BRITEX!!!

[Strange]

Who said "best" though? I said it was the most democratic. Which, a straight vote by the people is the most democratic. That doesn't mean that it's the best form of democracy or the one most likely to lead to good results.

 

But it's certainly the most democratic.

 

 

I don't agree. You are choosing to define "most democratic" as "direct democracy". So, inevitably and tautologically, you are right. But I don't accept your definition.

 

 

 

No consensus exists on how to define democracy, but legal equality, political freedom and rule of law have been identified as important characteristics.^[8][9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

 

Your "most democratic" system potentially fails on at least two of the three important characteristics.

[Delta1212]

Can you explain how a referendum as a way to make a decision fails any of those three characteristics?

 

Assuming that all votes are weighted equally, then you check off equality under the law. Assuming that everyone has the freedom to participate in the voting process, you have political freedom. And assuming that the results are followed in accordance with whatever laws exist about how the process should operate and how the results should or should not be implemented, then you have rule of law.

 

That's all three characteristics. Now, sure you could have a referendum on whether to strip those features from a system, but any democracy, no matter how it is configured. It is difficult to create a democratic system that completely disallows the possibility of a vote to undermine or end democracy.

 

The fact that this possibility exists does not make the system cease to be democratic.

 

You also still haven't explained where the charge that because something is the 'most democratic' that it must therefore be the 'best form of democracy' came from. Because you were hitting that strawman fairly hard and I would appreciate an acknowledgement that it was, in fact, a strawman rather than just abandoning the line of attack when called out on it.

[dimreepr]

The fact that this possibility exists does not make the system cease to be democratic.

 

 

But it does exaggerate the flaws.

[Delta1212]

 

 

But it does exaggerate the flaws.

It is a flaw that is, to some extent, inherent in a democracy.

[dimreepr]

No less a flaw.

[Delta1212]

Not disagreeing.

[dimreepr]

And there you go, democracy.

Edited June 27, 2016 by dimreepr

[CharonY]

 

Exactly - the mis-information purveyed by the campaigns was verging on the criminal; in a more easily prosecuted arena - if you had it in sales literature it would constitute good evidence for fraudulent misrepresentation

 

I really wished that those standards would apply to politics. To be fair,though, the industry has an excellent playbook in establishing lies, too (thinking about tobacco industry for example). Instead of outright lying just sow doubts. Remember, it is not really a lie, if you really, really believe it..

[dimreepr]

 

I really wished that those standards would apply to politics. To be fair,though, the industry has an excellent playbook in establishing lies, too (thinking about tobacco industry for example). Instead of outright lying just sow doubts. Remember, it is not really a lie, if you really, really believe it..

 

 

Just give me a gun, what's the harm .

Edited June 27, 2016 by dimreepr

[Strange]

Assuming that all votes are weighted equally, then you check off equality under the law.

 

 

What if the majority deny any due legal process or protection to left-handed people or the mentally ill. Is that equality under the law?

 

 

 

Assuming that everyone has the freedom to participate in the voting process, you have political freedom.

 

What if the majority votes for a law that makes it illegal for any political meetings (other than those of the majority group) to take place. Is that political freedom?

 

 

 

And assuming that the results are followed in accordance with whatever laws exist about how the process should operate and how the results should or should not be implemented, then you have rule of law.

 

This one is trickier because, like Nixon, whatever the majority says will be "the rule of law" IS the rule of law.

 

OK. You got me. One of the three seems unarguable.

 

 

 

You also still haven't explained where the charge that because something is the 'most democratic' that it must therefore be the 'best form of democracy' came from.

 

Jeez. I'm sorry. I accidentally wrote "best" instead of "most". Mea culpa. I most humbly beg your forgiveness.

 

So I agree. For your personal definition of "most democratic" then the system you define as most democratic turns out to be the most democratic. Pretty surprising. I guess I have to concede that one.

