What do you understand by the concept of Democracy?
Discussion
TTwiggy said:
amusingduck said:
TTwiggy said:
I've effectively answered this above. I simply don't believe we needed a referendum. Our membership (or not) of the EU was not the most pressing issue facing this country in 2016. It did not warrant special measures.
I wasn't aware that I could 'solo' campaign for a rule change.
The EU referendum was a matter of "when", not "if". I wasn't aware that I could 'solo' campaign for a rule change.
If not in 2016, when?
Pan Pan Pan said:
That financial meltdown affected all countries not just the UK, but it seems the UK has been better at clawing its way out of the financial meltdown than many others, including many of the EU`s other member states. Being in the EU did not seem to help them much did it?
Please, please stopATG said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
That financial meltdown affected all countries not just the UK, but it seems the UK has been better at clawing its way out of the financial meltdown than many others, including many of the EU`s other member states. Being in the EU did not seem to help them much did it?
Please, please stopATG said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
What is the matter, does simple truth upset you when it is presented?
No, funnily enough that is not the matter. Tediously banging on about the EU ad nauseam in a thread that is about a much bigger subject is the problem.I was trying to understand the flexy, bendy, selective version of `democracy' that some here seem to believe is democracy, using the same jumping off point as the OP (Brexit), as a way of learning more about what people understand is the true meaning of the term democracy.
It seems that their flexy, bendy, selective version of democracy is not something they want to enlighten on, or discuss with others., and so they shie away from giving an answer.
In the interests of finding out exactly what they mean by the term democracy, I asked a specific question as to whether the way the UK was taken into the EU was in fact democratic, and whether or not the way the UK is being taken out of the EU is also democratic, and if not, why not? No one has deigned to give a straight answer to that question, so I don't know what they mean when they refer to the term democracy. I believed trying to find out what people understood to be the concept of the term Democracy was in fact the point of the thread.
Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Thursday 27th July 14:10
Pan Pan Pan said:
The title of they thread says `What do you understand by the concept of Democracy' where the OP used the matter of Brexit as a jumping off point for discussion on the meaning of the term.
No you don't. You want to talk about how awful the EU is and how much better off we are out. That's fine, but there are plenty of other threads for that.Pan Pan Pan said:
ATG said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
What is the matter, does simple truth upset you when it is presented?
No, funnily enough that is not the matter. Tediously banging on about the EU ad nauseam in a thread that is about a much bigger subject is the problem.I was trying to understand the flexy, bendy, selective version of `democracy' that some here seem to believe is democracy, using the same jumping off point as the OP (Brexit), as a way of learning more about what people understand is the true meaning of the term democracy.
It seems that their flexy, bendy, selective version of democracy is not something they want to enlighten on, or discuss with others., and so they shie away from giving an answer.
In the interests of finding out exactly what they mean by the term democracy, I asked a specific question as to whether the way the UK was taken into the EU was in fact democratic, and whether or not the way the UK is being taken out of the EU is also democratic, and if not, why not? No one has deigned to give a straight answer to that question, so I don't know what they mean when they refer to the term democracy. I believed trying to find out what people understood to be the concept of the Democracy was in fact the point of the thread.
1. Were we democratically taken into the EU?
Yes. We were taken into the EU by our democratically elected parliament, whom we elect to conduct matters of State on our behalf.
2. Are we being taken out of the EU democratically?
Yes. We are being taken out of the EU as the result of a direct referendum (another form of democracy to the ones we most frequently use), and have now handed back day to day responsibility for the process of departure to our duly elected parliament again.
Now that you've had an answer, please can we get back to theoretical discussion?
Sorry to go off topic, but my idea of democracy is where the people vote on a topic and the majority decision is policy.
We do not live in a democracy. We have the benefits and downsides of a parliamentary democracy, something that is fundamentally different to the bare democracy. We vote for representatives on our area and they get together with others to form a legislature.
We have a monarch but we are not a monarchy as Madge is not the supreme ruler.
One possible weakness of our parliamentary democracy is that there is no written democracy as such. There are pretenders to this authority, but they all fall down. Magna Carta is probably the most over-rated document.
