|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
19th June 2018, 05:52 AM | #81 |
puzzler
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,464
|
|
19th June 2018, 05:57 AM | #82 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
I think that in oversimplifying, you've actually not answered my question.
Remember that referendums such as this are neither binding nor required. Whatever kind of democracy it is, the elected representatives *already had the authority to make policy simply by virtue of being elected*. They could make Brexit policy without consulting anyone, if they wanted. So if they bother to consult what amounts to a public opinion poll, what's wrong with that, compared to their baseline? You and she like pizza. He likes tacos. The three of you elect me to decide what you get for lunch every day. The rules say I don't have to consult any of you when making my decisions. Usually I don't bother asking you; I just order cake for everyone. One day I ask you all what you want. She says pizza. He says tacos. You abstain. Fifty fifty for tacos, and I decide on tacos. Then the pizza faction complains that I'm being undemocratic. |
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division. |
|
19th June 2018, 06:12 AM | #83 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 5,229
|
How about pizza with taco stuff on top?
|
19th June 2018, 06:16 AM | #84 |
puzzler
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,464
|
Under current UK law, referendums are only allowed to be advisory.
However, the government did send out a leaflet to every household in the country (at taxpayers' expense, of course) which said:
Originally Posted by leaflet
|
19th June 2018, 06:19 AM | #85 |
should be banned
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Earth, specifically the crusty bit on the outside
Posts: 19,364
|
|
19th June 2018, 06:40 AM | #86 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
|
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
19th June 2018, 06:47 AM | #87 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,423
|
|
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list. "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1 |
|
19th June 2018, 07:24 AM | #88 |
puzzler
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,464
|
Yes, I think so - but they got around that one because they were only part of a coalition (the much smaller part) so they had to give up some of their manifesto pledges.
It didn't do them much good, did it? Consigned to the political wilderness at the next election by voters who no longer believed what the Liberal Democrats promised. |
19th June 2018, 07:32 AM | #89 |
puzzler
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,464
|
Evidence of meetings - no evidence (that I saw) of campaign funding. Some of the links in the OP were to pages that wanted me to agree to various terms before I was allowed to read them - so I've not read those.
If anyone is able to summarize any evidence of campaign funding I'd be grateful. At the moment I'm suspicious that it's just a smear. If meeting the Russian leader, or Russian diplomats, is some kind of offence, then I'm sure it's an offence that most politicians on both sides of the Brexit campaign were guilty of. David Cameron, of course, had many meetings and phone conversations with Russian representatives - where's the outrage about that? |
19th June 2018, 07:56 AM | #90 |
should be banned
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Earth, specifically the crusty bit on the outside
Posts: 19,364
|
|
19th June 2018, 08:11 AM | #91 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
|
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division. |
|
19th June 2018, 09:10 AM | #92 |
puzzler
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,464
|
Sorry, I don't understand how that's relevant. I was answering the question about whether I thought the Liberal Democrat election promise not to raise tuition fees was a 'politically binding' one.
In the case of the Brexit referendum, the government of the day promised (in its leaflet) that the government would implement the outcome of the referendum. Since then, there has been a general election when both the major parties stood on a manifesto of implementing Brexit. So I think that, inasmuch as any political promise is binding, the promise to implement Brexit is certainly such. |
19th June 2018, 09:12 AM | #93 |
puzzler
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,464
|
|
19th June 2018, 09:37 AM | #94 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
And that's true: these referendums are advisory only. And nothing in the UKian system of government requires them.
The pamphlet I consider to be as binding as any other campaign promise. Which is to say, not binding at all. Which brings me back to my question (before we get further side-tracked): How is the government taking into account an advisory referendum less democratic than making policy without referendums, which is already their authority and responsibility? |
19th June 2018, 09:49 AM | #95 |
puzzler
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,464
|
I agree that such promises are only as binding as the electorate consider them to be at the time of the next election. When politicians fear they won't be re-elected because the voters are concerned about broken promises, then those campaign promises become overwhelmingly important in the politicians' minds.
|
19th June 2018, 09:56 AM | #96 |
puzzler
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,464
|
|
19th June 2018, 11:00 AM | #97 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,092
|
|
__________________
Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal She carries beauty in her soul |
|
19th June 2018, 11:42 AM | #98 |
High Priest of Ed
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
|
|
__________________
Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda |
|
19th June 2018, 12:25 PM | #99 |
puzzler
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,464
|
Helpful of you to prune away the part of my post that asked if there was ANY evidence of Russia doing anything at all - open or otherwise - apart from having meetings about (allegedly) unrelated subjects such as African investments and gold mines.
My post was just contrasting the known interference in a foreign referendum (open interference, granted) by an American president with the smear story about possible interference by Russia. |
19th June 2018, 03:46 PM | #100 |
High Priest of Ed
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
|
Because I understand if you're not convinced by the links in the OP. They establish relationships between the backers of Brexit and Russians, but that's not the same as establishing Russian backing of Brexit. That part wasn't stupid.
This is the part that's stupid. Running around making speaches supporting their side of the issues is what politicians do. It's what we elect them to do. Comparing politicians openly doing what we expect them to do with clandestine propaganda campaings and covert funding...it's a ridiculous comparison. |
__________________
Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda |
|
20th June 2018, 09:21 AM | #102 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
Democratically-elected representatives make ignorant decisions all the time. Most laws and policies are enacted without even bothering to have an advisory referendum.
And even a direct democracy can make ignorant decisions. There's nothing about democracy that says the people will make good decisions, only that they will participate in the decision-making process.
