What do you understand by the concept of Democracy?
Discussion
Troubleatmill said:
Kermit power said:
98elise said:
What's the point of a second vote on the same question? If you had a second vote which changed the outcome, then the leavers would want a 3rd etc etc.
We voted..we got a result.
By that logic, why have another general election? After all, we voted and got a result.We voted..we got a result.
Could it possibly because circumstances change, and we might change our views based on those changes?
What if, 30 years from now, the EU has become a shining bastion of transparent democracy andis the last place on earth with access to clean water, fresh food and internet porn? Would you still be sat there thinking "we voted and got a result", or might you just think it was possibly worth reconsidering your intransigence?
What if 30 years from now the EU becomes a group of third world countries?
Greece, Spain etc - are well on that path.
If they could afford to get out of Dodge.... they would.
They are effectively trapped.
Can you accept the possibility - that the EU isn't working out so well for a fair chunk of its members?
What on earth makes you think I would stuggle to accept something which is glaringly obvious to anyone with half a brain?
I'm pretty ambivalent about the whole referendum result personally (which seems to make me rather unique) because I think there were far more important things to address first which are still not being addressed as we try to deal with Brexit, but that doesn't make the position I initially responded to any more logical.
Kermit power said:
Troubleatmill said:
Kermit power said:
98elise said:
What's the point of a second vote on the same question? If you had a second vote which changed the outcome, then the leavers would want a 3rd etc etc.
We voted..we got a result.
By that logic, why have another general election? After all, we voted and got a result.We voted..we got a result.
Could it possibly because circumstances change, and we might change our views based on those changes?
What if, 30 years from now, the EU has become a shining bastion of transparent democracy andis the last place on earth with access to clean water, fresh food and internet porn? Would you still be sat there thinking "we voted and got a result", or might you just think it was possibly worth reconsidering your intransigence?
What if 30 years from now the EU becomes a group of third world countries?
Greece, Spain etc - are well on that path.
If they could afford to get out of Dodge.... they would.
They are effectively trapped.
Can you accept the possibility - that the EU isn't working out so well for a fair chunk of its members?
What on earth makes you think I would stuggle to accept something which is glaringly obvious to anyone with half a brain?
I'm pretty ambivalent about the whole referendum result personally (which seems to make me rather unique) because I think there were far more important things to address first which are still not being addressed as we try to deal with Brexit, but that doesn't make the position I initially responded to any more logical.
....'What if, 30 years from now, the EU has become a shining bastion of transparent democracy andis the last place on earth with access to clean water, fresh food and internet porn? Would you still be sat there thinking "we voted and got a result", or might you just think it was possibly worth reconsidering your intransigence?"
The reality is.... many EU countries right now are in the s
t....wholly dependant on handouts given by industrial powerhouses that are importing cheap labour "thanks to..... free movement of labour from countries whose economy we have wrecked. Yup... We will make it.... Use your cheap labour to come over here and make it.... and we will give you a handout as compensation."These countries cannot leave.. Ever. They are Fecked.
Spain has circa 50% youth unemployment.
The shining bastion you speak of will never happen.
Just expect Germany to grow more economically - with much more cheap labour migrating towards it.
Democracy is saying anything you can to win the votes of the disenfanchised, gnerally thick , majority in order to gain power in order to impose your egotistical, social engineering ideology on others and ensure your retirement is funded by an unnaffordably over-generous pension and lucrative advisory roles and book deals.
Why all the fuss about the result and legality/validity of the 2016 referendum?
Not a single person in the UK voted for, or was even given a chance to vote on whether or not they wanted the UK to be a member of the EU.
In 1973 The UK was taken into the EEC by the government of the day,without asking the citizens of the UK if this was what they wanted. The 1975 referendum merely asked the people if they wanted to remain in something they had already been taken into without their consent.
The fact that the EEC changed itself into something completely different (the EU) without asking the people of the UK (or Europe for that matter) if this was what they wanted, makes the UK`s membership of the whole EU Ponzi scheme even.more questionable.
In the 1975 referendum, there was only a tiny fraction of the information available to the citizens of the UK, on what joining the EEC would mean, and nothing available on how it would subsequently change ITSELF into something completely different (the EU).
If, what the EEC would actually become, had been spelled out to the people of the UK in 1975, it is highly likely that a vote to take the UK out of the EEC in 1975 would have been overwhelming.
