It's seems like some people believe in democracy, until they find themselves in the minority.
So standard disclaimer, I'm a Communist, at no point do I call myself a "Democratic Socialist" and I'm not a big fan of democracy.*
The thing about democracy is that it's not permanent, you're not voting for Monarchical options.
I'm not saying now is the time for a re-vote, but to say "Article 50 must be enacted now, and any new Government MUST do it" is, I think, shortsighted.
There will be another general election in the fall, by which point the early impacts of Brexit will be seen. It may well be that the pound and FTSE remain where they are for a bit, then slowly start to recover. It could be that by that time Britain has been thrown back into a recession. At which point, the electorate would have every right to say "this is not what we signed up for," or, "we were promised something else," or "The EU is shit, but it's better than the alternative." That would be an evolution of thought given more information.
It is of course also possible that center-right Tories and Labour MPs who campaigned to stay are kicked out of office for being wrong, as it is seen that Britain is better separated from the EU.
Nothing is permanent in a democracy, it's what separated it from that which came before.
*These comments are meant largely tongue-in-cheek
You make some good points, tongue-in-cheek or not.
I believe that democracy is generally a good thing, the will of the people and all that. I also believe that something as important as leaving the EU probably should have been decided on more than a 52%-48% vote. But we could have had endless debates on the exact ratio required, 55/45?, 60/40?, 70/30? Should we count it as a percentage of votes cast or of eligible voters?
In the end, it was a majority vote and the majority has spoken. Democracy rules, for better or worse.
Right, and all that I would add is that democracy rules for now.
Here in the states we have term limits for president and various other heads of individual states (Governors for example). It is to ensure a continuity of democracy, at least in theory.
Where this of course can fail is for large, long term, interdependent decisions, such as we've seen this week. I'm still firmly in the "eh, everything's negotiable" camp, but I understand why those who voted out think that is unfair.
I empathize with those who are saying they wish this was handled by representative democracy instead of direct democracy. Something so complex with so many permutations and such a potential global fall out is something where you would *hope* to consult people who do this for a living, and hope that they play with a straight bat in outlining the benefits and potential pitfalls.
My biggest regret about this election is less-so the result, and moreso that it became a referendum on "financial experts and political elite." I wholeheartedly endorse such distrust in those groups, but this was arguably the worst election possible with which to deliver them a mandate.
I also agree that a 52/48 margin for such a large decision feels incredibly thin, but as you said, what's the right level then?
I would say you need 67/33 (2:1) vote to change the status quo if you just count those voting.
Alternatively, with some risks - if you assumed that turnouts would never exceed 75% then a 50%+1 of all of those registered.
And would the same 67/33 (2:1) be required to keep us within The EU?
Like I said, you would need a 2:1 majority to change the status quo ie leave the EU. Anything less than that and we remain.
So by that logic we would never change government and never make a decision about anything ever again on any divisive subject.
Sounds like a dictatorship rather than a democracy. Sorry while I do understand your logic the rules have to apply to both sides.
I think you are missing the point. This is not about winners and losers. It's about a change of direction that, in ordinary life, you wouldn't attempt unless there were significant, quantifiable gains. When I test the market to see if it's worth changing utility supplier I don't do so if the 'gain' is £10 a year because I don't trust my figures to be that accurate and there is a risk it all goes wrong.
It's seems like some people believe in democracy, until they find themselves in the minority.
So standard disclaimer, I'm a Communist, at no point do I call myself a "Democratic Socialist" and I'm not a big fan of democracy.*
The thing about democracy is that it's not permanent, you're not voting for Monarchical options.
I'm not saying now is the time for a re-vote, but to say "Article 50 must be enacted now, and any new Government MUST do it" is, I think, shortsighted.
