The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Deep Discussion (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=39)
-   -   News UK Parliament to Vote on Brexit (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=382103)

Caaethil November 4th, 2016 8:04 AM

UK Parliament to Vote on Brexit
 
Source

Quote:

Parliament must vote on whether the UK can start the process of leaving the EU, the High Court has ruled.

This means the government cannot trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty - beginning formal exit negotiations with the EU - on its own.

Theresa May says the referendum - and existing ministerial powers - mean MPs do not need to vote, but campaigners called this unconstitutional.

The government is appealing, with a further hearing expected next month.

The prime minister's spokeswoman said she would be calling President of the EU Commission Jean-Claude Juncker to say she intended to stick to her March 2017 deadline for triggering Article 50.

Amid suggestions that she might try to call an early general election, she added that Mrs May believed "there shouldn't be an election until 2020 and that remains her view".

A statement is to be made to MPs on Monday but the government says it has no intention of letting the judgement "derail Article 50 or the timetable we have set out".

Brexit Secretary David Davis said he presumed the court ruling meant an act of Parliament would be required to trigger Article 50 - so would be subject to approval by both MPs and peers.

But the government was going to contest that view in an appeal, and said the referendum was held only following "a six-to-one vote in the Commons to give the decision to the British people".

"The people are the ones Parliament represents - 17.4m of them, the biggest mandate in history, voted for us to leave the European Union. We are going to deliver on that mandate in the best way possible for the British national interest," he told the BBC.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn urged the government "to bring its negotiating terms to Parliament without delay", adding that "there must be transparency and accountability to Parliament on the terms of Brexit".

But UKIP leader Nigel Farage said he feared a "betrayal" of the 51.9% of voters who backed leaving the EU in June's referendum and voiced concern at the prospect of a "half Brexit".

BBC assistant political editor Norman Smith said the court ruling could mean potentially "months and months" of parliamentary hurdles but said a majority of MPs would be likely to vote for Article 50 - despite having backed the Remain campaign - as Brexit had been supported in the referendum.
Thoughts? Personally, I don't think this is actually going to stop Brexit, but it's not exactly a nice message. Seems a bit undemocratic to give the decision back to parliament after we put it to the vote.

Sektor November 4th, 2016 2:04 PM

They should just let the people leave! I mean, why prolong the inevitable when the majority of voters wanted to exit? I find it very distasteful and poor loser-esque of them. "Wait! B-b-best 6 out of 9! No... wait! Best 15 out of-". Such a sad state of affairs, it's like they're grasping at straws.

gimmepie November 4th, 2016 9:17 PM

Ugh
Brexit is an unbelievably stupid idea and I can completely understand why they'd want to take any means they could to prevent it but circumnavigating the democratic process, even for that reason, is just poor form.

Ivysaur November 5th, 2016 12:48 AM

Well, the UK is legally a Parliamentary Democracy and Parliament has the last word on everything- over people's votes on a referendum, even. I doubt they'll overrule it but it's going to be very interesting to see how they handle the vote, as most MPs are against Brexit anyway.

Nah November 5th, 2016 5:50 AM

Can't blame 'em really for not wanting to do it. But they have to do it sooner or later. Parliament's not voting whether or not to revert the Brexit vote, but rather if they want to start the process to officially go through with it. And they can't hold off on that forever, cuz y'know, democracy and all.

Nihilego November 5th, 2016 7:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caaethil (Post 9475469)
I don't think this is actually going to stop Brexit, but it's not exactly a nice message. Seems a bit undemocratic to give the decision back to parliament after we put it to the vote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 9476175)
Ugh
Brexit is an unbelievably stupid idea and I can completely understand why they'd want to take any means they could to prevent it but circumnavigating the democratic process, even for that reason, is just poor form.

They aren't really circumnavigating it. The referendum was advisory from the start and the Members of Parliament, elected by the public, have always made the final call here. Our democracy goes so far as to allow us to elect the MPs that we want to represent us, but most of the final say rests with them and there was never anything different about the EU referendum. I get for sure that there are some moral issues with what's happening here (and I'll touch on that in a second), but it's certainly not a perversion of democracy.

