It is currently Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:46 pm



Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Brexit 
Author Message
Felix Rex
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 6:01 pm
Posts: 15711
Location: On a slope
Reply with quote
Post Re: Brexit
John Oliver did a show on Brexit recently. He's quite anti-exit, however.


_________________
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.


Mon Jun 20, 2016 11:45 am
Profile WWW
Minor Diety
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 7:23 am
Posts: 14041
Location: behind a good glass of Duvel
Reply with quote
Post Re: Brexit
That's probably one of the most accurate descriptions of how British people tend to feel about the UK. :lol:

Overall, I agree with this guy. But I'm not voting, so who cares? :)

_________________
"I find a Burger Tank in this place? I'm-a be a one-man cheeseburger apocalypse."

- Coach


Tue Jun 21, 2016 2:58 am
Profile
Minor Diety
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 7:23 am
Posts: 14041
Location: behind a good glass of Duvel
Reply with quote
Post Re: Brexit
So, the results are in. UK is leaving. :(

Only vaguely amusing part of this is that Cameron will now go down in history as one if the biggest idiots to hold the PM office. Promises a referendum on whether the UK should leave or not in order to win the elections, even though he is against it. Then goes on the lose the referendum and resign. Colossal idiocy.

It'll probably take a few years before the process is completed, but it will surely be interesting. What with Scotland? And to a lesser extent Northern Ireland? Or even Gibraltar? They all have some autonomy already and voted to stay in. Within the EU there has always been attention for regional self-control too, from which Scotland in particular has profited. I think another independence referendum may occur in a few years.

Will also be interesting to see what the UK will do with the thousands upon thousands of Polish, Romanian and other EU immigrants working the minimum wage jobs. Are the unemployed Brits gonna do these jobs? Probably not. So it would be unwise to kick them out. But then, that's exactly what a large group of the voters for an exit want. So how is the government gonna solve this conundrum?

I personally feel it's a mistake, but it's up to the Brits what they want to do obviously. The obvious protest voting against the "ivory tower" elites is a bit misdirected towards the EU (alone), as I feel the problem is as much a national one and won't be solved by leaving the EU.

On the 'bright' side (from an EU perspective), Britain has always been a pain in the ass for the EU decision making process and has always asked (and gotten) exceptions from the EU to appease its anti-EU camps. This obviously created friction with the other EU countries. Some decisions may actually become easier without the UK.

We may see similar referendums occur in other countries, but I don't think they will be succesful. The UK has always been an outsider within the EU due to its geography and history (they never became part of Shengen, for one). I think the practical benefits of staying in will be clearer for most mainland European countries.

It's a strange day. :)

_________________
"I find a Burger Tank in this place? I'm-a be a one-man cheeseburger apocalypse."

- Coach


Fri Jun 24, 2016 4:33 am
Profile
Minor Diety
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 2:17 pm
Posts: 7652
Location: Centre of the sun
Reply with quote
Post Re: Brexit
Happy with the result. Agree with your sentiments about Cameron, and would go further to outline that he is a consistent and well documented liar. He announced his departure from office, revealing possibly his last lie, in that he stated clearly he would stay regardless of the result, and he hasn't. He will go down in history as a Blairite, at best.

My arguments in relation to an exit being more beneficial are as follows. Apologies for the unstructured nature of my expression, I am copying and pasting from Facebook discussions. See it as less of list, more of an essay. I love lists, so that makes it hard to do:



Representation doesn't equate democracy. Institutions upon which the people are dependent on representation doesn't enhance democracy, it dilutes it. Offering another layer upon which the opportunity for the risk of misrepresentation occurs, is by definition undemocratic.

The Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Both of which had little popular support. Had there been a mechanism for people to contribute to the parliamentary process, it could have avoided the murdering millions of people, as well as all the other perks we enjoyed, such as stoking terrorism and wasting enormous quantities of public resources, contributing to the 2008 collapse, and generally diverting civilisation away from socio-economic progression, and into more macropolitical colonialism that did the world so much good during the Cold War.

