I was simply referring to the title -"The great British Brexit robbery: how our democracy was hijacked."
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
To be fair, the article leads with the following headline :
The great British Brexit robbery: how our democracy was hijacked
Such is suggestive of a more than incidental level of influence upon the result. Now that's fine if you are an avid Brussels loyalist with the blinders firmly in place, but not so good if you're actually interested in why people voted the way they did. And to recognise the latter, you must first be prepared to accept that the political establishment screwed up rather badly over many years. A very similar brand of complacency helped to bring your own beloved populists in the SNP to power.
I'm not an SNP voter (see the GE thread for prior evidence if you care enough).
The headline is clearly clickbait, but actually reading the article reveals a well researched and highly plausible (at least) attempted hijacking (I deliberately use that word) of democratic process. Given my line of work, I know that the power of such analytics if correctly deployed is enormous - I see the results in business. I find this concerning.
The fact that, in this case, the shadowy cabal of billionaires who represent the establishment happened to be backing your beloved populist leave cause, as well as the far right in several other countries including the US, is ,I'm sure, simply a coincidental alignment with the democratic voice of Britain's population.
If i've mistaken you with another SNP poster, my bad on that. Although the point about Westminster/Labour complacency stands on its own merits i feel.
I have read 12 of the 21 pages thus far, and am yet to see any evidence to suggest that this voter profiling was a pivotal determining factor in the eventual result. Perhaps that is to follow later...
Last edited:
On what planet?
A yes/no vote, decided by a small majority of people, affecting the lives of generations to come is hardly a triumph of democracy.
People shouldn't fool themselves into believing there is anything democratic about a referendum that completely ignores the oppionion of an extremely large minority. That isn't democracy, that is dictatorship by the people.
Direct democracy is one of the worst ideas ever to be invented, it only leads to the division of society.
Given the narrow margins resulting in the leave victory, even attempts, whether successful or not, of billionaire multi national cabals of billionaires to influence elections in this way is concerning. Even if it was marginal gains...and they'll get better and better at it.
So the democratic vote to remain in the European Community in 1975 was not a triumph of democracy?
Complex constitutional decisions made on binary public votes are asking for trouble I'd argue, irrespective of outcomes. Too easily manipulated, too complex to expect the population to devote the time to fully understand and, in Britain, that's what parliament is for. So, no, not a triumph of effective democracy in either case.
Where is the triumph? There is nothing triumphant about democracy, it's just a convenient system.
There are a lot of pluses to direct democracy too, even if this particular question might have been inappropriate to put to referendum.
The people elected the Cameron. Cameron said he'd put forward this referendum if he was elected again. Knowing this, the people elected him again. He then followed through and put the question to the people. Weighing up the options, the people then voted for Brexit. Cameron's party then responds by going back to the people, claiming to want a mandate to bolster their position in negotiating Brexit. The people now look likely to vote them into power again at a canter.
To me that reads like the people are the problem more so than the referendum. You get what you vote for, especially when you vote for it repeatedly.
At least it reached a 2/3rds majority. I'm still opposed to the idea as a whole, but 2/3rds majoritys are the least I expect to be required. Or a system like the Swiss.
There are zero upsides to direct democracy on a federal level. The only upside is the catering to idiots claiming their voice isn't heard.
Tell that to people living under communist rule, and those currently ruled by ISIS.
False equivalency much?
I believe in Switzerland they must have a referendum on matters if 50,000 people ask for one.
What if you're a fisherman back in 1975, and you're seeing your industry impacted by a decision the government made on your behalf, would you want a democratic opportunity to reverse it?
You have one. The goddamn general election. Vote in it.
Urgh. At least read the wikipedia article or something and you may understand what I meant.
Not at all.
You can only assume that some decisions are too important for people to understand fully, yes?
If that's the case, it's a good job our country has 52% more intelligent people
I still don't see the triumph, democracy is an ancient system that happens to be pretty convenient when you have a relatively educated population because it allows the establishment to use the representativity argument when challenged. There is nothing triumphant about it, it's just practical.
Nothing you say makes sense.Not at all.
You can only assume that some decisions are too important for people to understand fully, yes?
If that's the case, it's a good job our country has 52% more intelligent people
Which makes sense as you seemingly support this referendum.
What???
So your idea is for the government to make huge decisions like joining the EU, and if people disagree with this, then vote an alternative government to leave the EU?
Switzerland is more democratic than we are. The Swiss have a say in almost everything. I'd love that.
Helps educate people about the issue at hand, invests the decision with greater moral support, invests European integration with greater moral support (in the case of EU referendums), provides a degree of the checks and balances that are essential to democracy, etc. And yes it does cater to the people who claim their voice isn't heard, which is vital when you have people calling them idiots for making such a claim.
The problem here isn't the voting mechanism itself (even if it was used inappropriately in this case), it's all the underlying problems that have seen people repeatedly vote themselves towards Brexit.
Yes. That is called represantative democracy ffs.
And they can vote on a lot of things, but there's also a very high treshold for those referendums to actually succeed. As I said, please broaden your view beyond what The Sun has been telling you. It's not that hard. Ans by the way, the Swiss are rather dissatisfied atm because there's so much referendums in recent years it stalls political progress.
How is ignoring one half of your population, completely ignoring it, helping giving moral support to decisions? It doesn't and that is exactly what you are seeing right now in GB.
Your last sentence might be right, but that doesn't change the fact decisions like this shouldn't be put up in referendums.
The irony.
All you're doing is crying over the fact that you didn't get your way in the referendum, and now you see yourself and the other 48% as the ones who are more fairer minded, which you interpret as a failure of democracy.
I'll leave you to throw your toys out of the pram.
Obviously the triumph is in the obtaining the right, rather than being dictated to.
Think you may find he is not from the UK
Because majority got what the majority voted for in the most blunt, direct and fundamental way possible. There was no elected intermediary interpreting the will of the people, the people demonstrated their will themselves. That creates a greater sense of moral investment in the result. The people who voted for Brexit will feel more responsible for it now than if they had voted for it indirectly.
Obviously the fact that this was a rather inappropriate question to put to referendum and the subsequent narrow result make this a particularly contentious decision but I'm arguing in general terms here.
I couldn't care less about Brexit. It's a decision you will have to live with and which will likely never affect me. I will still remain a vivid opposer of the false song of direct democracy.
You obviously don't understand the fundamentals involved. And I bet you would have cried foul if remain had won by the same margin, crying about how your vote was ignored.
I see your point but we should always remember that most of the time the majority follows the will of opinion makers not their own, you probably noticed with the help of social media that a lot us have no idea about what we are talking about. We are well and truly sheeps.
The subject of direct vs representative democracy is probably worthy of it's own thread. No point derailing this one.
100% correct.
Boris gonna Boris
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
More sense in that article than we saw from Ian McEwan yesterday.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...es-could-swing-second-eu-vote-says-ian-mcewan
Just a tad unhinged.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...es-could-swing-second-eu-vote-says-ian-mcewan
Just a tad unhinged.
What is unhinged? More young people with the vote and more old people who voted to leave dead? Are the figures wrong?
The Putin bit is fecking embarrassing, what a complete imbecile of a man, and a scumbag to boot.
I think the best solution to this is no trade deal and issues are settled in court.
And everyone is two years older, and the older you are the more likely you'll vote leave for some reason. So I guess it would balance out somewhat.
Do you not think that the graphic descriptions of self-harm were a bit OTT? Or similarly, his line that the Brexit result has stirred something 'murderous' in us?
The histrionics are on a scale that you can't really take the man seriously.
We had politicians threatening war over Gibraltar, what he says is fair