I do agree though that we're certainly not getting what it seemed we were voting for. As much as I absolutely hate the outcome, the impressions given from the start (along with the fact that there was a referendum at all...) suggested that the wishes of the public would be followed through by Parliament. Yes, this is still in alignment with democracy in the UK, but I feel like the rug's been pulled from under the feet of the Leavers here. Everyone was told up until now, including by May herself, that Brexit was inevitable and that the referrendum, although not legally binding, indicated what was going to happen. So yes, if I were a Leave voter, I'd be pretty irritated by this. But, it's still democratic, and the Remain voter in me is glad that this is at least giving us some chance of not shooting ourselves in the head.

...that said, the Tories in Parliament represent the worst among the Tory voters. After all, people who work their way into Parliament generally align with the more "model" members of their respective parties; you don't really see much neutrality at that sort of level. Since prominent Tories have generally been pro-Brexit (with the surprising initial exception of May) I fear that, if Parliament votes on this, it'll just be an even greater Brexit majority. All I can hope for is that the Tories do all they're good for by not turning up to vote.

Caaethil November 5th, 2016 9:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razor Leaf (Post 9476498)
They aren't really circumnavigating it. The referendum was advisory from the start and the Members of Parliament, elected by the public, have always made the final call here. Our democracy goes so far as to allow us to elect the MPs that we want to represent us, but most of the final say rests with them and there was never anything different about the EU referendum. I get for sure that there are some moral issues with what's happening here (and I'll touch on that in a second), but it's certainly not a perversion of democracy.

I do agree though that we're certainly not getting what it seemed we were voting for. As much as I absolutely hate the outcome, the impressions given from the start (along with the fact that there was a referendum at all...) suggested that the wishes of the public would be followed through by Parliament. Yes, this is still in alignment with democracy in the UK, but I feel like the rug's been pulled from under the feet of the Leavers here. Everyone was told up until now, including by May herself, that Brexit was inevitable and that the referrendum, although not legally binding, indicated what was going to happen. So yes, if I were a Leave voter, I'd be pretty irritated by this. But, it's still democratic, and the Remain voter in me is glad that this is at least giving us some chance of not shooting ourselves in the head.

...that said, the Tories in Parliament represent the worst among the Tory voters. After all, people who work their way into Parliament generally align with the more "model" members of their respective parties; you don't really see much neutrality at that sort of level. Since prominent Tories have generally been pro-Brexit (with the surprising initial exception of May) I fear that, if Parliament votes on this, it'll just be an even greater Brexit majority. All I can hope for is that the Tories do all they're good for by not turning up to vote.

I suppose I'm not saying they're actually, technically perverting democracy so much as they seem to be making a conscious effort to work against the will of the people and that bothers me as something that is remarkably undemocratic in the moral sense that the people have spoken and they don't really care. I'm pro-leave but I like to think I'd be saying the same if I was pro-remain.

Somewhere_ November 5th, 2016 9:49 AM

In the US, referendums are used by politicians that do not want to vote on a bill that would make them unpopular. For example, abortion is split about 50-50, so a politician voting for or against abortion rights has lost half the population.

Is this the same thing in Britain? I would imagine the MP's would respect the referendum if they were the ones who initiated it in the first place.

Nihilego November 5th, 2016 3:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadSheep (Post 9476635)
In the US, referendums are used by politicians that do not want to vote on a bill that would make them unpopular. For example, abortion is split about 50-50, so a politician voting for or against abortion rights has lost half the population.

Is this the same thing in Britain? I would imagine the MP's would respect the referendum if they were the ones who initiated it in the first place.

Well, in the UK the actual identity of the politician matters less. While in America there are very few major politicians making the big decisions (i.e., the president and those closely associated with them), we have 650 MPs representing us who each theoretically get their vote in every decision. A lot of them are lazy and don't exercise that's vote, but still, that's the idea. So a single MP losing or gaining votes based on their opinions isn't such a big deal - due to the overwhelming number of MPs that we have, people generally consider themselves to be voting for the entire party as opposed to the individual MP. No-one ever talks about David Cameron's own personal policies (of which there are none), for example - it's about the party's policies, not the person's.