On this basis with far greater information available to the people of the UK, than was ever made available in the 1975 referendum, the 2016 referendum was far far more informed and therefore valid, than ever was the case in the the vote which kept the UK in the EEC. The 2016 vote was also with the largest turnout in modern peacetime history
So now we have a situation where no one in the UK was ever given the opportunity to vote on whether or not they wanted the UK to be in the EU, but the remoaners are whingeing about the result of the first, and only democratic vote the public of the UK have ever been given on the matter of the UK`s membership of the EU. They voted OUT.
If the remoaners are/were so happy to accept the possibly illegal way the UK was duped into the EU by making it vote on something completely different (The EEC) why are they now so reluctant to accept the result of the only true democratic referendum the people of the UK have EVER been given on whether or not they want the UK to be a member of the EU? A severe case of double standard-it is, it would seem.
Not a single person in the UK voted for, or was even given a chance to vote on whether or not they wanted the UK to be a member of the EU.
In 1973 The UK was taken into the EEC by the government of the day,without asking the citizens of the UK if this was what they wanted. The 1975 referendum merely asked the people if they wanted to remain in something they had already been taken into without their consent.
The fact that the EEC changed itself into something completely different (the EU) without asking the people of the UK (or Europe for that matter) if this was what they wanted, makes the UK`s membership of the whole EU Ponzi scheme even.more questionable.
In the 1975 referendum, there was only a tiny fraction of the information available to the citizens of the UK, on what joining the EEC would mean, and nothing available on how it would subsequently change ITSELF into something completely different (the EU).
If, what the EEC would actually become, had been spelled out to the people of the UK in 1975, it is highly likely that a vote to take the UK out of the EEC in 1975 would have been overwhelming.
On this basis with far greater information available to the people of the UK, than was ever made available in the 1975 referendum, the 2016 referendum was far far more informed and therefore valid, than ever was the case in the the vote which kept the UK in the EEC. The 2016 vote was also with the largest turnout in modern peacetime history
So now we have a situation where no one in the UK was ever given the opportunity to vote on whether or not they wanted the UK to be in the EU, but the remoaners are whingeing about the result of the first, and only democratic vote the public of the UK have ever been given on the matter of the UK`s membership of the EU. They voted OUT.
If the remoaners are/were so happy to accept the possibly illegal way the UK was duped into the EU by making it vote on something completely different (The EEC) why are they now so reluctant to accept the result of the only true democratic referendum the people of the UK have EVER been given on whether or not they want the UK to be a member of the EU? A severe case of double standard-it is, it would seem.
Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Wednesday 26th July 06:05
Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Wednesday 26th July 06:08
Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Wednesday 26th July 06:19
Kermit power said:
To my mind, the death knell of democracy is Universal Suffrage.
If everyone who contributes into a pot gets a vote on how it is spent, then reasonable democracy can continue.
Once you start letting people who don't contribute to the pot vote on how it gets spent, especially when you allow more to be spent than is put in the pot, how can democracy ultimately survive?
It's not a rapid process, maybe, but it seems we're well on the way there, and it's going to be a difficult stable door to lock even if the horse hasn't already bolted.
I believe there was a report done a couple of years back showing that over half of households are net beneficiaries of the state, i.e. they take out more than they pay in tax. That is an awful lot of people to exclude from the democratic process. If everyone who contributes into a pot gets a vote on how it is spent, then reasonable democracy can continue.
Once you start letting people who don't contribute to the pot vote on how it gets spent, especially when you allow more to be spent than is put in the pot, how can democracy ultimately survive?
It's not a rapid process, maybe, but it seems we're well on the way there, and it's going to be a difficult stable door to lock even if the horse hasn't already bolted.
However if you are just going to base the right to vote on who pays tax without considering if they are a net contributor then everyone would get a vote anyway, as practically everyone pays tax either directly or indirectly.
And of course then the argument will be that the actions and policies of those that do put into the pot prevent those that don't from ever getting to a point where they can.
So I don't think that is a practical or reasonable solution at all.
VolvoT5 said:
However if you are just going to base the right to vote on who pays tax without considering if they are a net contributor then everyone would get a vote anyway, as practically everyone pays tax either directly or indirectly.
But it could be argued that if you don't earn money from a job - then surely it's not the person paying tax to the state - it's actually the state paying tax to itself. The person is just an intermediary in that process.Edited by Moonhawk on Wednesday 26th July 07:45
Kermit power said:
To my mind, the death knell of democracy is Universal Suffrage.