The EU is less representative and less democratic than our domestic system, so if our domestic system is capable of such damage, it is naive to assume that the EU is somehow exempt from the risk of becoming the same, or worse. This has been the pattern over literally millennia with successive efforts to consolidate governments and power, why are we now forgetting how stupidly susceptible we are in trusting enormous institutions over which we have little or no control, which then soon enough cause catastrophic harm. We have tried since classical antiquity to devise a sustainable system. We have had undemocratic regimes before, and they've all failed. This is about nipping this problem at the bud. By all means, a single market is a fine idea, but having extended this to an undemocratic political entity is a disaster waiting to happen. TTIP is one of the best examples if you want EU-specific misrepresentation. It is an agreement that will allow American companies to sue EU counties for any loss of earnings, the famous similar example of which is the American Tobacco company (forget which one) vs the Australian government. Allowing corporations to further pressure government policy making on the basis of loss of revenue, is just as toxic a notion as that which caused it, which is more "representation".

The positive impact to not having TTIP is not a leap of faith. Nor is aspiring to reverse the reliance on representation which continues to inflict so much harm. Nor are the relatively fickle personal items such as the dairy quota that put my in-laws farm out of business. Like you, I'd be tempted to ask what the good things are that the EU has done for us in relation to what we contribute, but I've seen all of these points, and they're all weak. Even the strongest one, single market access, is weakened by very fact we contribute enormous sums to pay for the privilege.

As bad as the negotiations may go, the worst consequence is tariffs imposed on all on exports, which is mitigated by not having to pay the much touted ~£14bn annual membership fee.

If the UK has grown while being an EU member, it doesn't imply whether the EU contributed to this, or not, or by how much, whether it be in significant part or not. Secondly, "growth" is often overemphasised. It is not the be-all-and-end-all issue that capitalists would have you believe. Even more so because one must consider that continuous growth in a capitalist model with limited ecological resources is unsustainable. The notion of slowing growth, for the benefit of the environment is a sound one, so too that to slow it in order to focus on aspirations greater than the accumulation of material. Who thinks we should just chill out for a bit and take stock of our society and democracy, following our successive technological and industrial revolutions?

I'd happily pay higher taxes to sustain a more socially cohesive and democratically enabled country. House prices have been too high since the 90's, so I'd be happy to see them fall.

I've separated the rhetoric from the referendum debate entirely, and I think it's important to do so. After all, despite the fact that Cameron claims it was called in order to allow the public to settle a crucial issue, it was, in reality, an exercise in electioneering. The basis upon which the discussions are being expressed is therefore inherently unready and somewhat immature. Though, this doesn't mean that the argument itself is void. We just have to realise that the quality of the debate is relative to the conditions upon which the referendum was called. If we separate these two points we're better able to logically and reasonably scrutinise or justify the components of the EU mechanism, without any dependency on politicians or institutions with vested interests.

Secondly, though it might still be disappointing that propaganda still ensues so highly in the political process, if you take history into perspective, it is overwhelmingly unsurprising. Little should be expected from our representatives in an era where they've further proven to be misrepresenting us. The answer is a more direct democracy. Yet the EU is in direct contradiction with such an idea.

A more direct democracy will encourage greater participation, and in turn a greater pool of candidates from which we can choose representatives.

If people are more able to contribute to politics, they'll more likely do so. If they're more like to do so, they're going to have higher expectations. If they have higher expectations they'll either demand, influence, or become a better representative. This will probably happen over a generation or two, but the obstacles are going to be institutions which are undemocratic, and therefore resistant by definition to such change. The EU in its current is one of these institutions.

Have Greek lives been made better thanks to the EU, post 1975? Have Italy's? Have Spain's? Did the EU do anything to avoid the 2008 financial crisis? Did the EU do anything to reverse the colonialism we're seeing now? I'd like to hear how the EU has contributed to the world from a humanitarian perspective.

TTIP isn't opinion. There have been trade agreements like this before with negative impact, like the example I gave you between Australia vs a US tobacco company. You trust the EU to exclude investor state dispute settlement from the agreement? I don't.

Our "representatives" are pro EU, so they have no intention of not implementing a regulation or directive. That's not an option.

There have been trade agreements for a very long time, but to assume that they're mutually beneficial, you're limiting the scope to its commercial basis. The implications of an agreement are far greater than that, and alter the political basis of a country too, as I've outlined would happen if corporations are able to pressure government policy making with investor state dispute settlements.

Even if trade doesn't continue as it does, we mitigate tariff costs with recouped membership contributions.