"MPs" didn't actually initiate the referendum - it was one particular MP. Specifically, David Cameron during his previous bid to become our Prime Minister. He promised the country that, if elected, he would hold a referendum on our EU membership, thinking that he would gain a few extra votes without posing much of an issue to our actual place in the EU. Obviously, he was wrong, and on losing the referendum was forced to resign over the incompatibility between him, his party and his country. Most of his pro-Leave friends also bailed, unable to handle the responsibility that the decision had placed on them. So right now it's a weird situation where no MP can really be held "responsible" for Brexit. It's a big part of what makes this so difficult for us.

blue November 5th, 2016 5:36 PM

It just baffles me as to why they're trying to prevent it from happening. The decision to remain or leave the EU was put to a vote and leave won fairly by over one million votes.

Aliencommander1245 November 8th, 2016 5:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blue (Post 9476990)
It just baffles me as to why they're trying to prevent it from happening. The decision to remain or leave the EU was put to a vote and leave won fairly by over one million votes.

I'd say because it was a 2% majority that they're a lot more apprehensive than they'd otherwise be, but i really don't think it's that- at least not fully.

The problem is that it's becoming starkly clear that there's no way the UK comes out of Brexit better off in any way that really matters. A lot of the farage/johnson rhetoric was smoke and mirrors falsities that can't, and never could've been, held up upon and that stuff was what got people going.

Faced with a position where the government both can't hide that they can't give the public anything good from brexit, and a bunch of the things promised by people in the case of a brexit being impossible to deliver and always intended to be so, it's much easier to just delay as much as possible than it is to try and sort through the mess that would result from triggering it

Hands November 11th, 2016 1:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJacket (Post 9475822)
They should just let the people leave! I mean, why prolong the inevitable when the majority of voters wanted to exit? I find it very distasteful and poor loser-esque of them. "Wait! B-b-best 6 out of 9! No... wait! Best 15 out of-". Such a sad state of affairs, it's like they're grasping at straws.

It was barely a majority and the leave campaign was almost entirely ran on lies.

Lipstick Vogue November 11th, 2016 1:45 AM

Voted remain but would be dead against this.

Just imagine the reaction if it was overturned. I'm liberal AF and even I'd be tempted to go and write some rude graffiti about immigrants.

Caaethil November 11th, 2016 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9483096)
It was barely a majority and the leave campaign was almost entirely ran on lies.

It was still a majority. Do you genuinely think we need a do-over?

Star-Lord November 11th, 2016 10:54 AM

I'm really having a hard time understanding why people are crying about how undemocratic this is. Like, I get it, more people voted to leave... but this was a vote that happened on a weirdly mismatched, fear mongering campaign that people who supported then have changed their opinion on now.

The referendum wasn't legally binding, it's essentially an opinion piece as far as I'm concerned. The opinion is understood (and it'll probably still pass tbh), but now it gets passed through the parliament full of MPs that they democratically elected. It's honestly that simple to me.

Aliencommander1245 November 12th, 2016 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caaethil (Post 9483547)
It was still a majority. Do you genuinely think we need a do-over?

With a majority of less than 2% for such an important and huge issue, with such dire consequences, the lies from farage/johnson definitely did have a lot of an effect and I would say it's preferable to have another vote than to try and go through with it as-is?

I mean, when you've voted for an outcome while being heavily influenced by something you're told will happen if you vote yes- and that isn't true in the slightest- would you not want to be able to reconsider your vote in light of that?

Caaethil November 12th, 2016 2:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9484235)
With a majority of less than 2% for such an important and huge issue, with such dire consequences, the lies from farage/johnson definitely did have a lot of an effect and I would say it's preferable to have another vote than to try and go through with it as-is?

I mean, when you've voted for an outcome while being heavily influenced by something you're told will happen if you vote yes- and that isn't true in the slightest- would you not want to be able to reconsider your vote in light of that?

I mean, if we're gonna play the blame game, the BBC was massively biased against Brexit, despite being required by law to be impartial. Is that fair either?

You don't get a re-vote every time we vote on something you don't like. That's not how democracy works. Should we re-vote on the president now that he's not building a wall?

Aliencommander1245 November 12th, 2016 3:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caaethil (Post 9484280)
I mean, if we're gonna play the blame game, the BBC was massively biased against Brexit, despite being required by law to be impartial. Is that fair either?