Quote:
|
20th June 2018, 11:44 AM | #103 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
20th June 2018, 11:49 AM | #104 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
Of course that's still democracy. Democracy is about who makes the decisions, not how they do.
Decisions made with an understanding of the situation are likely to be better than ones made in ignorance of the situation, but that applies to all forms of government. That's not a peculiar feature of democracy by any means.
Quote:
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
20th June 2018, 01:35 PM | #105 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
I wonder what's the origin of the myth that democracies are supposed to make the right decisions?
3point14 must have gotten the idea from somewhere. |
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division. |
|
20th June 2018, 02:03 PM | #106 |
Pi
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 21,797
|
I'm not sure where you got that from. Could you point me to the post in which I talk about "right" and "wrong" and I will seek to correct your misunderstanding. However, I would like the people making the decisions to comprehend and understand, at least to some extent, what they're voting for. I would be less concerned about hurling ourselves into an economic pit if I thought that was what people were voting for, i.e. were well informed, which they weren't. Democracy, particularly direct democracy isn't going to work - and by work, I mean demonstrate the will of the people "right" or "wrong" (whatever that means in this context) when those voting don't understand even the simple consequences resulting from which box they put their cross in. |
__________________
Up the River! Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted] |
|
20th June 2018, 03:56 PM | #107 |
puzzler
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,464
|
The question on the ballot paper was about leaving the EU. That's what people voted to do. It wasn't about whether or not the economy would suffer, although we were certainly informed ad nauseam by the establishment that the economy would suffer if we voted leave.
To argue now that what the public really want is the exact opposite of what they voted for, is the height of absurdity. |
20th June 2018, 07:03 PM | #108 |
High Priest of Ed
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
|
Who is arguing that?
Wasn't the referendum close? Wasn't it also nonbonding? Isn’t it normal for politicians to try to reverse decisions they disagree with? I think the closest anyone is coming to what you say is to point out it’s a bad decision and that it’s possible the public would now vote the other way now that more is known. Is that unreasonable? |
__________________
Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda |
|
21st June 2018, 12:29 AM | #109 |
puzzler
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,464
|
I think that's reasonable.
There are a group of politicians, ideologically opposed to Brexit. They always have been. That's fine of course, and they are entitled to argue their point of view. The problem I have is with those politicians that stood at the last general election on a manifesto of leaving the EU, the customs union, and the single market, but have consistently opposed those exact things throughout - they've not changed their minds since the election. They're content to be hypocrites, and I don't like that in politicians. Of course, virtually all politicians - like most humans - are hypocritical to some extent but these politicians take it to the extreme: opposing Brexit is the single most important topic to them and the one on which they spend the bulk of their time and effort. If politicians like Soubry, Clarke, and Grieve had left the Conservative party because they were ideologically opposed to its manifesto, and stood as independents or Liberal Democrats, then I would admire their principled stand. I say that, but in all likelihood they wouldn't have been elected as MPs if they'd done that - so they wouldn't have such a prominent platform to promulgate their views from and they likely wouldn't be in the news so I would have forgotten about them by now. |
21st June 2018, 04:32 AM | #110 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 10,099
|
|
21st June 2018, 05:47 AM | #111 |
puzzler
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,464
|
|
21st June 2018, 07:02 AM | #112 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
As would I, but pursuing this ideal is not part of the definition of democracy.
Quote:
The whole point of democracy is that people get to decide for themselves how much they care about an issue, and that they get a say in what happens regardless of your opinion about their qualifications. Yes, that means that an ill-informed electorate will tend to democratically-chosen but counter-productive policies. It's still a democracy, though. Earlier you were saying it isn't. |
22nd June 2018, 12:14 AM | #113 |
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,924
|
|
__________________
________________________ |
|
22nd June 2018, 02:17 AM | #114 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
I didn't know that the wife of Arron Banks the Brexiteer, or whatever his name is, is Russian:
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/0...ng-to-tell-us/
Quote:
|
22nd June 2018, 06:57 AM | #115 |
Pi
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 21,797
|
I'm not talking about definitions. I'm talking about effectiveness. Without knowledge of consequences a vote is meaningless and we may as well govern by dice roll
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
Up the River! Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted] |
|
22nd June 2018, 03:31 PM | #116 |
puzzler
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,464
|
If you assert that other people don't understand what they're voting for, that gives you the right to decide for them?
You're setting yourself up as being superior to 'them'. Arrogance. |
22nd June 2018, 03:50 PM | #117 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 60,375
|
Too bad ceptimus is not an American Citizen. He would make one hell of a good Trump supporter.
Has all the right traits. |
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein. |
|
22nd June 2018, 10:55 PM | #118 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 37,581
|
Given that President Trump took credit for the Brexit vote and that there is a lot of overlap between those who voted Brexit and those who voted for President Trump:
....and that both campaigns were founded on some absolute whoppers of lies, it would make sense that an ardent Brexit supporter might share characteristics with someone who is strongly pro-Trump. That said, while I'd be happy to say that about groups of people, I personally would hesitate to say it about an individual. |
23rd June 2018, 12:12 AM | #119 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,215
|
|
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion "Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills |
|
23rd June 2018, 12:14 AM | #120 |
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,924
|
Putin is playing puppeteer with multiple free world governments. And not only is nothing being done about it, but he has large swaths of citizens of those countries doing damage control for him (unknowingly or not, it doesn't matter).
It's pretty damn hard to respond to an act of war when your country is infested with a virus from the country that perpetrated that act. Putin is truly the master of 21st century war. |
__________________
________________________ |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|