There will be another general election in the fall, by which point the early impacts of Brexit will be seen. It may well be that the pound and FTSE remain where they are for a bit, then slowly start to recover. It could be that by that time Britain has been thrown back into a recession. At which point, the electorate would have every right to say "this is not what we signed up for," or, "we were promised something else," or "The EU is shit, but it's better than the alternative." That would be an evolution of thought given more information.
It is of course also possible that center-right Tories and Labour MPs who campaigned to stay are kicked out of office for being wrong, as it is seen that Britain is better separated from the EU.
Nothing is permanent in a democracy, it's what separated it from that which came before.
*These comments are meant largely tongue-in-cheek
You make some good points, tongue-in-cheek or not.
I believe that democracy is generally a good thing, the will of the people and all that. I also believe that something as important as leaving the EU probably should have been decided on more than a 52%-48% vote. But we could have had endless debates on the exact ratio required, 55/45?, 60/40?, 70/30? Should we count it as a percentage of votes cast or of eligible voters?
In the end, it was a majority vote and the majority has spoken. Democracy rules, for better or worse.
Right, and all that I would add is that democracy rules for now.
Here in the states we have term limits for president and various other heads of individual states (Governors for example). It is to ensure a continuity of democracy, at least in theory.
Where this of course can fail is for large, long term, interdependent decisions, such as we've seen this week. I'm still firmly in the "eh, everything's negotiable" camp, but I understand why those who voted out think that is unfair.
I empathize with those who are saying they wish this was handled by representative democracy instead of direct democracy. Something so complex with so many permutations and such a potential global fall out is something where you would *hope* to consult people who do this for a living, and hope that they play with a straight bat in outlining the benefits and potential pitfalls.
My biggest regret about this election is less-so the result, and moreso that it became a referendum on "financial experts and political elite." I wholeheartedly endorse such distrust in those groups, but this was arguably the worst election possible with which to deliver them a mandate.
I also agree that a 52/48 margin for such a large decision feels incredibly thin, but as you said, what's the right level then?
I would say you need 67/33 (2:1) vote to change the status quo if you just count those voting.
Alternatively, with some risks - if you assumed that turnouts would never exceed 75% then a 50%+1 of all of those registered.
And would the same 67/33 (2:1) be required to keep us within The EU?
Like I said, you would need a 2:1 majority to change the status quo ie leave the EU. Anything less than that and we remain.
So by that logic we would never change government and never make a decision about anything ever again on any divisive subject.
Sounds like a dictatorship rather than a democracy. Sorry while I do understand your logic the rules have to apply to both sides.
I think you are missing the point. This is not about winners and losers. It's about a change of direction that, in ordinary life, you wouldn't attempt unless there were significant, quantifiable gains. When I test the market to see if it's worth changing utility supplier I don't do so if the 'gain' is £10 a year because I don't trust my figures to be that accurate and there is a risk it all goes wrong.
I do get the point you're making and with the example you provide and while I do agree with the logic it still can't work where the question only has two answers available which defines a winner and a loser.
The problem with a 67/33 outcome is you may find no matter what change needs making it's extremely difficult to ever get such a result without a minority of people digging in every time to protect a rule so long as they can get there 34% no matter how right or wrong they are they would always get there way.
While I do accept 52%-48% sounds marginal the difference in the voting was around 1.3 million, imagine if you were given £1 for each deciding vote (£1.3m) it suddenly then doesn't seem so close as the percentages suggest.
It's seems like some people believe in democracy, until they find themselves in the minority.
So standard disclaimer, I'm a Communist, at no point do I call myself a "Democratic Socialist" and I'm not a big fan of democracy.*
The thing about democracy is that it's not permanent, you're not voting for Monarchical options.
I'm not saying now is the time for a re-vote, but to say "Article 50 must be enacted now, and any new Government MUST do it" is, I think, shortsighted.
There will be another general election in the fall, by which point the early impacts of Brexit will be seen. It may well be that the pound and FTSE remain where they are for a bit, then slowly start to recover. It could be that by that time Britain has been thrown back into a recession. At which point, the electorate would have every right to say "this is not what we signed up for," or, "we were promised something else," or "The EU is shit, but it's better than the alternative." That would be an evolution of thought given more information.