 

We will skip over the idea that "most democratic" could be defined in any other way.

Edited June 27, 2016 by Strange

[Delta1212]

Would you care to take a crack at defining an alternative that would be more democratic?

[dimreepr]

More democratic than "not disagreeing" would be agreeing, but that would require understanding.

 

Edit: And since understanding requires education, democracy only works when poverty doesn't.

Edited June 27, 2016 by dimreepr

[Strange]

Would you care to take a crack at defining an alternative that would be more democratic?

 

 

I would suggest the sort of representative government used by the USA and most European countries (most countries, in fact). It could be argued that various forms of proportional representation are better than a "first past the post" or two party system. But those are details once you have got away from direct democracy.

 

Obviously, examples like Germany in the '30s show that tyrants can be elected and do bad things in extreme circumstances. But your most democratic system almost guarantees that will happen (and hence the removal of two of the three planks of democracy).

[Der_Neugierige]

I am so glad that we have direct democracy on municipally level and semi direct democracy on canton and national level.

 

That is something that is very worthy right we Swiss citizen indeed have.

 

Very weird for me that in the rest of the world people have nothing to say like in Saudia Arabia or Iran. Or in Turkey where a delusional idiot is transforming the country into a islamic dictatorship.

Edited June 28, 2016 by Der_Neugierige

[Strange]

I am so glad that we have direct democracy on municipally level and semi direct democracy on canton and national level.

 

As you say, in both cases the directness is limited (as it must be).

 

 

Very weird for me that in the rest of the world people have nothing to say like in Saudia Arabia or Iran. Or in Turkey where a delusional idiot is transforming the country into a islamic dictatorship.

You give the impression that you think Switzerland is the only country with a democracy ...

[CharonY]

On a different note, it is sad to see that the vote has empowered racists and bigots to come of the woodwork, as they assume that after they had their say it is now socially acceptable. Obviously, it only shows that these thoughts are bubbling under the surface of virtually all societies (easily seen with refugee crisis in other European countries). Still, sad to see that in action.

Also noteworthy is that this time the resentments are not exclusively against the obvious targets (i.e. visible minorities) but also increased insults and abused have been targeted against especially Polish (and other European) communities.

 

I should stress that this is not exclusively directed against Brits, I have nothing against them, and some of them are my best friends (OK I could not stop myself, sorry). Rather, it shows how very primitive, almost tribal notions persists even in very modern societies that are well covered up under a veneer of civility. However, once there is even a nudge that implies that this behaviour is acceptable it tends to break out to expose the ugly, hate-filled underbelly of society. We are just deluding ourselves thinking that we are better and have overcome these issues. We (as the whole society) really have not.

 

Edit:

 

Exactly - the mis-information purveyed by the campaigns was verging on the criminal; in a more easily prosecuted arena - if you had it in sales literature it would constitute good evidence for fraudulent misrepresentation

 

Also, it is telling that UKIP got the popular vote for the EU-parliament, which is just mind-boggling. And as it turns out they are also the "laziest party"

In that regard Farange's speech is set to destroy any irony meters vaguely pointed in his direction. I am serious, especially listen to the end of the speech where he demands that the EU does not cut its nose to spite its face and tells them to be sensible grown-ups... after telling the MEP that they never had a proper job in their lives...

 

Edited June 28, 2016 by CharonY

[iNow]

On a different note, it is sad to see that the vote has empowered racists and bigots to come of the woodwork, as they assume that after they had their say it is now socially acceptable. Obviously, it only shows that these thoughts are bubbling under the surface of virtually all societies (easily seen with refugee crisis in other European countries). Still, sad to see that in action.

Very sad, indeed.

 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/International/hate-crimes-spike-uk-brexit-vote/story?id=40164257

Hate crimes rose 57 percent between last Thursday and Sunday in the U.K. compared to the same time frame last month, according to the National Police Chiefs' Council, an organization representing British police chiefs, as a populist rage toward immigrants has been unleashed in the wake of the so-called Brexit vote.