Maybe, it depends, I'm no at all up to date on what the campaign was life over there beyond the lies of leave. The problem arises that there were way more negatives, and most economists ect predicted a negative result of Brexit overall, as well as banks, businesses ect directly stating they'd leave Britain if it left the EU (Due to Britain's status as a good midground between the EU countries and the rest of the world making it a good place to have your base of operations, with that changing moving across into EU countries is the only/the best option for said businesses)

This is a problem because if it's the worse decision of the two on important issues such as those- reporting it as such isn't not being impartial. It's the same as conservative's cries in the US about "media bias" when in reality it was just Trump making a gaff or saying something horrendous every day meaning there was simply more negatives than positives to cover, and a lot more negative coverage as a whole because of it.

It's not partial to report on the facts, even if the facts are weighted against one side of the debate

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caaethil (Post 9484280)
You don't get a re-vote every time we vote on something you don't like. That's not how democracy works.

It is in a representational democracy, but that's digressing from the main point. You're ignoring what i've been saying about it being something the government knows it can't get a good deal out of and trying to boil it down to "me not liking it" to try and make your point there.

If the people vote for something by an incredibly slim margain and a lot of misinformation is thrown around during the campaing, and the government then goes to do the thing voted on and realises there's no way to be better off than not doing it, i see it as perefectly fine to have another vote to make entirely sure that, with all possible information available to them, the public is still willing to do said thing.

I would also argue that if the people vote for something, and the government realises that it'll make everyone worse off, they're well within their right as a representational democracy to overrule that. It'd look bad, and taint their careers in the eyes of the public, but it's well within the rights of a democratic representation of the people to put their foot down for what's best for the people?

Obviously the first one is preferable and more likely, but i see merits in the second one

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caaethil (Post 9484280)
Should we re-vote on the president now that he's not building a wall?

Talking about fairness, is it fair that the man people want to be president less than his opponent, who got less votes than her, won anyway?

Regardless, yeah, if he lied his way into office on a platform of bigotry in the first place he probably shouldn't have been there, but now he's dropping the stuff he couldn't possibly have done (And known that from the start) it's fair to say we should re-vote there, but it's not possible and no-one will.

It's a very different kind of vote you're talking about anyway- an election to something that functions as a suggestion on what the parliment should do- and doesn't really fit as something related

Caaethil November 12th, 2016 3:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9484305)
Maybe, it depends, I'm no at all up to date on what the campaign was life over there beyond the lies of leave.

I'm not sure why you're trying to talk about the lies of leave if you have done no research into remain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9484305)
The problem arises that there were way more negatives, and most economists ect predicted a negative result of Brexit overall, as well as banks, businesses ect directly stating they'd leave Britain if it left the EU (Due to Britain's status as a good midground between the EU countries and the rest of the world making it a good place to have your base of operations, with that changing moving across into EU countries is the only/the best option for said businesses)

It doesn't matter because the people chose to leave. I don't think most people expected any direct economic benefits from leaving. They expected freedom from what they perceived to be a bureaucratic system that didn't represent them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9484305)
This is a problem because if it's the worse decision of the two on important issues such as those- reporting it as such isn't not being impartial.

I like how you take such an important and nuanced debate and make it so black and white. You've just dismissed over half of the UK's opinion as unequivocally wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9484305)
It's the same as conservative's cries in the US about "media bias" when in reality it was just Trump making a gaff or saying something horrendous every day meaning there was simply more negatives than positives to cover, and a lot more negative coverage as a whole because of it.

And yet they never once covered any of the bad things Clinton had done, to the point of lying about them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9484305)
It's not partial to report on the facts, even if the facts are weighted against one side of the debate

More than anything else, this is a blatant disrespect for any contrasting opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9484305)
It is in a representational democracy, but that's digressing from the main point. You're ignoring what i've been saying about it being something the government knows it can't get a good deal out of and trying to boil it down to "me not liking it" to try and make your point there.