We would appear to be going through a change in our form of parliamentary democracy. The theory is that there is an independent judiciary but this has come under a bit of attack of late. Further, there is the so-called fourth estate (legislature, executive, judiciary) which is a free press. This is under constant bombardment and is, to an ever increasing extent, under a degree of control of the government. The police similarly has become controlled by various means. The theory is that each individual officer sits in judgement of his/her own actions, but this is an illusion except when they are being disciplined.
Further, the idea of an external court, not under the single control of one state, to make judgements on important matters of rights, is surely the best protection on offer. The present government would appear to be staking steps to remove this check.
We have a flawed method of government. Its imperfections are many and it seems that they are being justified by the suggestion, unevidenced, that bad as it is it is better than the alternatives.
Along with external courts, a free press, an independent judiciary and a non-political police, we have threats to the House of Lords which, imperfect as it is, has certain protections built into it. So we seem to be working towards one of these worse alternatives.
Now let's all get back to brexit.
We do not live in a democracy. We have the benefits and downsides of a parliamentary democracy, something that is fundamentally different to the bare democracy. We vote for representatives on our area and they get together with others to form a legislature.
We have a monarch but we are not a monarchy as Madge is not the supreme ruler.
One possible weakness of our parliamentary democracy is that there is no written democracy as such. There are pretenders to this authority, but they all fall down. Magna Carta is probably the most over-rated document.
We would appear to be going through a change in our form of parliamentary democracy. The theory is that there is an independent judiciary but this has come under a bit of attack of late. Further, there is the so-called fourth estate (legislature, executive, judiciary) which is a free press. This is under constant bombardment and is, to an ever increasing extent, under a degree of control of the government. The police similarly has become controlled by various means. The theory is that each individual officer sits in judgement of his/her own actions, but this is an illusion except when they are being disciplined.
Further, the idea of an external court, not under the single control of one state, to make judgements on important matters of rights, is surely the best protection on offer. The present government would appear to be staking steps to remove this check.
We have a flawed method of government. Its imperfections are many and it seems that they are being justified by the suggestion, unevidenced, that bad as it is it is better than the alternatives.
Along with external courts, a free press, an independent judiciary and a non-political police, we have threats to the House of Lords which, imperfect as it is, has certain protections built into it. So we seem to be working towards one of these worse alternatives.
Now let's all get back to brexit.
To Pan Pan Pan about his question ....
Some have chosen to answer it. Others think it is irrelevant. Personally, I think it is based on an obviously false premise; you're assuming there's a symmetry between the UK "joining" and leaving the EU. That's obviously not true. They were very different so why would you expect democratic accountability to be achieved the same way in both cases? For the UK leaving the EU is more obviously comparable to joining the EEC ... i.e. a big step-change in our relationship with our neighbours. EEC -> EU was a much smaller step for the UK and was nothing like as contentious an issue as either joining the EEC or leaving the EU.
Some have chosen to answer it. Others think it is irrelevant. Personally, I think it is based on an obviously false premise; you're assuming there's a symmetry between the UK "joining" and leaving the EU. That's obviously not true. They were very different so why would you expect democratic accountability to be achieved the same way in both cases? For the UK leaving the EU is more obviously comparable to joining the EEC ... i.e. a big step-change in our relationship with our neighbours. EEC -> EU was a much smaller step for the UK and was nothing like as contentious an issue as either joining the EEC or leaving the EU.
TTwiggy said:
With respect, I think you being rather disingenuous. For a start, rather less than half the country voted for the Conservatives in 2015. And of those who did vote for them (me included) I'd wager that the EU referendum wasn't a motivating factor one way or the other (it wasn't for me).
They were voted in according to our FPTP general election rules. Rather less than half the country has voted for every government since the 1930s.It might have been that the EU referendum wasn't the motivating factor - but by putting the Conservatives in power, everybody who voted for them (myself included) created the very real risk that we could end up exiting the EU.
TTwiggy said:
I also think that trying to turn this into a 'me problem' for my failure to rise up against the rules of the referendum with an army of followers is rather missing the point.