(snip)

The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), a group that represents 500 mosques, schools and associations, released a statement on its website claiming that "over 100 hate incidents" had taken place as a result of the Brexit vote.

 

Polish immigrants, who work many low wage jobs in the U.K., represent another group who has experienced intimidation in recent days.

[CharonY]

I am registered cynic, so it should not surprise me in the least. But I still feel a pang of disappointment seeing these things happening.

[Strange]

From the BBC website:

 

 

A senior official within Whitehall told the BBC civil servants are having to spend time dealing with angry emails from members of the public informing them their website is out of date "because EU legislation has now been scrapped".

[DevilSolution]

The thing is that many apparently do not understand the the EU and EU processes. For example, citizens have a direct influence on the European parliament. If people were concerned about having influence, they would be active in election. This is not what is happening.

Theres always a central power from which the layman may enact an "superficial" influence. For the central power makes the platform for you to influence. Whether its the united kingdom, european union or other institution in which the "idea" of you having any impact on a system far too embeded on the quantitive and not qualitive perspective. (Thats pretty uniform for mostly all aspects of the system)

 

Corporations make the rules because money talks, your country is a corporation, it resembles a corporation in more ways than you may want to admit. Why does it matter if a person with an english accent tells me what i can and cannot do...i will have no impact unless i have the money to drive or influence my own means. Thats the status quo and has been since the end of WW2.

 

None of this matters, unless you've bought into their holiday share. (Or own shares in another company).

 

Correct me if im wrong but if i have a company with 1000 shares worth £1, if i decide i need to liquidate some of the company i could manifest 200 new shares and quantitively speaking, they are disolved just less than 1/5 of there original price. Fine 1200 shares 82p each, BUT WHAT IF AT THE EXACT SAME TIME AS MY MANIFISTATING OF THESE SHARES, THERE IS CONSTANT MARKET DEMAND FOR 400 SHARES???

 

Are my 1200 shares still worth 82p???

 

Derivitives alone amount to 4 times the entirety of physical money. I wonder what other instruments exists out there.....

[imatfaal]

 

I really wished that those standards would apply to politics. To be fair,though, the industry has an excellent playbook in establishing lies, too (thinking about tobacco industry for example). Instead of outright lying just sow doubts. Remember, it is not really a lie, if you really, really believe it..

 

 

Just read a variant on the same theme

 

[michel123456]

 

 

Just read a variant on the same theme

 

You cannot compare things that are not comparable.

A surgeon and a politician: how many years of study do you need to become a politician??

[DrP]

At the end of the day, what's done is done. Maybe, once the markets settle and the pound finds it new level and the British Government replaces the lost funding we get for research and developments of poorer areas, maybe we will do better trading with the whole world as our customers, rather than having all our trade dictated to us by the EU. Maybe this will shake up the EU into rethinking their forced, undemocratic set up that no average man in the street actually wanted or asked for or ever voted for. Maybe (optimist mode: ON) the world will one day be a better place because the EU is reformed with proper rules and with democratic selection of it's leaders....

 

I voted to remain in.... I can sympathise with the leave camp but didn't think it would happen. I just hope some good comes of it for the EU as a whole. We need to weather through this storm first and get on with our work. Who knows? Maybe there will be a return for the UK in the future once the EU sorts out its ball and chain of bureaucracy and corruption.

[Strange]

Anyone else bemused by the eerie silence from Boris?

 

They keep saying he is the leading candidate but he hasn't yet said he is in the race. He hasn't said anything much.

 

Has he realised that becoming Tory leader now is a poisoned chalice that could destroy his political career?

[Prometheus]

I heard about 100 tories are ready to back him.

 

Maybe he's considering whether it would be worth it: he knows he would have to preside over a complete mess.

 

Imagine - we could live in a world with Putin, Trump and Boris all as national leaders...