If everyone who contributes into a pot gets a vote on how it is spent, then reasonable democracy can continue.
Once you start letting people who don't contribute to the pot vote on how it gets spent, especially when you allow more to be spent than is put in the pot, how can democracy ultimately survive?
It's not a rapid process, maybe, but it seems we're well on the way there, and it's going to be a difficult stable door to lock even if the horse hasn't already bolted.
I have to disagree with this.If everyone who contributes into a pot gets a vote on how it is spent, then reasonable democracy can continue.
Once you start letting people who don't contribute to the pot vote on how it gets spent, especially when you allow more to be spent than is put in the pot, how can democracy ultimately survive?
It's not a rapid process, maybe, but it seems we're well on the way there, and it's going to be a difficult stable door to lock even if the horse hasn't already bolted.
Everyone should have a vote and they should be all worth the same.
Remember that although the tax paid by the wealthy is at a high, the percentage of their income they pay compared to the average tax payer is at an all time low.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/low...
They are paying a greater amount simply because they are making more money in the first place.
The only thing I would change is making voting madatory. Show up and spoil your paper if you like, but show up.
Kermit power said:
98elise said:
What's the point of a second vote on the same question? If you had a second vote which changed the outcome, then the leavers would want a 3rd etc etc.
We voted..we got a result.
By that logic, why have another general election? After all, we voted and got a result.We voted..we got a result.
Could it possibly because circumstances change, and we might change our views based on those changes?
What if, 30 years from now, the EU has become a shining bastion of transparent democracy andis the last place on earth with access to clean water, fresh food and internet porn? Would you still be sat there thinking "we voted and got a result", or might you just think it was possibly worth reconsidering your intransigence?
I can see us going back into the EU at some point, but it would have to be a different EU.
Troubleatmill and Man Man Man, why are you arguing about Brexit?
This thread asks a question about the nature of democracy, not whether it was correct to leave the EU.
FWIW OP, I agree with your position. I would never expect the losers to just 'give up and get behind' the winners of any vote...it's weird to expect people to just abandon their principles. I would expect them to keep campaigning until such time as circumstances change and the vote goes their way.
This thread asks a question about the nature of democracy, not whether it was correct to leave the EU.
FWIW OP, I agree with your position. I would never expect the losers to just 'give up and get behind' the winners of any vote...it's weird to expect people to just abandon their principles. I would expect them to keep campaigning until such time as circumstances change and the vote goes their way.
VolvoT5 said:
Kermit power said:
To my mind, the death knell of democracy is Universal Suffrage.
If everyone who contributes into a pot gets a vote on how it is spent, then reasonable democracy can continue.
Once you start letting people who don't contribute to the pot vote on how it gets spent, especially when you allow more to be spent than is put in the pot, how can democracy ultimately survive?
It's not a rapid process, maybe, but it seems we're well on the way there, and it's going to be a difficult stable door to lock even if the horse hasn't already bolted.
I believe there was a report done a couple of years back showing that over half of households are net beneficiaries of the state, i.e. they take out more than they pay in tax. That is an awful lot of people to exclude from the democratic process.If everyone who contributes into a pot gets a vote on how it is spent, then reasonable democracy can continue.
Once you start letting people who don't contribute to the pot vote on how it gets spent, especially when you allow more to be spent than is put in the pot, how can democracy ultimately survive?
It's not a rapid process, maybe, but it seems we're well on the way there, and it's going to be a difficult stable door to lock even if the horse hasn't already bolted.
VolvoT5 said:
However if you are just going to base the right to vote on who pays tax without considering if they are a net contributor then everyone would get a vote anyway, as practically everyone pays tax either directly or indirectly.
And of course then the argument will be that the actions and policies of those that do put into the pot prevent those that don't from ever getting to a point where they can.
So I don't think that is a practical or reasonable solution at all.
Someone suggested a vote for anyone that pays council tax. This could work maybe. There have been poll taxes in the past etc.And of course then the argument will be that the actions and policies of those that do put into the pot prevent those that don't from ever getting to a point where they can.
So I don't think that is a practical or reasonable solution at all.
Difficult thing to sell (like spending cuts) but I agree with Kermit. However because of this it'll not happen before the UK hits the buffers.
Kermit power said:
By that logic, why have another general election? After all, we voted and got a result.