I don't care if the government can or can't get a good deal out of it, I want it to respect the verdict of the people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9484305)
If the people vote for something by an incredibly slim margain and a lot of misinformation is thrown around during the campaing,

On both sides, by the way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9484305)
and the government then goes to do the thing voted on and realises there's no way to be better off than not doing it, i see it as perefectly fine to have another vote to make entirely sure that, with all possible information available to them, the public is still willing to do said thing.

The remain camp made all of these horrible terrible things very clear when we were voting. We still voted leave. It's not going to change by repeating it and making us vote again. It reeks of them telling us we chose the wrong answer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9484305)
I would also argue that if the people vote for something, and the government realises that it'll make everyone worse off, they're well within their right as a representational democracy to overrule that. It'd look bad, and taint their careers in the eyes of the public, but it's well within the rights of a democratic representation of the people to put their foot down for what's best for the people?

They're well within their rights, yes. That doesn't mean I should like it. Anyone who tries to overrule the will of the people isn't getting my vote, it's that simple.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9484305)
Talking about fairness, is it fair that the man people want to be president less than his opponent, who got less votes than her, won anyway?

Yes, because that's how the system was designed. Don't blame the player, blame the game.

And to be clear, we don't know for sure how the popular vote would have gone had the electoral college not been in place. So many people during this election, dissatisfied with both candidates, chose to vote third party instead of for the lesser of two evils because they live in deeply red/blue states anyway. Had the college not existed, they'd have probably chosen one of the two main candidates instead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9484305)
Regardless, yeah, if he lied his way into office on a platform of bigotry in the first place he probably shouldn't have been there, but now he's dropping the stuff he couldn't possibly have done (And known that from the start) it's fair to say we should re-vote there, but it's not possible and no-one will.

I'm rather surprised you endorse that, actually.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9484305)
It's a very different kind of vote you're talking about anyway- an election to something that functions as a suggestion on what the parliment should do- and doesn't really fit as something related

It's a suggestion by definition, doesn't mean we should be okay with parliament not taking it.

Hands November 14th, 2016 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caaethil (Post 9483547)
It was still a majority. Do you genuinely think we need a do-over?

I didn't even remotely suggest that and I'd kindly ask you not to do the usual Leaver technique of making up arguments you feel you can respond to rather than responding to the actual content within comments.

The BBC have also pushed a massive, massive anti Corbyn bias over the past two years. The BBC also defended and covered up for several active paedophiles, the BBC also gave Cameron a free pass on virtually everything. The BBC hasn't been unbiased in, well, it hasn't ever been unbiased.

The difference is that whilst the Remain campaign was a mess, the leave campaign was genuinely fraudulent and a lot of leave voters had no clue about the EU. Some I know even believed every law we had was made in Europe. Your snake oil salesmen have set us up for economic collapse, the least they can do is allow people who aren't egotistical enough to destroy three countries over a chance to be PM try and negotiate a far less dangerous outcome.

Aliencommander1245 November 14th, 2016 2:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caaethil (Post 9484328)
I'm not sure why you're trying to talk about the lies of leave if you have done no research into remain.

Because I have, just not specificially into the BBC enough to pretend I know what I'm talking about. I know as a whole the Leave campaign was heavily, heavily influenced by things blatantly untrue or impossible promises dumped the moment a leave result came through

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caaethil (Post 9484328)
It doesn't matter because the people chose to leave. I don't think most people expected any direct economic benefits from leaving. They expected freedom from what they perceived to be a bureaucratic system that didn't represent them.

There was very much a big economic thing touted, "we'll get a better deal for Britain" was a big selling point of leave as much as "we don't even make our own laws!!!!!" (which was funnily enough another thing that was untrue)

But it DOES matter, because even if the people didn't vote on the basis of "if we leave it'll ruin our economy and leave us worse off" doesn't that make it significantly more of an issue? That people were uninformed of the negative side of what they were voting for?


Quote:

Originally Posted by Caaethil (Post 9484328)
I like how you take such an important and nuanced debate and make it so black and white. You've just dismissed over half of the UK's opinion as unequivocally wrong.

From the perspective of "is this going to be good for the country economically and, uh, most faucets of trade and money that come from that", it is definitely the worse decision/wrong decision.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Caaethil (Post 9484328)
And yet they never once covered any of the bad things Clinton had done, to the point of lying about them.