The assumption that TTIP will happen domestically anyway is flawed, because it assumes that imposing a trade agreement like TTIP domestically is just as easy as doing so via a fundamentally undemocratic and mechanically obscure entity such as the EU. It isn't, by a long shot.

Summary of problems the EU offers:

1. Undemocratic as it stands.
2. Obstacle to further democratisation of civilisation in general.
3. TTIP, and any such further potential future harmful agreement/regulation.
4. Cameron has not said he'd veto Turkish membership
5. Enormous membership fee
6. Unreformable
7. Incomprehensible constitution and function
8. No EU immigration controls

By all means, a trading platform as it was in 1975 I'm happy with. But the political super institution it's become is something that's causing problems which will only worsen.

Immigration control, as in, when the economic conditions require it, being able to reduce the number of economic migrants, and/or be able to be more selective.

Voting to stay, on the other hand, is endorsement of pathological liars and manipulators. Cameron and Osborne have proven this in issues even irrelevant to the EU, so it's not as if you'd be voting for the moral high ground. There isn't one. Hence why they cancel each other out, and what remains is the mechanics of the issue. The poster, as far as i'm aware, is a UKIP poster. UKIP and Farage, prominent though they might be with the discussion, are ultimately insignificant in relation to the fate of the mechanics, and the role that will be played in the 2020 GE, or even any post-referendum fallout. The poster is therefore insignificant.

I don't personally see evidence for a meaningful link between immigration and NHS capacity. The problem with the NHS, as I see it, is resource, thanks to the government ideology to shrink the state to implement austerity, while at the same time having an interest to privatise services. I am not voting for this "falsehood" but every other argument is of such significant consequence, that i'm willing to oversee this as irresponsible propaganda.

The cost for the exit is irrelevant. We found billions to plug holes in Osborne's budgets, and bail out banks, we will find a couple spare to administrate an exit lasting in large part 2 years.

What is the basis for immediate shrinking? There might be shallow recessions for a couple of quarters, as speculators lose confidence, but why any more than than? Besides, the recouped memberships fees can be used to mitigate tariff implications, should negotiations go badly after 2 years.

The risk of continuing with a fundamentally undemocratic, incomprehensible institution of this size, cost, and remit is greater than any risk I've seen argued by Remain. If we get Gove, or Johnson, or May, or Javid, we will have, until 2020, an enormous amount of public scrutiny over their actions, because the referendum has enlightened a great number of people with acknowledgment of the manipulative rhetoric, lies and irresponsibility, and with that comes the expectation to want better. People are now relatively politically updated and enabled. One wrong move, and there will be massive pressure for an early GE. Pray tell, what do you propose will happen between the time article 50 implemented, and the 2020 GE?

I would very much like to know how, and what human rights have stopped the Consevatives from attempting.

The EU stops workers working unreasonable hours? What have we just gone through with Hunt?

How is change within the EU possible if Cameron recently tried to negotiate reform, and came away with ultimately nothing?

Which working component do you think Britain is unable to operate "on its own"?

UKIP are predominantly a protest party, covering EU membership, and immigration. This is what they represent for many of their voters, not merely the racism card, which the media likes to sensationalise, and are therefore not indicative of the general public being out of date. Both of these subjects are entirely reasonable and important subjects to consider enough to vote specifically for, especially in a system as unrepresentative and out of touch as ours. Religion in general is regressive, and i find it perfectly reasonable that people reject it, even more so a religion that influences so many massive humanitarian issues and attitudes toward women, gays, etc. I find it understandable that people are aware of the disgusting treatment of people in muslim countries, and I understand why they might have an issue with the fantasist mythology attributed to it. If there is no mechanism with which people can contribute politically, in a moment of urgent change being requested, an effective method that remains is the angry mob one.

Again, the benefits of the single market are paid for. Visa free travel is relatively inconsequential, and affects a very small number of people. The ECHR is, to my knowledge, impotent and inconsequential. Right to work abroad is relatively insignificant for the number of people it affects. Assuming that we're not capable of open communication with the EU after an exit, means precisely what?

As far as i'm aware, the junior doctors were protected under UK contract law in the first place. The EU directive may very well have added "clout" but from a mechanical perspective, what Hunt was proposing was illegal according to UK law.