Could it possibly because circumstances change, and we might change our views based on those changes?
Under normal circumstances GEs occur about once every 4 or 5 years, and it could be argued that is actually too frequent based on the fact that most governments once in - tend to stay in power for at least 2-3 terms.Could it possibly because circumstances change, and we might change our views based on those changes?
We could well have another vote on EU membership in the years to come following Brexit. Just because we had a vote and the outcome was a certain way - doesn't stop us having another vote at some point in the future should circumstances change.
Holding referendum after referendum just because the results were close doesn't help anyone though. Sometimes we have to accept that a decision has been made by the majority (however that majority is defined) and go with it.
As a poster above pointed out - what if we did hold another referendum and the result was equally close, or even closer - do we hold another, then another and another? At what point do we consider that a decision has been made - best of 3, best of 5? What is the majority cutoff, 55%, 65% 95%? Do we base it on voter turnout - or percentage of the entire electorate? Where does it end - somebody somewhere will disagree no matter what the rules are.
Edited by Moonhawk on Wednesday 26th July 09:22
Troubleatmill said:
Kermit power said:
Troubleatmill said:
Kermit power said:
98elise said:
What's the point of a second vote on the same question? If you had a second vote which changed the outcome, then the leavers would want a 3rd etc etc.
We voted..we got a result.
By that logic, why have another general election? After all, we voted and got a result.We voted..we got a result.
Could it possibly because circumstances change, and we might change our views based on those changes?
What if, 30 years from now, the EU has become a shining bastion of transparent democracy andis the last place on earth with access to clean water, fresh food and internet porn? Would you still be sat there thinking "we voted and got a result", or might you just think it was possibly worth reconsidering your intransigence?
What if 30 years from now the EU becomes a group of third world countries?
Greece, Spain etc - are well on that path.
If they could afford to get out of Dodge.... they would.
They are effectively trapped.
Can you accept the possibility - that the EU isn't working out so well for a fair chunk of its members?
What on earth makes you think I would stuggle to accept something which is glaringly obvious to anyone with half a brain?
I'm pretty ambivalent about the whole referendum result personally (which seems to make me rather unique) because I think there were far more important things to address first which are still not being addressed as we try to deal with Brexit, but that doesn't make the position I initially responded to any more logical.
....'What if, 30 years from now, the EU has become a shining bastion of transparent democracy andis the last place on earth with access to clean water, fresh food and internet porn? Would you still be sat there thinking "we voted and got a result", or might you just think it was possibly worth reconsidering your intransigence?"
The reality is.... many EU countries right now are in the s
t....wholly dependant on handouts given by industrial powerhouses that are importing cheap labour "thanks to..... free movement of labour from countries whose economy we have wrecked. Yup... We will make it.... Use your cheap labour to come over here and make it.... and we will give you a handout as compensation."These countries cannot leave.. Ever. They are Fecked.
Spain has circa 50% youth unemployment.
The shining bastion you speak of will never happen.
Just expect Germany to grow more economically - with much more cheap labour migrating towards it.
I had thought that my inclusion of the EU as the last home of internet porn might've helped to confirm that I wasn't suggesting this as a serious future prospect, but clearly even with that, you're struggling. I'll go away and see if I can figure it out for you in words of fewer than two
Disastrous said:
I would never expect the losers to just 'give up and get behind' the winners of any vote...it's weird to expect people to just abandon their principles. I would expect them to keep campaigning until such time as circumstances change and the vote goes their way.
It's not about abandoning principles - it's about accepting that you live in a democratic society and that often a result will be made by the majority* contrary to your own beliefs (most GEs are like this - considering we haven't had a party win with an overall majority of the popular vote since around 1930).Once a decision has been made within the rules laid down - it's in all our interests to try and help make it work, even if you disagree with it.
Of course that doesn't stop you sticking by your principles and asking for another vote at some point in the future, but surely you have to at least give the decision that has been made a chance to be delivered - and perhaps help (or at least not hinder) that process.
Moonhawk said:
Kermit power said:
By that logic, why have another general election? After all, we voted and got a result.
Could it possibly because circumstances change, and we might change our views based on those changes?
Where does it end - somebody somewhere will disagree no matter what the rules are.Could it possibly because circumstances change, and we might change our views based on those changes?
No doubt had the result gone the way the OP had liked he could have sat in his pool in Portugal with a smug grin on his face saying to the opposing parties supporters, suck it up, it's called democracy.