They did, though, constantly and perpetually to the point that Trump's gaff of the day and constant awful rhetoric was displayed as "equal" to the email scandals that plagued her campaign. That's bias towards Trump, even, simply by virtue of equating situations that aren't equitable in the slightest


Quote:

Originally Posted by Caaethil (Post 9484328)
More than anything else, this is a blatant disrespect for any contrasting opinion.

Only if the contrasting opinion is patently and blatantly wrong

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caaethil (Post 9484328)
I don't care if the government can or can't get a good deal out of it, I want it to respect the verdict of the people.

Well, too bad? They're probably still going to anyway, but you live in a represnational democracy. You elect the people to make the decisions for you based on their merits and on how much you think they reflect your own views and values.

If the government goes "this would be bad for the country" they have not only every right, but i'd even say an obligation to not do what the public requested.

This is why no one has a True Democracy, because asking the opinion of the people to determine everything and anything leans too much into fickle popular-ism over level headed decision making considering pros and cons


Quote:

Originally Posted by Caaethil (Post 9484328)
On both sides, by the way.

I'm aware there was some misinformation on the remain side, but none as egregious and outright intentional lies as the things farage and johnson spouted out. Both sides didn't win by a margin of less than 2%, though


Quote:

Originally Posted by Caaethil (Post 9484328)
The remain camp made all of these horrible terrible things very clear when we were voting. We still voted leave. It's not going to change by repeating it and making us vote again. It reeks of them telling us we chose the wrong answer.

They didn't do it very well, though, and were poorly organised and poorly planned. The failure to actually put across the information they needed to sits solely on the leave campaign.

BUT. Saying "it won't change by repeating it" is pretty uh... optimistic? The margain was so tiny, and now that the lies have fallen apart and the awful consequences for the country are coming to the front, do you not think that tiny margain may have been swain?

To claim it "reeks of telling you that you chose wrong" is strange, do you do the same when you get an "Are you sure? This cannot be changed" popup in a game or website or something? Do you think they're telling you you're wrong, rather than making sure you want to go ahead now you know all the consequences?

Isn't it MORE democratic to ask again once all the information is out rather than locking people into a single vote even if public support for said thing might've declined? Is the will of the people before they were informed or aware of the consequences supposed to be stronger/better/more democratic than the will of the people once they're fully informed and aware of what they're voting on?


Quote:

Originally Posted by Caaethil (Post 9484328)
They're well within their rights, yes. That doesn't mean I should like it. Anyone who tries to overrule the will of the people isn't getting my vote, it's that simple.

I mean, that's the basic tenants of a representational democracy. You vote in someone who you think represents you best, and if they don't then you vote for someone else next time. That's the will of the people at work, not an opinion poll to advise the people on how to do the job they're there to do


Quote:

Originally Posted by Caaethil (Post 9484328)
Yes, because that's how the system was designed. Don't blame the player, blame the game.

Aren't you doing that exact thing about the brexit vote, though? You can't have it both ways

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caaethil (Post 9484328)
And to be clear, we don't know for sure how the popular vote would have gone had the electoral college not been in place. So many people during this election, dissatisfied with both candidates, chose to vote third party instead of for the lesser of two evils because they live in deeply red/blue states anyway. Had the college not existed, they'd have probably chosen one of the two main candidates instead.

Probably, but considering the big lead over Trump hillary has in the electoral college and the other two candidates being "moderate" I'd say Hillary still would've won. The campaigns would've been different to start with anyway though, so who knows for sure


Quote:

Originally Posted by Caaethil (Post 9484328)
I'm rather surprised you endorse that, actually.

Endorse is a stronger word than it should be, support in theory works better. In a true & fair representational democracy there'd be rules around lying and promising impossible things to start with to prevent that situation from ever occuring, but i do think the public has the right to re-vote on something should it come to light they've been swindled and lied to though. I'm surprised you don't endorse that kind of thing :p


Quote:

Originally Posted by Caaethil (Post 9484328)
It's a suggestion by definition, doesn't mean we should be okay with parliament not taking it.