You seem to be implying there is less risk with Remain, yet don't acknowledge anything i'm saying in relation to immigration sustainability, growing democratic deficit, any vague notion that direct democracy might be the next societal evolution required to stop us murdering millions of people.

I don't personally think this is fun, but important. I really need to make sure i'm making the right decision, so need to scrutinise my rationality. If an opinion is belittled as "utopian", it may endanger the respect in a dialogue.

In your opinion, what needs to happen to civilisation, and how does the EU assist with that?

Did Hunt change contract law?

Why do we need to unite across Europe for greater freedom?

Religion contradicts empiricism. Collectively refuting such a base level of rationality is socially irresponsible. I cannot accept it even in its most passive form, because it prolongs the toxic tradition of harmful adaptation by merely persisting to exist. I think that's a major issue for civilisation, but i presume you don't?

Hunt can't do anything of the sort, firstly, that's outside of his cabinet remit, and would be subject to a vote in parliament anyway, which would come to light in public, which people will react to, especially now that the subject of workers rights has been exposed. Secondly, the government will be bound by EU regulation until article 50 is implemented which is 2 years time. As soon as we reach that, it's going to General Election mayhem, and if the Tory's threaten workers rights, on top of all the other cataclysmic cock-ups they've tried to impose, they will electorally butchered. Thirdly, I believe it was Farage that implied he favoured revoking workers rights. He has no real hope of winning parliamentary success, let alone prime ministerial. Can the government still try it? Sure, but I think the pressure is massively against them from a deterrent perspective, as mentioned above.

If a religious persons fundamental belief in the origin of life, or the fate of it, is based on something other than empirical reasoning, it dilutes the responsibility that the person has to ensure that the worlds problems are challenged, and not flaccidly complied with, because, in the end, god works in mysterious ways, or we will go to heaven anyway, or they will go to hell anyway, or that someone is overseeing and protecting them as they struggle under societal and institutional problems, so they do nothing about it. All of this despite, the moral codes that it pretends to promote. Ultimately, if people morally believe there is an overseer, or a concept such as good and evil, that dismisses entirely how humans function, and is a burden to better understanding one another.

Immigration is a relative subject. I think the overwhelming majority of people arguing for an exit are actually pro immigration, but anti mass immigration. One is sustainable, and part of an ecomomic strategy for the betterment of a national society, the other is damaging. There are times in history when mass immigration has proven to be enormously fruitful, this time is not one of them. If the time returns, by all means, i'm all for mass immigration. What is civil about supporting an unsustainable socio-economic situation?

I don't endorse Farage, and I believe the UK can communicate, share, respect and protect outside of the EU. No one is advocating an actual reduction in communication. Foreign Aid is what "sharing" is for, but frankly, nowadays we have an overriding issue with "sharing" which is the rising levels of wealth and income inequality. Directly in contradiction with egalitarianism, which is sad, and it's negative effects are well documented. This is in large part a domestic problem, so little to do with the EU.

I value the scrutiny enormously.

Slim majority governments can't accomplish "almost anything". They've had policies overturned, even with an upper chamber intervention recently, which is practically unprecedented. The next 2 years would be consumed by negotiation, to determine the nature of the agreement with the EU, and getting the best deal possible. Immediately after that, it's time to prepare for the general election, so the government will try its very best to stay on the electorates good books, as is always the case when comparing the start and end of a term. This party probably won't govern next, and will replaced by a relatively more humane (yet arguably just as redundant) Labour, or some kind of Labour led coalition. Thus the window doesn't really present itself from a practical perspective to impose worse Etonian playground Darwinian policies than those were seeing now.

I think emigration is overlooked because it's largely irrelevant for the entirety of the subject. We have 600k coming in, 300k going out. The commercial benefit for Brits being employment abroad is largely irrelevant, because if a country needs to recruit from outside, it will do so, as it did before. The process to apply for a visa on terms of employment wasn't that difficult, pre freedom of movement. What it has encouraged from a negative perspective is this so called "race to the bottom" whereby companies with a significant interest in saving money with labour, are better able to do so with free movement of people, because in a pool of 500m, you're better able to find someone who's willing to take lesser pay. Hardly something to aspire for from a national socio-economic perspective. An analogy could be the Premier League. Sure, it's entertaining. Sure, it draws in bags of money. But English youth players are neglected, underdeveloped, and the national team has been largely useless since 66. I hate analogies, but there is a shred of association there.