It is of course also possible that center-right Tories and Labour MPs who campaigned to stay are kicked out of office for being wrong, as it is seen that Britain is better separated from the EU.
Nothing is permanent in a democracy, it's what separated it from that which came before.
*These comments are meant largely tongue-in-cheek
You make some good points, tongue-in-cheek or not.
I believe that democracy is generally a good thing, the will of the people and all that. I also believe that something as important as leaving the EU probably should have been decided on more than a 52%-48% vote. But we could have had endless debates on the exact ratio required, 55/45?, 60/40?, 70/30? Should we count it as a percentage of votes cast or of eligible voters?
In the end, it was a majority vote and the majority has spoken. Democracy rules, for better or worse.
Right, and all that I would add is that democracy rules for now.
Here in the states we have term limits for president and various other heads of individual states (Governors for example). It is to ensure a continuity of democracy, at least in theory.
Where this of course can fail is for large, long term, interdependent decisions, such as we've seen this week. I'm still firmly in the "eh, everything's negotiable" camp, but I understand why those who voted out think that is unfair.
I empathize with those who are saying they wish this was handled by representative democracy instead of direct democracy. Something so complex with so many permutations and such a potential global fall out is something where you would *hope* to consult people who do this for a living, and hope that they play with a straight bat in outlining the benefits and potential pitfalls.
My biggest regret about this election is less-so the result, and moreso that it became a referendum on "financial experts and political elite." I wholeheartedly endorse such distrust in those groups, but this was arguably the worst election possible with which to deliver them a mandate.
I also agree that a 52/48 margin for such a large decision feels incredibly thin, but as you said, what's the right level then?
I would say you need 67/33 (2:1) vote to change the status quo if you just count those voting.
Alternatively, with some risks - if you assumed that turnouts would never exceed 75% then a 50%+1 of all of those registered.
And would the same 67/33 (2:1) be required to keep us within The EU?
Like I said, you would need a 2:1 majority to change the status quo ie leave the EU. Anything less than that and we remain.
So by that logic we would never change government and never make a decision about anything ever again on any divisive subject.
Sounds like a dictatorship rather than a democracy. Sorry while I do understand your logic the rules have to apply to both sides.
I think you are missing the point. This is not about winners and losers. It's about a change of direction that, in ordinary life, you wouldn't attempt unless there were significant, quantifiable gains. When I test the market to see if it's worth changing utility supplier I don't do so if the 'gain' is £10 a year because I don't trust my figures to be that accurate and there is a risk it all goes wrong.
I do get the point you're making and with the example you provide and while I do agree with the logic it still can't work where the question only has two answers available which defines a winner and a loser.
The problem with a 67/33 outcome is you may find no matter what change needs making it's extremely difficult to ever get such a result without a minority of people digging in every time to protect a rule so long as they can get there 34% no matter how right or wrong they are they would always get there way.
While I do accept 52%-48% sounds marginal the difference in the voting was around 1.3 million, imagine if you were given £1 for each deciding vote (£1.3m) it suddenly then doesn't seem so close as the percentages suggest.
Thanks for confirming the sum of £1 x 1.3m for us !
It's seems like some people believe in democracy, until they find themselves in the minority.
So standard disclaimer, I'm a Communist, at no point do I call myself a "Democratic Socialist" and I'm not a big fan of democracy.*
The thing about democracy is that it's not permanent, you're not voting for Monarchical options.
I'm not saying now is the time for a re-vote, but to say "Article 50 must be enacted now, and any new Government MUST do it" is, I think, shortsighted.
There will be another general election in the fall, by which point the early impacts of Brexit will be seen. It may well be that the pound and FTSE remain where they are for a bit, then slowly start to recover. It could be that by that time Britain has been thrown back into a recession. At which point, the electorate would have every right to say "this is not what we signed up for," or, "we were promised something else," or "The EU is shit, but it's better than the alternative." That would be an evolution of thought given more information.
It is of course also possible that center-right Tories and Labour MPs who campaigned to stay are kicked out of office for being wrong, as it is seen that Britain is better separated from the EU.
Nothing is permanent in a democracy, it's what separated it from that which came before.
*These comments are meant largely tongue-in-cheek
You make some good points, tongue-in-cheek or not.
I believe that democracy is generally a good thing, the will of the people and all that. I also believe that something as important as leaving the EU probably should have been decided on more than a 52%-48% vote. But we could have had endless debates on the exact ratio required, 55/45?, 60/40?, 70/30? Should we count it as a percentage of votes cast or of eligible voters?
In the end, it was a majority vote and the majority has spoken. Democracy rules, for better or worse.
Right, and all that I would add is that democracy rules for now.
Here in the states we have term limits for president and various other heads of individual states (Governors for example). It is to ensure a continuity of democracy, at least in theory.
Where this of course can fail is for large, long term, interdependent decisions, such as we've seen this week. I'm still firmly in the "eh, everything's negotiable" camp, but I understand why those who voted out think that is unfair.
I empathize with those who are saying they wish this was handled by representative democracy instead of direct democracy. Something so complex with so many permutations and such a potential global fall out is something where you would *hope* to consult people who do this for a living, and hope that they play with a straight bat in outlining the benefits and potential pitfalls.
My biggest regret about this election is less-so the result, and moreso that it became a referendum on "financial experts and political elite." I wholeheartedly endorse such distrust in those groups, but this was arguably the worst election possible with which to deliver them a mandate.
I also agree that a 52/48 margin for such a large decision feels incredibly thin, but as you said, what's the right level then?
I would say you need 67/33 (2:1) vote to change the status quo if you just count those voting.
Alternatively, with some risks - if you assumed that turnouts would never exceed 75% then a 50%+1 of all of those registered.
And would the same 67/33 (2:1) be required to keep us within The EU?
Like I said, you would need a 2:1 majority to change the status quo ie leave the EU. Anything less than that and we remain.
So by that logic we would never change government and never make a decision about anything ever again on any divisive subject.
Sounds like a dictatorship rather than a democracy. Sorry while I do understand your logic the rules have to apply to both sides.
I think you are missing the point. This is not about winners and losers. It's about a change of direction that, in ordinary life, you wouldn't attempt unless there were significant, quantifiable gains. When I test the market to see if it's worth changing utility supplier I don't do so if the 'gain' is £10 a year because I don't trust my figures to be that accurate and there is a risk it all goes wrong.
I do get the point you're making and with the example you provide and while I do agree with the logic it still can't work where the question only has two answers available which defines a winner and a loser.
The problem with a 67/33 outcome is you may find no matter what change needs making it's extremely difficult to ever get such a result without a minority of people digging in every time to protect a rule so long as they can get there 34% no matter how right or wrong they are they would always get there way.
While I do accept 52%-48% sounds marginal the difference in the voting was around 1.3 million, imagine if you were given £1 for each deciding vote (£1.3m) it suddenly then doesn't seem so close as the percentages suggest.
I'm not suggesting 2:1 is the right ratio but merely suggesting it as an example of how you might protect the status quo which, whatever reservations we might have about the EU (I have plenty!), has been proven to work sufficiently well to make us the 5th strongest economy in the world. We were not making a decision between two unknown paths.
Comments
The problem with a 67/33 outcome is you may find no matter what change needs making it's extremely difficult to ever get such a result without a minority of people digging in every time to protect a rule so long as they can get there 34% no matter how right or wrong they are they would always get there way.
While I do accept 52%-48% sounds marginal the difference in the voting was around 1.3 million, imagine if you were given £1 for each deciding vote (£1.3m) it suddenly then doesn't seem so close as the percentages suggest.