of time could be devoted to securing better trade deals elsewhere, and the whole process would be more orderly for business and citizens alike. But it's too late for that because your government fucked up majorly and didn't even try to plan ahead. So instead, the best we can hope for is to allow a second Brexit referendum, or at least a referendum on whether to have a second Brexit referendum, with the choices for the second Brexit referendum being No Deal, May's Deal, and Remain, as described at the beginning of this paragraph. Since people would in this circumstance know what precisely a hard and soft Brexit would be, this resolves your perceived flaw. It isn't perfect, I suppose, as it isn't the ideal situation described in my second scenario with the planning ahead, but it's better than forcing a public that may have changed its mind to accept an outcome it doesn't want anymore.

Now herein lies the problem with your thought process ... 

Labour doesn't agree with you that May's deal is a 'soft' Brexit because it doesn't feature a 'permanent' customs union with the EU so they see it as a 'hard' Brexit for them, Likewise, the ERG faction within the conservatives see May's deal as being too 'soft' of a Brexit and not "hard enough for them" because they don't want an 'indefinite' customs union with the EU since it prevents the UK from striking it's own trade deals with the other countries so in the end there's no compromise to be had regarding Brexit thus parliament will not vote for May's deal thus by extension they will not put it up for people to vote either. The parliament already ruled out a permanent customs union during last summer so the only way out of the EU is no-deal and the vast majority of the Conservatives aren't going to include a 'Remain' option if there's going to be a second referendum but more importantly Jeremy Corbyn isn't going to whip his Labour rebels (they'd be reluctant to also include an option to remain as well) into a second vote or his entire party in general for a second vote ... 

If you can't find this "common ground" for a third option then don't bring this up ever again because it's pointless conjecture speculating on a second vote. It's absolutely important that the parliament agrees to a format if they want to hold another referendum because neither the position of a 'hard' or a 'soft' Brexit is defined by consensus like you seem to think it is ... 

I'll bring it up if I want to. You can't tell me what to do :P But yeah, May's deal isn't ideal for a soft Brexit, but it's the closest we have to an option for Brexit that isn't no deal. Hard and soft are metaphors. No one is going to get precisely what they want because it isn't a perfect process. But as it stands, May's deal, no deal, and remaining are the only options going forward, so that's all that you could ever put on a referendum. You keep bringing up what parliament could or would do, but it isn't relevant. Like I said, this is a thought exercise, and I'm an American. I'm under no delusion that I'm going to get this to happen. This is a thread on a gaming forum. Nothing we say here matters all that much. So I don't care what the current parliament will do, I'm saying what I think should be done.

May could NOT achieve a deal BEFORE article 50 was invoked because the EU made it absolutely CLEAR that she and the parliament had to trigger article 50 and she had already tried to seek some concessions from the EU before the referendum ever happened. Parliament maybe wants a deal but they don't want a 'permanent' (Labour wants this but the rest of parliament doesn't) or an 'indefinite' (May/party loyalists want this but the ERG and Labour don't) customs union where in either case the UK has absolutely no say in it ... 

Again, I don't care what your parliament wants. This is a thought experiment, not something I'm actually trying to get parliament to do. And no, she could have tried a hell of a lot harder than she did. Your leader is weak.

The EU makes impossible to prepare for Brexit ... (without anymore compromises from the EU's side, the DUP and the ERG will be happily content with no deal and the parliament is not interested in ANY of the current solutions with a customs union either with EU's 'indefinite' version or Corbyn's 'permanent' version) 

I doubt anyone can actually prepare for Brexit even if Theresa May had better political conditions like before ... (In the grand scheme of things I don't think losing 13 seats mattered all that much when there's at least 50+ Conservative MPs who are very allergic to a customs union) 

An ideal 'soft' Brexit should be Canada style but the EU won't let the UK cause the EU *totally* feels obligated to meet what is supposed to be Ireland's and ONLY IRELAND's sole responsibility to meet the GFA. I can't fathom why Ireland keeps thinking that they can have both their cake (Northern Ireland) and eat it (EU single market) when they stand to lose out the MOST in a no deal scenario. Either Ireland chooses to stay in the single market (EU) or keeps open the possibility of Irish reunification (NI/GFA) because THEY CAN'T have BOTH so they need to stop acting so childish when it comes to Brexit and START ACTING DIPLOMATIC ... (they need to know that an agreement can't be one-sided just like they realized before with the GFA) 

Yeah Ireland is fucked, no two ways about that. If you want to discuss what I think Ireland should do, under the actual political reality they find themselves in, and separately from the second referendum scenario we've been discussing, I think you're right about this.

It's ALL on Ireland to decide the fate of a UK-EU relationship because they are the ones who are likely blocking the UK from a Canada style path but if they're more interested in nuking the UK then they should expect them to reciprocate in response ... (while the UK is wallowing in no deal, they'll just wait for Ireland to either wallow in the possibility of losing the single market or be forced to hurt their pride in the process which is killing the possibility of reunification) 

If Ireland isn't interested in a Celtic-English Channel customs checkpoint with the EU then no deal is absolutely palatable since that's the price of karma ... 

Yeah I'm not entirely sure what Ireland should do, but they're not making any progress spinning their wheels like they are. If I were to throw in my two cents, I'd favor reunification if I were them, though I admit I'm much less informed on this issue.

HylianSwordsman said: 

Then mandate turnout if that bothers you so much. Your problems aren't hard to solve, you're just being disingenuous with your arguments.