Services and infrastructure are suffering predominantly due to underinvestment since around the mid 70's, I acknowledge that. But that doesn't mean that a net increase in immigration doesn't affect it whatsoever. To put the argument in abstract terms, it's reasonable to assume that annual net migration of ten million (to pick a ridiculously high number) is unsustainable. At the same time, net annual migration of 1 person is likely to be sustainable (let's ignore death rate for now). So we agree in principle, the difference is where we draw the line. I have seen studies that indicate immigration at current levels provides a net fiscal contribution. However, another study reveals that on average it takes the 3rd generation of the settler to achieve the same average pay as the average "native". So, while they contribute to the funding of public services, they do so at a lesser rate that would otherwise be achieved with more selective immigration. Secondly, an argument that I overlooked entirely time ago, was a non economic one, which, I have to say, I find reasonable; that is in relation to fondness of space and the countryside. Many people cherish this, so, though supporting 300k settlers with infrastructure, services, and housing is financially attainable (and financially fruitful), but the amount of green space that it consumes is enough to break people's hearts. Primitive as it may be, the concern is for something that is ultimately essential and healthy. Thirdly, Germany can handle immigration because they've had relatively inferior levels of it compared to us. Ours started to climb sharply from 1997, Germany's from 2010. On top of this, the German economy is more robust and organised.

I can't disagree with the smoke-screen argument. I thought a while back it was an electioneering ploy, as well a post-budgetary smoke-screen. Though, that doesn't invalidate the question of whether it works, or whether overall it is beneficial.

Yes, it was a career progression game. Yes, the prime minister isn't in favour of dealing with an Exit decision, but the economic risk is mitigated, regardless of negotiations, and there are many non economic problems that it solves. Like the relatively soft point about green space, but also toxic super-legislation like TTIP, and the democratic deficit caused by such a large, complex and unmalleable institution, that will cause problems for political progression within a generation or two.

Pointing fingers is exactly the same as holding numpties to account. It achieves relatively little. We've gotten to the point where the system is unable to supply representatives because it was designed for a time where the world was significantly less complex, less sophisticated, less diverse, less problematic, less dynamic, less connected, less intellectual. Parties are unrepresentative, because many people believe in principles and policies from a multitude of them, not just from a selection of two, which used to be the case until around the 50's. Parliamentary reform is in dire need, as the conduct within is frequently unprofessional. Electoral reform is needed in the form of Proportional Representation. Constitutional reform is needed to make the upper chamber and head of state relevant, as it once used to be. Democratic reform is needed because citizens have enjoyed the ICT and digital revolution, and they're able to inform themselves in seconds, for something that would take days to do in a library. Yet technology remains totally estranged to politics. Hence my case for popular parliamentary interventions, by way of simply allowing people to vote electronically for bills and white papers, should they wish to do so, and thus dilute the parliamentary vote in proportion with the number of citizens that voted. It's not a wacky idea. Expecting the EU referendum to produce better representatives is therefore unrealistic. We've got about a generation or two more of this kind of discussion ^ before it becomes common place enough for it to be consensus enough among representatives to actually start making reforms.

Regarding the queries:
- Ability to vote on EU legislation is irrelevant if our representatives aren't representative.
- As far as I can see, logistical access won't be significantly affected for freight.
- Immigration is one of the issues, but for me, not a major one. The campaign might very well have an opinion on the matter, but the issue still needs more debate a empirical scrutiny before something is done about it in parliament.

See what potential there is for a direct democracy, with peasants like us discussing at this length! Arguably just as well, or better, that our very representatives! What an enormous waste of positive progressive energy.

Derf's 10 Point Plan for EU Exit (that took 10 minutes of thought on Friday morning):

1. Establish criteria for timing of invoking article 50.
2. Government pledge for immediate negotiations, agreements and legislation to replace like-for-like.
3. Schedule a second, 10 year negotiation phase with the EU.
4. Appoint industry leaders in committees to negotiate directly with the EU.
5. The government to apologise publicly for the lies and vitreal of both campaigns.
6. The government to apologise for calling the referendum for the purpose of electioneering.
7. Public acknowledgement that Cameron and Osborne have shown consistent, and significant evidence of having lied, and this style of "leadership" is unfit for government, and isn't acceptable.
8. Economic strategies for worst-case scenarios regarding tariff impositions. Ie, trade partners, industry specialisation (subsidies if needed).
9. Immigration strategy aligned with economic strategy, to target industry specialisation requirements.
10. Offset speculative market fluctuations with corporation tax cuts for investors, and/or lowering of interest rates, if needs be.