I didn't say you don't have a right to be mad, just that the Parliament has the right not to do it if you've given them a decision they deem bad

Caaethil November 14th, 2016 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9486658)
Because I have, just not specificially into the BBC enough to pretend I know what I'm talking about. I know as a whole the Leave campaign was heavily, heavily influenced by things blatantly untrue or impossible promises dumped the moment a leave result came through

I don't think most who voted leave based it on the hot air Farage and co spouted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9486658)
There was very much a big economic thing touted, "we'll get a better deal for Britain" was a big selling point of leave as much as "we don't even make our own laws!!!!!" (which was funnily enough another thing that was untrue)

I mean, we don't make all of our own laws. I don't think anyone said we make none of our laws- I'd like to see a source on that.

I don't think we've had long enough to see the actual economic implications of Brexit in the long term.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9486658)
But it DOES matter,

Because you don't agree, right? You don't agree with the public's choice, therefore it needs to change. Right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9486658)
because even if the people didn't vote on the basis of "if we leave it'll ruin our economy and leave us worse off" doesn't that make it significantly more of an issue? That people were uninformed of the negative side of what they were voting for?

Maybe remain should have better informed everyone instead of providing hyperbolic fear-mongering that we couldn't take seriously.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9486658)
From the perspective of "is this going to be good for the country economically and, uh, most faucets of trade and money that come from that", it is definitely the worse decision/wrong decision.

Shouldn't have given us the option then. But they did. And we won and you lost. That should be the end of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9486658)
They did, though, constantly and perpetually to the point that Trump's gaff of the day and constant awful rhetoric was displayed as "equal" to the email scandals that plagued her campaign. That's bias towards Trump, even, simply by virtue of equating situations that aren't equitable in the slightest

You have a striking habit of calling anything you disagree with unfair, incorrect, biased or otherwise deplorable, don't you?



Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9486658)
Only if the contrasting opinion is patently and blatantly wrong

According to over 50% of the population it's not. So I guess it's not that blatant.

Look man, if you're going to give me this crap about how "it's just obvious" I'm not even going to talk to you. You've got to at least have an actual, reasonable conversation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9486658)
Well, too bad? They're probably still going to anyway, but you live in a represnational democracy. You elect the people to make the decisions for you based on their merits and on how much you think they reflect your own views and values.

The government is not obligated to do everything we want. That doesn't mean we shouldn't expect it to when it gives us a vote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9486658)
If the government goes "this would be bad for the country" they have not only every right, but i'd even say an obligation to not do what the public requested.

They are not obligated to do what you specifically think is best for the country. If you can show me how there is demonstrably zero gain from Brexit, I'll take you seriously.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9486658)
This is why no one has a True Democracy, because asking the opinion of the people to determine everything and anything leans too much into fickle popular-ism over level headed decision making considering pros and cons

I like how you just roll off so easily these comments on how leave voters didn't consider the pros and cons. I'm genuinely impressed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9486658)
I'm aware there was some misinformation on the remain side, but none as egregious and outright intentional lies as the things farage and johnson spouted out. Both sides didn't win by a margin of less than 2%, though

Not sure why the percentage is relevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9486658)
They didn't do it very well, though, and were poorly organised and poorly planned. The failure to actually put across the information they needed to sits solely on the leave campaign.

Frankly, if the remain camp did a crappy job of making their argument, too bad for them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9486658)
BUT. Saying "it won't change by repeating it" is pretty uh... optimistic? The margin was so tiny, and now that the lies have fallen apart and the awful consequences for the country are coming to the front, do you not think that tiny margin may have been swain?

I don't know, do you want to use you all-seeing eye to show me?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9486658)
To claim it "reeks of telling you that you chose wrong" is strange, do you do the same when you get an "Are you sure? This cannot be changed" popup in a game or website or something? Do you think they're telling you you're wrong, rather than making sure you want to go ahead now you know all the consequences?

No, because in a game your choice isn't submitted until you say "Yes, I'm sure". We've already done the bloody vote, this was a hot topic for literally months.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9486658)
Isn't it MORE democratic to ask again once all the information is out rather than locking people into a single vote even if public support for said thing might've declined? Is the will of the people before they were informed or aware of the consequences supposed to be stronger/better/more democratic than the will of the people once they're fully informed and aware of what they're voting on?