I'm not turning it into a "me problem" - you did that by complaining you weren't personally consulted on the rules. I'm merely pointing out that the rules were clear long before the vote was held and neither you nor any other remainers seem to have exercised any of the options available to you to question those rules before the vote was held.
Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 27th July 16:07
Moonhawk said:
I'm merely pointing out that the rules were clear long before the vote was held and neither you nor any other remainers seem to have exercised any of the options available to you to question those rules before the vote was held.
Were there any challenges from the leave side? Do you seriously think that a private individual of normal means would be able to mount a challenge to the format of a national referendum in enough time, and with enough force, to cause a rethink?Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 27th July 16:07
Derek Smith said:
We have a monarch but we are not a monarchy as Madge is not the supreme ruler.
That's not correct, Derek.We do live in a monarchy, and the Queen is our Head of State.
We just happen to live in a Constitutional Monarchy (somewhat ironically, given we're famous for our lack of a written Constitution) as opposed to an Absolute Monarchy, which is what you have in mind.
TTwiggy said:
Were there any challenges from the leave side? Do you seriously think that a private individual of normal means would be able to mount a challenge to the format of a national referendum in enough time, and with enough force, to cause a rethink?
Probably not - but like the remain side - they were probably happy with the rules at the time.As for whether you would be able to mount a challenge - did you even try. Creating an e-petition takes 2 minutes.
Of course - mounting a challenge would assume you did not agree with the rules of the referendum. Did you, or actually did you not give it much thought (especially in light of the polls)
ATG said:
...For the UK leaving the EU is more obviously comparable to joining the EEC ... i.e. a big step-change in our relationship with our neighbours. EEC -> EU was a much smaller step for the UK and was nothing like as contentious an issue as either joining the EEC or leaving the EU.
Subjective.IMO, every treaty change should have been open to a referendum. And Maastricht was a big one. Like going over a brow on a rollercoaster.
It should have been possible to summarise the benefits at each treaty change, note which powers were to be transferred etc, and let people decide whether they wanted to continue with ever closer union. If at each "small" step change the a bit of benefits tracking had been done things would be very different now and far less divided.
Anything which fundamentally changes the way control is handled within the country probably ought to be open to a referendum.
pim said:
Rules regarding the referendum? I have lived and worked payed my taxes for more than fifty years in the U.K.
Because my passport is from a other E.U country I had no right to vote in the referendum.
That isn't Democracy is it?
Your ability to have changed your circumstances such that you could vote is though Because my passport is from a other E.U country I had no right to vote in the referendum.
That isn't Democracy is it?
amusingduck said:
The EU referendum was a matter of "when", not "if".
If not in 2016, when?
Those campaigning for Brexit knew that demographics were against them. I read a piece a few years back which said that UKIP had a limited timeframe in which to complete their mission, because their supporters would die off!If not in 2016, when?
The FT did some research that suggested there would be a swing to Remain by 2020 due to young voters getting the franchise, and older ones dying off.
Going back to the original question, the problem with referenda is that there's no scope for debating an outcome, and the campaigns are divisive. Is the existing devolution settlement the best outcome for Scotland, or would a federal UK be more stable long term? Does most of the British population really want a hard Brexit?
The other issue is that votes in referenda are treated as a once in a generation thing. Some of that is probably self-interest by politicians. A second vote on Brexit in 2019 could go the other way due to demographics, but is it democratic if people can't change their minds?
Moonhawk said:
Of course - mounting a challenge would assume you did not agree with the rules of the referendum. Did you, or actually did you not give it much thought (especially in light of the polls)
As (I thought) I made clear above, I really couldn't care less one way or the other about the EU. I neither love nor loathe it. I voted remain out of pragmatism. I thought the whole thing to be a massive waste of time, money and effort when it should be the government's job to decide things like this. I voted because I have never missed a vote since turning 18 and I wasn't about to start now (then). For what it's worth I thought it would be close, but 'remain'. I am not devastated by the result but I consider it to be the 'wrong' decision. And now, please no more bloody Brexit.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff