Why politicians should not run countries

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Why politicians should not run countries

1 | 2 | 3

Varkk

643 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 477

#2129398 19-Nov-2018 13:02

MikeB4: Here is a novel thought. The majority that voted to exit did so knowing what they were doing.

The fact that a number of surveys since the referendum have shown decreasing support for Brexit indicates that perhaps they didn't know. I think one even asked a number which way they voted and a sizeable chunk who voted for it don't support it anymore. Couple this with the outright lies from the pro-Brexit campaign and I think it is fair to say a lot didn't really know what they were voting for.

SJB

2945 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2129444 19-Nov-2018 14:20

I believe a lot of people voted on how they felt about being part of the EU and no amount of statistics one way or another would have made any difference.

The surveys I have heard about seem to indicate that the split is now 51% to 49% to stay in. So split pretty much the same as it was except the other way round.

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3820

#2129453 19-Nov-2018 14:36

Fred99:

SJB:

The press in the UK is pretty evenly split between left and right wing views and pro and anti EU.

Oh - the old "the sum of both sides equals a balanced view" myth.

More like two equal and opposed sets of individually unbalanced views that in combination balance each other.

Hence the very narrow majority voting for leave.

What amazes me is that the parliament set the referendum as 50:50 vote.

To my way of thinking a sizeable majority (e.g. 66%) should be required for such a disruptive change.

Mike

SJB

2945 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2129476 19-Nov-2018 14:58

I agree that sounds like the sensible thing to do but is it 'democratic'?

You are effectively saying in this particular situation that the vote to stay is worth more than a vote to leave. And it also suggests that if the negotiations and divorce had happened smoothly and amicably to the satisfaction of both parties then it would have been ok for a 50-50 vote.

I don't really know what the answer is whenever the question is not decisively answered.

shk292

2916 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2040

Lifetime subscriber

#2131949 22-Nov-2018 15:07

One aspect that seems to be frequently omitted is that remaining would in now way mean retaining the status quo. The EU has a long-standing and publicly stated aim for closer unification.

This is not the choice between "remain with option 1 or go back to option 2"; it's the choice between two uncertain futures, (only) one of which will be democratically decided by the populace of the UK. For that reason, I don't think any option other than a simple majority would be appropriate - why should "ever closer union" be the default?

I was eligible to vote, having lived there just recently enough but chose not to because I have no intention of returning so have no skin in the game. May isn't making a very good job of it but I don't see that as a reason to circumvent the democratic choice.

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3820

#2132369 23-Nov-2018 08:19

SJB:

You are effectively saying in this particular situation that the vote to stay is worth more than a vote to leave. And it also suggests that if the negotiations and divorce had happened smoothly and amicably to the satisfaction of both parties then it would have been ok for a 50-50 vote.

I was thinking more along the lines that a vote to leave is much more disruptive than a vote to stay and therefore requires a stronger mandate.

Note I don't have a view on whether it's better for the UK to stay or go.

The EU is a high maintenance market to export to. Hopefully an independent UK will be a more accessible export market.

Mike

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2132407 23-Nov-2018 09:14

MikeAqua:

SJB:

You are effectively saying in this particular situation that the vote to stay is worth more than a vote to leave. And it also suggests that if the negotiations and divorce had happened smoothly and amicably to the satisfaction of both parties then it would have been ok for a 50-50 vote.

I was thinking more along the lines that a vote to leave is much more disruptive than a vote to stay and therefore requires a stronger mandate.

Note I don't have a view on whether it's better for the UK to stay or go.

The EU is a high maintenance market to export to. Hopefully an independent UK will be a more accessible export market.

The "vote to leave" wasn't thought at the time to be disruptive. It was being promoted by liar politicians claiming that it was going to save the UK billions of pounds, and that post-Brexit, countries (including the EU who'd been snubbed) would be lining up to offer great new trade opportunities. That - and xenophobia.

It might be okay from NZ's position, if for example the UK reduced subsidies and opened access for NZ primary produce. My opinion though is that's not going to happen - the UK is going to be begging the EU for market access, but with no say on EU policy. If they kick subsidised EU origin butter out of supermarkets and fill the shelves with NZ product, there'd be tit for tat retaliation.

SJB

2945 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2132419 23-Nov-2018 09:31

Fred99:

It was being promoted by liar politicians....

Every single politician in the world is a liar. It's part of the job description.

I've never come across a single politician I could say I trusted. I'd be happy with them in government but trust, no.

Bluntj

584 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 284

#2132690 23-Nov-2018 13:18

SJB:

Fred99:

It was being promoted by liar politicians....

Every single politician in the world is a liar. It's part of the job description.

I've never come across a single politician I could say I trusted. I'd be happy with them in government but trust, no.

I strongly refute your assertion. I have known many good and honest politicians that are in place to do good rather then feather their own nests.

What is true is that politicians receive large volumes and advise and of course they will get it wrong from time to time. They also cannot make decisions that please everyone all the time.

What happened with Brexit was very wrong, where a handful of powerful individuals used their money and social media to create and propagate lies/fake truths about the effects and value of Brexit.

As I said before, with such a major and serious issue their perhaps should have been two votes over a period of 12 months that would be binding, rather than just one emotive vote.

British people made their beds and now they have to lie in it. They suddenly cant demand a second vote. It doesnt work like that. Similar to the US where I am sure a large number of people regretted voting for Trump 2 years ago.

SJB

2945 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2141921 9-Dec-2018 11:14

Interesting week coming up in British politics.

Even the experts and pundits say they have no idea how it is going to play out. The only thing they all agree on is that the brexit vote will be lost by the government.

1 | 2 | 3