EU Referendum - La Deuxième Partie

[pchang]

Ken's world view => The majority of people are lazy idiots whose long term perspective only extends a few meters beyond the end of their nose.
Cockney's world view => The people are wise and if only their collective view could be followed at all times, we would achieve utopia.
Paiktis' world view => As long as I've got mine, screw the rest of you.

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

I tend to go with ken on that one.

[C0ckney]

Bollocks, the reason we don't decide things by referendum is because we REALLY don't want to end up with referendums on things like 'Should all brown people be deported?' or 'Should we bring back public hangings for people who aren't sufficiently British'. The public can't be trusted with single issue votes because the public are largely wildly uneducated about the complexity and consequences of issues and can be relied on to make idiotic decisions based on emotional feelings that can change from one day to the next.

so, in other words, the reason that we don't, and shouldn't, hold referenda is that the plebs might vote the 'wrong' way. one of the interesting things to come out of the referendum is discovering how many people support democracy only insofar as things go their way. ironically, this matches the attitudes of many elites, who are happy to dispense with democracy when it becomes inconvenient, like when the people of a south amercian country elect a leader who promises land reform.

The whole point of a representative democracy is that we elect people who spend their time studying issues and getting advice from experts to try and formulate the best policy they can based on the general ideology of the people who elected them. All this waffle about elites and rulers is just camoflage for the public being too ****ing lazy to hold their representatives accountable for the most part, despite regularly having the opportunity to do so.

that's the theory; the reality is very different. take a listen to the debate on syria and you'll see the boundless ignorance of MPs about a matter of life and death. any member of the public who had taken 30 minutes to read the excellent syrian civil war reddit would have been much better informed than almost all our 'representatives'. it's well known that MPs don't even read the vast majority of what they vote on (there's so much legislation these days that it would be very hard to do so).

[Dauphin]

so, in other words, the reason that we don't, and shouldn't, hold referenda is that the plebs might vote the 'wrong' way. one of the interesting things to come out of the referendum is discovering how many people support democracy only insofar as things go their way. ironically, this matches the attitudes of many elites, who are happy to dispense with democracy when it becomes inconvenient, like when the people of a south amercian country elect a leader who promises land reform.

The idea that people are too stupid or ignorant to have a say is a scary form of discrimination - it goes against the concept of universal suffrage. People can be educated or ignorant on a subject, but they still have the right to have their say (be it idiotic or well-thought out) on the matter laid before them.

The problem occurs when you consider how that decision interacts with lots of other similar decisions. Don't ask people to vote on a single variable, ask them to vote on a number of rational permutations of related variables. If you don't, then you'll find that instead of voting for a driver, they vote for where to turn the steering wheel but have no control over the brakes or the accelerator, or worse, have people pressing both at the same time. That is to say, the reason you shouldn't have referenda is because it has a high risk of incongruous and discordant results.

The problem we seem to have with the EU referendum is that the decision to Leave was made, but with no clear policy or approach to how Leave would be enacted. We are in a limbo waiting for the dust to settle from an internal Tory leadership campaign that may or may not be followed by a general election.

In other areas, you can rationally vote on an appropriate level of public spending or welfare, and you can have the same people then rationally vote for an appropriate level of taxation. It would be better if those decisions were combined so that a coherent policy on tax and spend were reached. When you vote for a party with a manifesto, you are hopefully voting for a framework and for a leadership whose approach is coherent and consistent.

[Elok]

I tend to go with ken on that one.

[C0ckney]

The idea that people are too stupid or ignorant to have a say is a scary form of discrimination - it goes against the concept of universal suffrage. People can be educated or ignorant on a subject, but they still have the right to have their say (be it idiotic or well-thought out) on the matter laid before them.

The problem occurs when you consider how that decision interacts with lots of other similar decisions. Don't ask people to vote on a single variable, ask them to vote on a number of rational permutations of related variables. If you don't, then you'll find that instead of voting for a driver, they vote for where to turn the steering wheel but have no control over the brakes or the accelerator, or worse, have people pressing both at the same time. That is to say, the reason you shouldn't have referenda is because it has a high risk of incongruous and discordant results.

The problem we seem to have with the EU referendum is that the decision to Leave was made, but with no clear policy or approach to how Leave would be enacted. We are in a limbo waiting for the dust to settle from an internal Tory leadership campaign that may or may not be followed by a general election.

In other areas, you can rationally vote on an appropriate level of public spending or welfare, and you can have the same people then rationally vote for an appropriate level of taxation. It would be better if those decisions were combined so that a coherent policy on tax and spend were reached. When you vote for a party with a manifesto, you are hopefully voting for a framework and for a leadership whose approach is coherent and consistent.

i think those are some interesting points.

the first thing i would say is that it wouldn't have been possible to do as you describe for the EU referendum because the exit and future direction depends on negotiation, and the EU was hardly likely to offer a range of exit packages before the event. one of the things often said about referenda is that many people don't vote about the issue at hand, but rather use them to express dissatisfaction about other issues or the general situation. i think that's true; but to argue from there that people should be given even less of a say is completely wrong in my view. the answer is to give people more say over more things so that they have a real input into decisions that affect them, and thus don't feel the need to stick two fingers up when they finally get a vote on something important.

in general, though, i think your idea would be a good one to implement. it might also have the (from my point of view) welcome side effect of showing people just how irrelevant the national political scene, and thus the nation, is to their real lives. at a local level such moves would be far more effective, and indeed far more relevant. they could pave the way for many new alternatives in line with people's wishes. moreover, in the digital age, this kind of engagement is now technically feasible.

[C0ckney]

edit: actually scratch that. bloody idiots produced a poll that adds up to 101%.

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]178453[/ATTACH]

That's exactly what I mean yes; average = stupid and I don't choose to walk it back. Not this year.

That it's all a failure of leadership is another subject, I guess.

[The Mad Monk]

I think it's fair to mention that the author of the below and other SATW comics lives in, and is a native of, Denmark.

It's nothing
I promise I'll do a comic about something else next week, but for now Brexit is still immensely entertaining/complicated/scary.

6th July 2016

http://satwcomic.com/it-s-nothing

[Dinner]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/24/brexit-deal-free-movement-exemption-seven-years

The shape of post Brexit UK's relationship with the EU is starting to take shape and it looks a hell of a lot like the deal Cameron tried to make but which Merkel refused prior to the Brexit vote. Free trade will be preserved, the UK will get an emergency break to stop or restrict immigration up to 10 years at a time, new comers will be blocked from access to welfare for up to four years and/or have welfare access phased in in proportion to how much they have paid into the system, and while the UK will still contribute to the EU budget it's costs will go down substantially. The only real downside is the UK will lose its seats in the EU as it will no longer be a member. If Merkel hadn't been such a **** to Cameron something like this could have been agreed on last year and Brexit avoided.

Oh, and I am not surprised the French were trying to be ***** like they always are.

[KrazyHorse]

What was the word you used to describe Merkel's behavior?

[BeBMan]

I bet it's either **** or ****

[KrazyHorse]

I'm interested to know if it was misogynist or not.

[Dauphin]

Misogynist is too many letters.

[KrazyHorse]

Hah.