countthree
Well-Known Member
Many polls said Stay would win. And they were wrong. The true poll is the vote. Private polls are bought by private interests. You are proposing the hack of democracy.
Brexit
- Thread starter countthree
- Start date
Many polls said Stay would win. And they were wrong. The true poll is the vote. Private polls are bought by private interests. You are proposing the hack of democracy.
Cornflakes
"A bit iffy" ★★☆☆☆ - AV Club
In terms purely of grammar, of course the referendum question was a complete question. But we didn't get told what we were actually voting for if we voted leave. Cameron possibly thought this meant he couldn't lose, because who would vote for an unknown quantity? Oops. Whatever. But the effect was that it was a bit like playing Deal Or No Deal, with the banker (or, in this case the banker and the two newspaper columnists) telling you to switch boxes and all your dreams will come true and the host warning you that the box might have anthrax in it. This was no way to run a referendum, and it's hard to see how it can be argued that people have made an informed decision.
Put another way, this is clearly a decision with two phases. How can it be defended as democratic to include the public in the first phase and then demand their exclusion from the second? What swung the referendum was people being offered the moon on a stick by people who were willfully lying to them. At some point, a bunch of politicians is going to be instead coming back from Brussels with a poo in a brown paper bag. At that point, I'm not sure the attitude of the majority is going to be "fair enough, we had our say back when you were lying to us, so it's completely normal and correct that we should shut our mouths now and let you get on with it".
A
Anonymous
Guest
You can't predict the future so you can't put it in a referendum. No one knows what the deal made will be because no one in the uk can say what the e.u will do or offer or what the uk will counter offer. They don't know how they will leave because it involves people's actions outside of the U.K. How do you put that in a referendum. As an example how would you have phrased the proposition being voted on. Also to say people voted leave because they fell for lies is a big assumptive leap. are you saying mal above voted out because he fell for lies. To me it seemed like both sides were exaggerating pretty badly with the remain telling everyone the sky would fall and kill them if they voted out and no it won't
A
Anonymous
Guest
The bottom line is, the general public are not qualified to make such a decision. You're putting a pencil in the hand of the average man on the street, who with all due respect, knows f*** all about politics. f*** what anyone says, the vote was won on immigration, and i for one am sickened. Shame on all you who voted leave
countthree
Well-Known Member
I'm glad Morrissey finally didn't give an opinion about this matter... he knows better who is he dealing with. It seems he is done with some issues. He is global.
The denial of democracy is 100 times worst than the bad decision. I've lost money with brexit, as a lot of people around the world did. If it was because people who were submitted to the EU against their will decided to leave, it's ok. I have a friend living in a place called Costwolds who voted out, and her reasons are totally acceptable. Democracy has its costs. Dictatorship may be more profitable, but it's totally immoral. If they want to ignore people's decision with arguments like "uninformed", "lying politicians"... well, that's a circus.
The denial of democracy is 100 times worst than the bad decision. I've lost money with brexit, as a lot of people around the world did. If it was because people who were submitted to the EU against their will decided to leave, it's ok. I have a friend living in a place called Costwolds who voted out, and her reasons are totally acceptable. Democracy has its costs. Dictatorship may be more profitable, but it's totally immoral. If they want to ignore people's decision with arguments like "uninformed", "lying politicians"... well, that's a circus.
countthree
Well-Known Member
This is one of the most undemocratic statements I've read in my life, and I grew up in a dictatorship.
matchboxboy
Member
The last poll of 10,000 people, using phone, online and street data, (IE, the polls that you should pay most attention to), said leave would win with 48/52. This was posted on Leave.EU and StrongerINEurope's twitter feed as the voting booths closes. Britain's always been hard to poll because we don't tell people how we're voting. So stop that. YouGov was wrong. Polling was not. Equally, I don't know why you think polling companies are owned by Machiavellian CEOs with strange agendas that can only be served by polling that's based on slightly wrong data because out-dated techniques are used, because they're not. YouGOV is the only one that could be described that way. Most are non-profits and private polling firms are contracted by the campaigns, not the news - you very, very rarely see any results from those. In order for us to legally leave Europe, MPs have to vote on it. So I don't think we're going, personally. That, by the way, is how Democracy works.
Hate crime are up 56% since this vote. I assume that's a false poll conducted by our evil leaders to smear the leave campaign (and not a figure pulled from just four days of police figures).
I'm proposing no "hack", I'm postulating that an advisory referendum will be used as just that - advice. When all the big names in "Leave" campaign have said they don't want to leave Europe, I find it very hard to believe any of them will enact Article 50. Maybe Teresa May because she hates the EU Court of Human Rights but I don't think it likely she gets the leadership. This is a Boris ship now.
Here's some good reading: http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ows-back-key-pledges-immigration-nhs-spending
http://indy100.independent.co.uk/ar...source=indy&utm_medium=top5&utm_campaign=i100
"People expecting to see a fall in immigration figures will be disappointed" is a key phrase in all of that.
The EU have made it very clear, in the article I linked to, that they have no reason to cut us a good trade deal and we will not be granted . China have point-blank said that they have no interest in trade with Britain (they've said it three times since the result and have said they won't even open preliminary negotiations). Other countries have also said the same. We were downgraded today by Standard and Poor - twice in one go. The pound is still falling. Many countries are coming out to say that dealing directly with Britain on it's own holds no interest for them and would break agreements they have with others. So no, that trade deal isn't happening.
A
Anonymous
Guest
So do you think voting should be eliminated with polling put in its place because of course we need to accept that if the poll said it it's true. Your poll might have said that leave would win but many did said remain would even up till the vote started. The e.u has plenty of financial incentive to keep the uk in there trading circle and so will the us and many other countries. It's about profit and the e.u is not what made the u.k profitable to trade with. The standard ratings also go up and down and you've been downgraded because as of right now no one knows what the future will hold for sure. It's still just the result of formerly said uncertainty. Many articles in many publications have said the exact opposite of what you're stating including the USA today article I read not ten min ago
A
Anonymous
Guest
Even just a quick search found articles with Canada Australia both saying there trade with the u.k would be ok and a Moody's ratings boss saying that the u.k wouldn't go into recession etc. it's not quite the certainty you claim it to be or the independent claim it to be. Also seems like Cameron just said there would be no second referendum
countthree
Well-Known Member
If your idea of democracy is producing a referendum about a topic to know people's wishes and politicians going exactly against the expressed opinion of the majority, I don't share that idea of democracy.
If you want to make us believe that your fake-democracy-suigeneris-system-ruled-by-a-queen decided that people's opinion is not convenient, it's ok. No news here. Everything is crystal clear now.
Please, give me my money back because you ruined everything for nothing.
Cornflakes
"A bit iffy" ★★☆☆☆ - AV Club
Yes, you're right that the exact terms of leaving couldn't possibly have been included in the referendum question. Fair enough. But surely you can see that this gives rise to a bit of a problem at the ballot box, with people ticking a box without actually knowing what they are voting for?
There's no reason I can see, though, why there couldn't be a second referendum to ask people what they think of the terms once we actually know what they are, provided an opportunity to do that arises. How is that not simply what democracy requires?
Regarding lies, I'm really not making any assumptive leap. A great many people very clearly voted on the basis that the UK would get control of its immigration policy back, we'd be rid of all the red tape associated with the Common Market and there would be £350 million extra per week spent on health services. But the people running the leave campaign have already been clear that it isn't their intention that we will get any of those things. So, it was a con.
There were lies on both sides (although the lies from the remain side were not on the same scale - no-one actually said the sky would fall in, and the economic outlook does look quite bleak), but the lies don't sort of cancel each other out so that it's as if no-one lied in the first place.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Well you can vote on a deal I suppose but you and I live In a representative democracy and not a complete one. People can't hold referendums on all and everything race deal. It wouldn't work. It can just cause endless amounts of money spent. What if they don't like the deal and vote it down but still want to leave etc. propose a third referendum. Why not hold a public referendum on every law. Voting involves risk. I can't say what the candidate I vote in for president will do in there four year term or what challenge will arise unseen that they will react in a way I don't like. I however don't expect a referendum to be held if I don't like it. You're better off trying to influence your political representatives now to get the deal you want as I don't think the vote to leave leaves you no avenues to prosperity. For better or worse the representative democratic system does, however frustrating it can be, work. I had to sit through eight years of George bush and his calamitous decisions for our economy, like his tax cuts he and his party passed, but that's the price you pay when we vote. I lost and did my best to not let it happen again. Saying he had to put his tax plan to a public vote would cause more problems than it would solve. Who decides what goes to public vote. Should we put it to a public vote. As to lies, you can't make people believe what you think is the truth no ,after how hard you try even if you are beyond reasonably right. Even if they believe lies and vote stupid it doesn't negate the worth of the vote and shouldn't mean they shouldn't be able to vote. It means you, not you specifically but the remain side, should have tried harder to more clearly explain there position and tried harder to convince people. From my perspective, and I as for the remain side even if I'm not in the vote, could have done much better at this instead of trying to use what I felt like we're vauge unrealistic sounding scare tactics. I saw the words permanent economic catastrophe used a lot and that's just not true or at least it doesn't have to be that way but a lot on the remain side seemed to give that vision a lot of play. It made them seem like a bunch of wealthy people voting for there own economic interests and trying to scare others to there side for there own benefit
Cornflakes
"A bit iffy" ★★☆☆☆ - AV Club
Who said anything about having a referendum on everything and anything? Here, we have a two-part question, so two referendums doesn't seem like an unreasonable thing to ask for. No referendum at all might have been okay, but having just one doesn't tell us what the public actually wants.
I have written a short play.
WAITER: Would you like soup of the day, madam?
CUSTOMER: No, I don't think I fancy soup.
WAITER: Very well, madam.
The waiter scuttles off, then returns.
WAITER: Here you are, madam, a raw turnip that I have drawn a face on.
CUSTOMER: But I don't really want a turnip.
WAITER: I am sorry, madam, but you have made your choice. Now pick up your goddamn fork.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Because it's a slippery slope and everything in law is connected and effects multiple areas and things. If you want a second referendum in this instance then someone will want a referendum on something else. What makes your desire more important than the other persons. All laws passed are comprised of descisions one leading to another. As to the play should the person be mad that there weren't asked if they wanted to use chopsticks instead of a fork. Who said anything about a plate. Was the customer asked about a plate. Your play still represents absolute democracy and you love, thankfully I might add, in a representative democracy. You influence policy through your elected officials which is what I would encourage you to do. You seem to really not want to vote on a trade deal but seem impossible to hope that by rejecting any trade deal that it'll somehow lead to over turning the referendum on leaving. You seem to think that people just need to come to there senses which is a dangerous thing to do. It leads to the precedent of those in the power now saying well I know they voted but that was just the temp vote, I know what they really thinking, let's have a do over until I get my way which leads to the devaluation of voting. Will everything need to be voted on three times in order to determine if the voters really meant it. An argument could be made if you go down that road
countthree
Well-Known Member
Make it three referendums... if a tie occurs
A
Anonymous
Guest
TTY STATEMENT !
It is with great sadness that we now officially announce the reason for the lack of barking mad statements from Steven Paddy Tosserrey. Shortly after the death of David Bowie Doctor Jeremy Fine discovered that Steven was far from fine even in the gossamer way. Further tests revealed just as Dr Fine had concluded !
Steven is suffering from Corbynittus Syndrome, a disease which makes one lethargic and mute.
Benny-the-Britsh-Butcher
It is with great sadness that we now officially announce the reason for the lack of barking mad statements from Steven Paddy Tosserrey. Shortly after the death of David Bowie Doctor Jeremy Fine discovered that Steven was far from fine even in the gossamer way. Further tests revealed just as Dr Fine had concluded !
Steven is suffering from Corbynittus Syndrome, a disease which makes one lethargic and mute.
Benny-the-Britsh-Butcher
A
Anonymous
Guest
An article pretty much stating that after the commons meeting this morning they are leaving and bowing to the will of the people which is for the good I think in this case. Less risky. And another to lighten the mood for all of us brexperts here including myself (basically an article about how everyone and there mother is now talking like a brexpert)
http://www.politico.eu/article/david-cameron-on-brexit-turmoil-not-my-problem/
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/brexit-media-brexperts-213994
The first talks about options for the next pm. About how they want access to the single market but don't want migration or to contribute to the budget. Perhaps they could eliminate the immigration but pay an access fee that might be something less than what they were contributing to the budget but still significant
http://www.politico.eu/article/david-cameron-on-brexit-turmoil-not-my-problem/
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/brexit-media-brexperts-213994
The first talks about options for the next pm. About how they want access to the single market but don't want migration or to contribute to the budget. Perhaps they could eliminate the immigration but pay an access fee that might be something less than what they were contributing to the budget but still significant
A
Anonymous
Guest
Also a nice article from financial times about why the public at large stopped listening to Economists
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/money...ped-paying-attention-to-economists/ar-AAhIiQm
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/money...ped-paying-attention-to-economists/ar-AAhIiQm