_________________
"Well a very, very hevate, ah, heavy duh burtation tonight. We had a very derrist derrison, bite, let's go ahead and terrist teysond those fullabit who have the pit." - Serene Branson


Fri Jun 24, 2016 6:33 am
Profile
Minor Diety
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 7:23 am
Posts: 14041
Location: behind a good glass of Duvel
Reply with quote
Post Re: Brexit
Jesus christ, who have you been arguing with on Facebook? :D Is this a conversation with one person or several of them?

As with any political campaign, the promises/lies are starting to unravel already.



God Farage is such an asshat.

_________________
"I find a Burger Tank in this place? I'm-a be a one-man cheeseburger apocalypse."

- Coach


Sat Jun 25, 2016 2:35 am
Profile
Minor Diety
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 2:17 pm
Posts: 7652
Location: Centre of the sun
Reply with quote
Post Re: Brexit
Shorter, more cohesive version:

Representation doesn't equate democracy. Institutions upon which the people are dependent on representation doesn't enhance democracy, it dilutes it. Offering another layer upon which the opportunity for the risk of misrepresentation occurs (chinese whispers?), is by definition undemocratic.

Allow me to expose the best example...

The Iraq and Afghanistan wars had relatively little popular support. Had there been a mechanism for people to contribute to the parliamentary process, it could have avoided the murdering millions of people, as well as all the other perks we enjoyed, such as stoking terrorism and wasting enormous quantities of public resources, contributing to the 2008 collapse, and generally diverting civilisation away from socio-economic progression, and into more macropolitical colonialism that did the world so much good during the Cold War. Beneficial, wouldn't you say?

Another example...

Regarding the EU, it is less representative and conventionally less democratic than our domestic system, so if our domestic system is capable of such damage, it is naive to assume that the EU is somehow exempt from the risk of becoming the same, or worse. This has been the pattern over literally millennia with successive efforts to consolidate governments and power, why are we now forgetting how stupidly susceptible we are in trusting enormous institutions over which we have little or no control, which then soon enough cause catastrophic harm. We have tried since classical antiquity to devise a sustainable system. We have had undemocratic regimes before, and they've all failed. TTIP is a valid centrefold here. Toxic, wouldn't you say?

On Rhetoric

Nowadays, perhaps since Blair, separation of rhetoric from the debate is crucial in order to understand it from a neutral and rational perspective. The EU referendum for instance, despite the fact that Cameron claims it was called in order to allow the public to settle a crucial issue, it was, in reality, an exercise in electioneering. By nullifying rhetoric, we're better able to logically and reasonably scrutinise or justify the components of the debate without any dependency on politicians, institutions, or the press with vested interests. Or indeed worry about factoring their vested interests, which can be a consuming task in it own right, depriving people of precious time and energy for the debate itself, by riddling it with doubt, scepticism and worsening the problem by causing disengagement.

It is still disappointing that propaganda still ensues so highly in the political process, if you take history into perspective, it is overwhelmingly unsurprising that it continues, unchecked. Little should be expected from our representatives in an era where they've further proven to be misrepresenting us.

On representation

Pointing fingers, and scrutiny by way of selection achieves relatively little. We've gotten to the point where the system is unable to supply representatives because it was designed for a time where the world was significantly less complex, less sophisticated, less diverse, less problematic, less dynamic, less connected, less intellectual. Parties are unrepresentative, because many people believe in principles and policies from a multitude of them, not just from a selection of two, which used to be the case until around the 50's. Parliamentary reform is in dire need, as the conduct within is frequently unprofessional. Electoral reform is needed in the form of Proportional Representation. Constitutional reform is needed to make the upper chamber and head of state relevant, as it once used to be. Democratic reform is needed because citizens have enjoyed the ICT and digital revolution, and they're able to inform themselves in seconds, for something that would take days to do in a library. Yet technology remains totally estranged to politics.