Hey ho.
Disastrous said:
Troubleatmill and Man Man Man, why are you arguing about Brexit?
This thread asks a question about the nature of democracy, not whether it was correct to leave the EU.
FWIW OP, I agree with your position. I would never expect the losers to just 'give up and get behind' the winners of any vote...it's weird to expect people to just abandon their principles. I would expect them to keep campaigning until such time as circumstances change and the vote goes their way.
Exactly, If we are talking about DEMOCRACY, please kindly show where the people of the UK were given a democratic vote on whether or not they wanted the UK to be a member of the EU. The only DEMOCRATIC vote the people of the UK were ever given on the matter was in 2016, It may surprise you to know they voted OUT. so we are leaving, surprisingly, that is how true DEMOCRACY works.This thread asks a question about the nature of democracy, not whether it was correct to leave the EU.
FWIW OP, I agree with your position. I would never expect the losers to just 'give up and get behind' the winners of any vote...it's weird to expect people to just abandon their principles. I would expect them to keep campaigning until such time as circumstances change and the vote goes their way.
handpaper said:
John145 said:
Eric Mc said:
The least important aspect of democracy is voting.
In order of importance (to me) -
freedom of speech
an independent legal system
freedom of the press
the right to vote
general tolerance of the other person's point of view
Protection of minorities I'd add to that list.In order of importance (to me) -
freedom of speech
an independent legal system
freedom of the press
the right to vote
general tolerance of the other person's point of view
It's a difficult one but for the purpose of the Brexit vote, it could be treated as a general election. Ie. there were winners and losers, now the winners have the next 5 years to make a go of it.
And "protection for minorities" is a policy, and a potentially controversial one at that. Nope.
Do you really believe that it's ok to be discriminatory to minorities simply because an elected government has a policy against a certain minority?
98elise said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Democracy may mean you lost (if it's something as binary as a vote) but it doesn't mean you stop trying IMO.
What's the point of a second vote on the same question? If you had a second vote which changed the outcome, then the leavers would want a 3rd etc etc.We voted..we got a result.
oyster said:
So why isn't the 1973 vote still binding?
It's not about having a new vote on a subject - it's about the timing. The result of the EU referendum haven't even been enacted yet - so what's the point of holding another one to get potentially the same result (or an equally close one which will be equally contested).It's been 44 years since the 1973 vote - and a lot has changed in the interim not least the fact that the 1973 vote wasn't even a vote to join the EU, it was to join the EEC. The EU didn't exist until 1992 and we never had a vote on that - we were just kinda carried along off the back of the EEC vote.
Say we were to hold another EU referendum vote tomorrow - what would you suggest in the following scenarios?
1. The vote is still leave but with the same majority?
2. The vote is still leave but with a very slim majority?
3. The vote is to stay with a majority on par with the original vote?
4. The vote is to stay with a very slim majority?
Edited by Moonhawk on Wednesday 26th July 10:11
Pan Pan Pan said:
Disastrous said:
Troubleatmill and Man Man Man, why are you arguing about Brexit?
This thread asks a question about the nature of democracy, not whether it was correct to leave the EU.
FWIW OP, I agree with your position. I would never expect the losers to just 'give up and get behind' the winners of any vote...it's weird to expect people to just abandon their principles. I would expect them to keep campaigning until such time as circumstances change and the vote goes their way.
Exactly, If we are talking about DEMOCRACY, please kindly show where the people of the UK were given a democratic vote on whether or not they wanted the UK to be a member of the EU. The only DEMOCRATIC vote the people of the UK were ever given on the matter was in 2016, It may surprise you to know they voted OUT. so we are leaving, surprisingly, that is how true DEMOCRACY works.This thread asks a question about the nature of democracy, not whether it was correct to leave the EU.
FWIW OP, I agree with your position. I would never expect the losers to just 'give up and get behind' the winners of any vote...it's weird to expect people to just abandon their principles. I would expect them to keep campaigning until such time as circumstances change and the vote goes their way.
Even the dedicated anti-EU party only got 15% of the vote and 1 MP at the 2015 election.
It's quite an amazing turn of events to even find ourselves leaving the EU. It's not an issue that actually dominates people's daily lives.
I rather suspect that of those who voted at the 2016 referendum, the vast majority (on both sides) actually aren't too concerned which way the result went.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff