:rolleyes: No, that’s not what we’re saying. See below.
I’d say this is pretty much self-evident. As I posted here regarding this article:
How about a representative democracy instead of government by referendum (aka direct democracy)? As I have posted repeatedly in this very thread:
No, it was not lunacy to have a referendum. The EU has been a huge issue here for many years. Now we’ve had the referendum we can move on.
Self-evident because a columnist from The Washington Post wrote it?
How you about not telling the British how to run our own country?
Look, you have two choices, either you choose your own individual manufactured opinion or you can choose experts from whomever you want, between two pre-selected members of this website who will then choose the best person to represent you together with some moderators who were freely chosen before, who will together vote on this issue. The outcome will then be rechecked just to be sure by elected representatives of GCHQ in a joint committee with the elected representatives of the NSA.
I suggest the latter given the lack of consensus and the complexity of the issue. You’ll have the power.
That wasn’t my full quote. I said it was “lunacy to set up a situation where 43 years of treaties and trade agreements could be reversed by a simple majority vote in a glorified opinion poll by the general public.”
In that same post, I went on to say that: “If it was decided that a referendum was necessary for political reasons, at a minimum a high bar should have been set up from the start, which should have included a supermajority requirement for any change to the status quo.”
Just 51.9% of UK voters voted to leave the EU. That’s hardly a mandate for a change of such magnitude, and hardly a reason to blithely say that the issue is settled and that you can “move on.”
Indeed, I’d be willing to bet if the vote were held again tomorrow, the results would likely be reversed. Unlike a typical election for political office, though, this is a permanent change. Once Britain formally leaves the EU, that’s it. No going back.
No, that was just for illustration. It’s self-evident because your average person simply doesn’t have the time or expertise to make an informed decision on an issue of such complexity. What inevitably happens is that the complexity gets dumbed down, or demagoguery takes over the discussion.
Oh, please, haven’t you British done the same to the U.S.? :rolleyes:
For example:
How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?
U.S. ELECTION DISASTER: PAGES 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, & 11
Besides, I’m just a random poster on the internet. Feel free to ignore my ramblings. 
I would not oppose having a referendum on a major national policy issue that has been strongly disputed for some years. And, once having held a referendum in which both sides were free to make their cases to the electorate, I believe the result should be respected and implemented, even if I disagreed with that result (as I firmly do with the Brexit vote). That’s democracy.
Fair enough. Choose experts. Get Harry Kane taking corners and free kicks. Get The Birmingham Six imprisoned for years. Drive Sally Clark to madness then suicide.
Choose Remain. Choose experts.
Yes, of course we have. Because The Daily Mirror represents the views of every single person in the entire country. (Hint: Piers Morgan used to be its editor.)
[Sybil Fawlty] I think that’s best, don’t you? [/Sybil Fawlty].
So if any so-called “experts” have ever been wrong in the history of the world, or at least in your cherry-picked examples, we should never trust experts again?
Besides, it’s not simply blind trust. There’s also the part about “holding elected officials responsible for the consequences of their actions.”
Incidentally, without looking each of these references up, I don’t even know what any of them means. I’m pretty sure that none of them are relevant to the present discussion. Are you going out of your way to present a straw man argument?
Another straw man. I never said that “every single person in the entire country” was responsible for the The Daily Mirror. It was a joking, tongue-in-cheek statement about “you British.” Would you feel better if I said, “some British”?
Cherry picked? They were the first examples that came to mind.
I could add Thalidomide, Andrew Wakefield and Pot Noodles to that list. I can think of more if you want more…
When none of the major parties in Britain offered an alternative to staying in the EU, was it wrong to ask the electorate?
Ah, here we go… the Strawman argument… Maybe you’d like to explain what makes these particular people “experts”?
Would I feel better? Do you really think I give a toss?
No doubt because of their relevance to the current discussion. :rolleyes:
You can think of even more irrelevant examples?
The way you hold elected officials responsible for the consequences of their actions is to vote them out of office. Wouldn’t it have been simpler to choose different elected officials instead of going the referendum route? Also, if the Brexit does indeed turn out to be a disaster, who do you hold responsible?
All in all, it just seems silly (IMHO) to be making such a major decision on the basis of a simple majority in a single popular referendum, and a 52:48 vote is not exactly a huge mandate for such a change to the status quo.
Published on Jun 27, 2016
Nigel Farage speaks to Fox News about Britain leaving the European Union.
No, lets leave it in the hands of “experts”, they always know what’s best for us. Sod democracy, let Goldman Sachs decide Britain’s future.
So who do you think chose the “referendum route”? Unelected officials?
It won’t be a disaster. It might not be all Sunshine and Lollipops, but we’ll get through it, we always do.
What if remaining meant being ever more subservient to an increasingly powerful Germany? (I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing?)
It might seem silly to you, Rossi and Parfitt might disagree…
27% of the British population voted to leave the EU.
37.44% of registered voters voted to leave the EU.
In hindsight it was a monumental error to let such a critical decision with far-reaching consequences come down to a majority in a single vote.
Since the Leavers were the challengers to the status quo and intended to steer the country in a radically different direction, the burden of proof should have been set higher for them to demonstrate they truly had the will of the people behind them.
No such burden of proof was set when Ted Heath took us into the EEC.
In hindsight, the losers of the vote believe it was a monumental error. The winners of the vote don’t see it the same way.
By these comments, the only kind of “experts” that you seem to have in mind are unelected elites. However, I’m also talking about elected officials whose business it is to make good decisions for the country on behalf of their constituents.
I think that the referendum route was chosen by elected officials who have abdicated their responsibilities and turned over the important decision-making to the electorate.
Of course you will, and I mean this in all seriousness.
This is a valid argument, and frankly speaking, I don’t know what the right answer is for the UK. My quibble (and this is just my opinion) is merely how the decision was made.
In particular, I think that political leaders should “make the hard calls and submit themselves to voters afterward. They should not use referendums purely to evade responsibility.”
In the event that a referendum becomes necessary for political reasons (because of dueling parties or constituencies or whatever), at a minimum a high bar should have been set up from the start, which should have included a supermajority requirement for any change to the status quo.
To be honest, a supermajority should have been required back in 1975 as well, IMHO. As it turns out, the vote to remain in the EEC back then was 67.2%. Should not a similar majority have been required to reverse this vote a generation later in 2016? Or simply to ensure that a substantial majority of the country was in agreement? As I’ve said several times now, a 51.9% vote in favor of leaving is not exactly a huge mandate for such a monumental, permanent change to the status quo.
Frankly, I don’t have a dog in this fight, other than that I think that a stable and prosperous Europe and UK is a good thing.
I think the monumental error was in how the decision was made by the UK to leave the EU. At present, it looks like a recipe for chaos, with the markets in turmoil, the resignation of the PM, and the country evenly split.
Here is an excellent article that makes many of the same points that I have been saying, but far more eloquently:
Should the Brexit Vote Have Happened at All?
On the wisdom of handing the decision over to the electorate:
On the low bar set for a vote to leave the EU:
Also:
Here’s another article (quoted in the first):
If referendums are the answer, we’re asking the wrong question
Finally, here is an article on whether the EU itself is democratic or not:
If all of that is true (and I believe that it is), then what is Farage’s game? He cannot possibly be ignorant of the things you mentioned.
It’s amazing what people can be ignorant of if they want to be.
But Farage isn’t necessarily ignorant of these things. They’re just not what he’s on about. He wants the UK out of the EU. Knowing these things - if he does know them - hasn’t changed his mind about that.