Aspiring to reverse the reliance on representation which continues to inflict so much harm, isn't a leap of faith. The answer is a more direct democracy. I underline "more", because some people are sometimes immediately terrorised by the notion of 'direct' democracy. Yet, like many other political notions, it's relative. Don't be alarmed, I will make a proposal for a solution that doesn't involve delegating every single decision to citizens exclusively, as is often the horror story depicted that instantly turns people off.

On direct democracy

A more direct democracy will encourage greater participation, and in turn a greater pool of candidates from which we can choose representatives. If people are more able to contribute to politics, they'll more likely do so. If they're more like to do so, they're going to have higher expectations. If they have higher expectations they'll either demand, influence, or become a better representative. This will probably happen over a generation or two, but the obstacles are going to be institutions which are undemocratic, and therefore resistant by definition to such change. The EU, for arguments sake, in its current form, is one of these institutions. It is an a democratically overriding obstacle. More so with time.

The solution: One simple change.

Popular parliamentary interventions, by way of simply allowing people to vote electronically (or by post) for bills / white papers / motions, etc, should they wish to do so. Votes cast by citizens will dilute the parliamentary vote in proportion with the number of citizens that voted. This gives an opportunity for people who wish to contribute, a direct way of doing so. For major issues like the Iraq War, 50% of the public may have cast their vote, thus potentially changing the outcome of the decision because the parliamentary vote would have been diluted to 50%. Some other, relatively minor topics, may only attract 5% of the interest of citizens, in which case, this would dilute the parliamentary vote to 95%. Many people are still happy or reliant on representation, so they will not bother voting for the sake of voting, and risk spoiling the quality of the vote. Keeping up to date with the complex workings of some policies isn't something most people have time or inclination for, because, after work, people need to cook, eat, rest, sleep, spend time with family, do personal admin, work on house, tidy the house, tend to hobbies, do exercise, etc.

Next steps

Expecting the post EU referendum popular vibe to produce better representatives is unrealistic. Expecting politicians to start acting responsibly if we demand it, is unrealistic. Our generation needs to spend more time using the technology it already is, to popularise politics. It mustn't be a taboo subject between friends and family. Including it into the sphere of what constitutes 'socialising' will make others conclude that the failings of representation are mitigated by direct democracy. The generation after will find it common-knowledge enough to form strong consensus. A consensus strong enough to produce new representatives with this notion already at the forefront of their agenda. A consensus strong enough to pressure the remaining old-guard representatives into change.

_________________
"Well a very, very hevate, ah, heavy duh burtation tonight. We had a very derrist derrison, bite, let's go ahead and terrist teysond those fullabit who have the pit." - Serene Branson


Mon Jun 27, 2016 5:18 am
Profile
Minor Diety
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 7:23 am
Posts: 14041
Location: behind a good glass of Duvel
Reply with quote
Post Re: Brexit
It sounds like your problem is more with the political establishment in general than with the EU per se. :) I think a revolution is the only way to (truly) achieve what you are envisioning, and while I do not think all revolutions need to be violent, they do tend to be messy business. Maybe a better alternative would be to start a new political movement and reform the existing system(s) from within?

Btw, I don't disagree with most of what you wrote but I am not of the opinion that the UK's domestic system is much more democratic than the EU. The House of Lords is an archaic and (almost) completely unelected political entity, the first-past-the-post system allows for some seriously undemocratic political shenanigans and, even if is thankfully never excercised anymore, the Queen still technically has the freedom to withold royal assent when signing a bill that has passed through parliament. Those are some pretty big flaws. I would even argue that the House of Lords is one of the most undemocratic institutions in the entire Western world. In most countries, the equivalent of the house of lords (the senate, usually) is also directly elected and proportional representation systems are used for general elections.

That is not to say that the UK is an undemocratic country, of course. The bulk of power is with the House of Commons, and the UK is famous for its political transparency. I just don't think it's a much better system.

_________________
"I find a Burger Tank in this place? I'm-a be a one-man cheeseburger apocalypse."

- Coach


Thu Jun 30, 2016 3:44 am
Profile
Minor Diety
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 2:17 pm
Posts: 7652
Location: Centre of the sun
Reply with quote
Post Re: Brexit
Oh, I have massive issues with the establishment. The EU is part of it, hence why I don't welcome it. Happy you believe in revolution too, though, perhaps what i'm advocating is more "evolution", as representation still needs to exist in large part for our next step. Maybe semantics at the end of the day.