I don't know, should they have a third vote if we remain and something bad happens?

Where does it end?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9486658)
I mean, that's the basic tenants of a representational democracy. You vote in someone who you think represents you best, and if they don't then you vote for someone else next time. That's the will of the people at work, not an opinion poll to advise the people on how to do the job they're there to do

A country-wide poll is an excellent measure of the will of the people, what on Earth are you talking about?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9486658)
Aren't you doing that exact thing about the brexit vote, though? You can't have it both ways

Nobody is forcing either of us to like the system or be happy when it does stupid things. I don't know if you noticed, but I'm not revolting against the government. I'm not rioting.

Hillary supporters? Yeeeeeeaaaah, about that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9486658)
Probably, but considering the big lead over Trump hillary has in the electoral college and the other two candidates being "moderate" I'd say Hillary still would've won. The campaigns would've been different to start with anyway though, so who knows for sure

Nobody, and that's the entire point, isn't it now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9486658)
Endorse is a stronger word than it should be, support in theory works better. In a true & fair representational democracy there'd be rules around lying and promising impossible things to start with to prevent that situation from ever occuring, but i do think the public has the right to re-vote on something should it come to light they've been swindled and lied to though. I'm surprised you don't endorse that kind of thing :p

I mean, who's to say the public wants to revote? Obviously the remain camp do because they only like democracy when it gets them what they want, but other than that I don't see who we're talking about here when we say 'the public'.

Your entire argument seems to be built on the fundamental assumption that every leave voter made the wrong choice based on being uninformed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9486658)
I didn't say you don't have a right to be mad, just that the Parliament has the right not to do it if you've given them a decision they deem bad

I fully understand that they have the right.

You've established I have a right to be mad. I'm mad. That's literally my entire argument. I'm not happy that they're doing this. Where's the disconnect? Where are you missing what I'm getting at? Where in the pipeline is "I don't like this" turning into "They have no right!"?

Hands November 14th, 2016 1:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caaethil (Post 9487032)
According to over 50% of the population it's not. So I guess it's not that blatant.

There are 64 million people in Britain, 17.5 million voted leave. That isn't even 30%, never mind the 50% you claim. More people didn't vote at all than voted to Leave. 16 million people voted to remain. This notion that it's the will of the people is very, very false. It is the will of less than half the eligible voters in the United Kingdom, and less than a third of the population.

What you have is a group of people outraged that an advisory referendum result that was built on lies that less than a third of our population believe in is in fact been held to British legal standard. I thought you wanted more power to British courts? Or is that only when they do what you want?

Caaethil November 14th, 2016 1:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9487202)
There are 64 million people in Britain, 17.5 million voted leave. That isn't even 30%, never mind the 50% you claim. More people didn't vote at all than voted to Leave. 16 million people voted to remain. This notion that it's the will of the people is very, very false. It is the will of less than half the eligible voters in the United Kingdom, and less than a third of the population.

I misspoke, you got me. Can't help but feel you're nitpicking a bit though. Less people still voted remain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9487202)
What you have is a group of people outraged that an advisory referendum result that was built on lies

It wasn't built on lies. It was in all likelihood supplemented by lies, but it wasn't built on lies. You cannot possibly be suggested that everyone who voted leave, or even the majority of them, did so on the basis of Farage's propaganda.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9487202)
that less than a third of our population believe in

More than the number that believes in remain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9487202)
is in fact been held to British legal standard.

They gave us a referendum and it is entirely reasonable to expect them to follow through whether it was technically legally binding or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9487202)
I thought you wanted more power to British courts? Or is that only when they do what you want?

Quote me saying this, please.

Hands November 14th, 2016 1:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caaethil (Post 9487208)
I misspoke, you got me. Can't help but feel you're nitpicking a bit though. Less people still voted remain.


It wasn't built on lies. It was in all likelihood supplemented by lies, but it wasn't built on lies. You cannot possibly be suggested that everyone who voted leave, or even the majority of them, did so on the basis of Farage's propaganda.


More than the number that believes in remain.


They gave us a referendum and it is entirely reasonable to expect them to follow through whether it was technically legally binding or not.


Quote me saying this, please.

So you don't want more power for British courts over Britain?


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:52 AM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.