With the last sentence, I'm really not for the most part and the international consensus seems to be is that compulsory voting is wrong and abstaining should be a right ... (I am also not surprised that most countries with compulsory voting seem to be in troubled democracies or not even a democracy at all with North Korea) 

Oh it would be a right. You'd have a right to put in a blank or spoiled ballot. I like the Australian system.

Find some other way to keep turnout high in an organic fashion rather than make it legally compelling because it's not just to make people vote if they don't want to especially in a big country like the UK where there's 40M+ citizens of voting age ... 

How about a national holiday to vote, at least one month of early voting, the ability to get a day off from work to vote in the same way you can for jury duty (only if the national holiday doesn't work for you though, like if you're essential staff or something, and you'd have to bring proof that you voted) and a fine if you don't vote. Nothing soul-crushing, just enough to provide an incentive. And of course you can still leave a blank ballot or spoil it in whatever way you think provides the most potent message of protest.

HylianSwordsman said: 

Yes but not outside institutions like a monarchy.

I don't see why a monarchy should be any less legitimate of an institution for protecting freedom like a republic. Republics can have bad actors as well like the confederate states and the last time the British monarch explicitly exercised power was OVER 300 years ago but most of all the UK has opened a path for former colonies to become republics themselves and even offered referendums to their own states over sovereignty ... (Northern Ireland and Scotland in particular) 

The US on the other hand blocks any mechanism for states to unilaterally exit the union. In some regards a monarchy is a better paragon of freedom than a republic ... (the UK MUST NOT break it's great track record with respect to democracy because if it is to serve as an example of a democracy which is why I've previously argued many times that by including an option to remain in the second vote you break the spirit of the first vote)

I think we'll need to agree to disagree on monarchies.

 If there is to be a second referendum EITHER don't include an option for remaining or do it AFTER Brexit has happened but it shouldn't have to degrade itself to the level of Alexis Tsipras cowardice where he tried to get the Greeks to vote against the EU's bailout plan only for the EU to compromise on another alternative instead of holding an In/Out referendum with the EU or to the level of Latin America's crony democracy but I guess the EU chose to set Britain out as an example for correction instead of showing the door out initially with Greece ... (I guess it's not worth the trouble of letting the UK opt out on freedom of movement compared to bailing out Greece from the EU's perspective) 

Fine, but the "referendum referendum" to decide whether to hold a second EU membership referendum should happen as soon as possible. The actual second EU membership referendum could happen after Brexit, if it was decided to have one, but it should still be within a reasonable timeframe. If anything, I could certainly entertain the idea that actually having a Brexit would inform the populace even further in a meaningful way.

HylianSwordsman said: 

Yes, not the entire electorate, but they have to fall in line with the voters that voted them, or they won't get voted in again. I do wish we had multi-member districts or mixed member proportional representation to make it more accurate and represent as many people as possible as closely as possible, but that'll be a lot of work to get that to change.

It goes like this in a democracy with higher delegated powers ... 

Only 'candidates' have to be held accountable by the people, 'officials' don't on the other hand even if they face re-election because at that point they're candidates once again  ...  

"Proportional representation" of a single constituency/district is nothing more than a dream which is why we have FPTP with a single representative but even proportional representation doesn't give you 'perfect' representation so you have to go the full way towards direct democracy which is very expensive but I guess Americans could afford having some referendums ... 

Don't tell me not to dream! :P

HylianSwordsman said: 

I identify as independent here in the states, but I'd definitely be a Republican if I lived in Ireland. Screw your monarchy. No offense meant to you personally of course, I just have strong feelings about monarchies in general.

You see your northern neighbors which are under a British monarch but you don't see them as being 'oppressed' except for maybe Quebec ...  

Had you guys not faced "taxes without representation", the monarchy could've been maintained but such is the abated never ending battle between globalism and independence which is why the EU will face it's reckoning with it's own arrogance just the the UK's own arrogance before it ... (either give the UK more opt out power or just limit veto powers to the biggest financial contributors in the EU or the EU could go kiss their own asses in the end if they aren't going to agree to either of those things) 

The UK DOES NOT like bailing failing economies like Greece and there should be quota's on freedom of movement ... 

Well this is getting a bit off topic, but let's just say I agree that the EU needs significant reforms and I understand why there was a desire to leave in the first place.

HylianSwordsman said: 

I'm certainly not arguing there aren't flaws with our system. I don't experience any hindrance to freedom of movement between states though. I recognize there are laws around interstate commerce, but it certainly has never restricted my movement, so I feel like I effectively have freedom of movement.

I don't mean 'intranational' freedom of movement, I mean 'international' freedom of movement and the fact that the UK doesn't have one with it's own 'family' nations figuratively speaking with the highly developed commonwealth realm along with the US is absolutely far more baffling since they are a part of the anglosphere while it's stuck with the EU ... 

The developed anglosphere have very high standards, share a common cultural heritage, represent the purest forms of a liberal democracy at a large scale with an amazing track record to boot, they share lot's of trust between between each other (Five Eyes) and they're pretty damn isolationist (I see this as a positive) so it makes more sense to seek out an exclusive minimum anglosphere club than facing quite a bit of divide from some of the other EU member states ... 

Getting some form of a restricted freedom of movement and a free trade agreement between the Five Eyes is something far more sellable and palatable than the current arrangement with the EU ... (I don't know why the idea hasn't been sold yet) 

Ah, I see what you mean now. That sort of freedom of movement would be really cool. If we got that out of Brexit, I'd be a lot happier with it personally. Maybe not my first choice, but it'd be very exciting if it happened.