The issue with trying change from within, is that it's probably too difficult to do so in an institution that is largely incomprehensible, defensive, and relatively undemocratic. The UK system may be just as undemocratic, but its smaller scale makes it far more malleable. So too does its relative simplicity. As you say, the majority of power lies in Parliament, so the relatively impotent upper chamber and head of state can't really be regarded as significantly undemocratic because they exercise relatively little power. Outdated? Yes. Just as undemocratic? Not in my view.

_________________
"Well a very, very hevate, ah, heavy duh burtation tonight. We had a very derrist derrison, bite, let's go ahead and terrist teysond those fullabit who have the pit." - Serene Branson


Thu Jun 30, 2016 8:54 am
Profile
Minor Diety
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 7:23 am
Posts: 14041
Location: behind a good glass of Duvel
Reply with quote
Post Re: Brexit
Thought this was amusing

Image

_________________
"I find a Burger Tank in this place? I'm-a be a one-man cheeseburger apocalypse."

- Coach


Tue Jul 05, 2016 3:25 am
Profile
Minor Diety
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 2:17 pm
Posts: 7652
Location: Centre of the sun
Reply with quote
Post Re: Brexit
The redundancy of party politics and representation described perfectly.

_________________
"Well a very, very hevate, ah, heavy duh burtation tonight. We had a very derrist derrison, bite, let's go ahead and terrist teysond those fullabit who have the pit." - Serene Branson


Tue Jul 05, 2016 3:29 am
Profile
Minor Diety
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 7:23 am
Posts: 14041
Location: behind a good glass of Duvel
Reply with quote
Post Re: Brexit
Also, gotta love the government's response to the brexit

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36699642

Cutting corporate tax to non-existent levels! That'll show the elites in Brussels and Westminster we voted against! :lol:

Good lord. This man is doing sterling work in creating a revolution.

_________________
"I find a Burger Tank in this place? I'm-a be a one-man cheeseburger apocalypse."

- Coach


Tue Jul 05, 2016 3:45 am
Profile
Felix Rex
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 6:01 pm
Posts: 15711
Location: On a slope
Reply with quote
Post Re: Brexit
As an American, I am strongly in favor of any revolutions against the British.

Image

_________________
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.


Wed Jul 06, 2016 7:14 am
Profile WWW
Minor Diety
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 7:23 am
Posts: 14041
Location: behind a good glass of Duvel
Reply with quote
Post Re: Brexit
Totally seeing Satis coming from Texas to support the revolutionary war. With as his final goal the UK joining Texas as a dual kingdom, of course.

_________________
"I find a Burger Tank in this place? I'm-a be a one-man cheeseburger apocalypse."

- Coach


Tue Jul 12, 2016 6:55 am
Profile
Minor Diety
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 7:23 am
Posts: 14041
Location: behind a good glass of Duvel
Reply with quote
Post Re: Brexit
Oh irony: the Brexit referendum, which partially succeeded on claims of the EU being undemocratic, has resulted in a new British PM who has not been given a clear mandate by the electorate (she was not nearly leading the party during general elections) and through circumstances hasn't even been elected within her own party following Cameron's resignation. :-/ To top it all off, she was a (albeit reluctant) remain supporter. What a mess.

Doesn't help that all the big shouty types from the leave campaign all went "oh crap" and left the ship before any real blame could be pinned on them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... exit-vote/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... heresa-may

_________________
"I find a Burger Tank in this place? I'm-a be a one-man cheeseburger apocalypse."

- Coach


Sun Jul 17, 2016 6:21 am
Profile
Felix Rex
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 6:01 pm
Posts: 15711
Location: On a slope
Reply with quote
Post Re: Brexit
Yea, the fallout is proving pretty amusing. It hasn't had much impact on the financial market over here after the first few days of willies, so I can laugh. It's causing some pretty serious issues with Ireland too. I'm obviously not seeing that much about it locally, but it sounds like loads of fun. Ah well.. the people have spoken. Now they can live with the results.

Ultimately we'll see how it all shakes out, but certainly short term it's a huge mess.

_________________
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.


Tue Jul 19, 2016 4:01 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.