Mr Sables
Posts: 597
6/25/2016
|
The Duke of Waltham wrote:
Beau Mercy wrote:
I'm kind of surprised that any country would make foreign policy a referendum issue. Of all governmental functions, that really seems like one to leave to elected leaders and experts.
It can't be worse than this. And I'm speaking as a Greek.
I dislike referendums in general, because they are rarely justified. As much as I mistrust the motives of politicians, they are usually more competent to make these decisions than an entire people.
I think I would respectfully disagree.
I think - usually - you would both be completely correct; the government is generally better equipped to make decisions regarding how the country is run, such as taxation or laws, but I think the key thing is that we vote in our government. If the ruling party makes changes the people disapprove about, they can be voted out at the next general election, and we also get promises from other parties to make an educated guess as to what kind of rulers they will be in place of the old. The EU imposes rules on our people's everyday life; from taxation to immigration to justice . . . our people don't vote the EU rulers in, or even know who the president of the organisation is (for the most part).
This has become sort of like a 'general election', in that it's more 'do you want the EU to govern you'? If we have such a poll periodically every four-five years for our country's government, I think it's only right we get at least one of those for an organisation with theoretically has more power over us and has never been voted for/against in forty years since we've joined (I may be wrong on this? I have vague memories of another referendum some decades back)?
It's a strange organisation really. It'd be like South America and USA giving power over to Canada, say, and forming "The Americas Union", and then not allowing their people to vote over whether they're happy with that lack of self-governing and sovereignty . . . the last time anyone tried to exert power over another union it was called 'colonisation', lol. At least a referendum is a lot less messy than pouring tea overboard 
|
|
|
+2
link
|
Jermaine Vendredi
Posts: 588
6/25/2016
|
Sadly that optimism about "voting them out" disregards gerrymandering and the first past the post system, which leaves a lot of people without a voice.
--
No plant battles, please.
https://www.fallenlondon.com/profile/Jermion
|
|
|
0
link
|
Zero
Posts: 136
6/25/2016
|
Robin Alexander wrote:
[It's a strange organisation really. It'd be like South America and USA giving power over to Canada, say, and forming "The Americas Union", and then not allowing their people to vote over whether they're happy with that lack of self-governing and sovereignty . . . I feel obliged to lighten the situation by linking you this.
--
SEND ME CHESS AND I SHALL RECIPROCATE
Daniel Ember - Once a doctor. Now something else.
My Twine games
|
|
|
+4
link
|
Beau Mercy
Posts: 76
6/25/2016
|
Robin Alexander wrote:
I think I would respectfully disagree.
I think - usually - you would both be completely correct; the government is generally better equipped to make decisions regarding how the country is run, such as taxation or laws, but I think the key thing is that we vote in our government. If the ruling party makes changes the people disapprove about, they can be voted out at the next general election, and we also get promises from other parties to make an educated guess as to what kind of rulers they will be in place of the old. The EU imposes rules on our people's everyday life; from taxation to immigration to justice . . . our people don't vote the EU rulers in, or even know who the president of the organisation is (for the most part).
This has become sort of like a 'general election', in that it's more 'do you want the EU to govern you'? If we have such a poll periodically every four-five years for our country's government, I think it's only right we get at least one of those for an organisation with theoretically has more power over us and has never been voted for/against in forty years since we've joined (I may be wrong on this? I have vague memories of another referendum some decades back)?
It's a strange organisation really. It'd be like South America and USA giving power over to Canada, say, and forming "The Americas Union", and then not allowing their people to vote over whether they're happy with that lack of self-governing and sovereignty . . . the last time anyone tried to exert power over another union it was called 'colonisation', lol. At least a referendum is a lot less messy than pouring tea overboard
The E.U. is run by a combination of elected heads of state and an elected parliament, so to say that the people don't have a say in how the E.U. is run is simply inaccurate. Putting a nation's foreign alliances up for a contentious vote every four to five years would give that nation a reputation as a very unstable alliance partner, nu?
--
Monster Hunter Beau Mercy, Friend of the Church, A Blood-Cousin to Predators, Straw-haired Tomcat
|
|
|
0
link
|
Mr Sables
Posts: 597
6/25/2016
|
Beau Mercy wrote:
The E.U. is run by a combination of elected heads of state and an elected parliament, so to say that the people don't have a say in how the E.U. is run is simply inaccurate. Putting a nation's foreign alliances up for a contentious vote every four to five years would give that nation a reputation as a very unstable alliance partner, nu?
I still stick by what I originally said.
- "The number of votes each Member State can cast is set by the Treaties" - some states have as high as 29 votes, some have as low as 3 . . . this seems incredibly unfair, with some voices being given more prominence than others (regarding the council)
- "The European Council elects its President by qualified majority." - this was relatively unclear, but it seems like those in said council elect the president, as opposed to the public voting for them? This also seems unfair.
- "The President is nominated by the European Council." - so the public again has no voice (this is for the European Council)
All the above points me to a new point . . . the EU is a convoluted mess of bureaucracy. It consists of The Council of the EU, The European Council, The European Parliament, the European Commission, Court of Auditors, Court of Justice, the European Social and Economic Committee, and the Committee of the Regions. How is Average Joe Public meant to know who does what and what each does? How is he meant to know who he votes for or why he votes for them? Is the voice of one country really equal to the voice of another? We don't get much say in the president, either, so it's no wonder we don't remember his name. We're ran by a person who most people can't even recognise.
That isn't to mention how most rules and treaties and laws are all pretty much imposed on the public . . . we have no say in how we get taxed, our immigration laws, or any of the other issues that made it into the two campaigns. True, we don't with our home government either, but we as a whole vote in a party knowing what that party stands for . . . if 26 countries say 'we're taxing doors today', and the UK says 'no', then the UK is overruled and doors get taxed. I may be wrong, but that's how it seems to a lot of people.
I think it's understandable why people are bitter; it's an overly complicated organisation, which is hard to understand and often it's hard to tell whether it's the UK or EU implementing any given law, and misinformation gets so easily spread, mainly because no one has a real understanding of the complexity involved. It just becomes: "the EU". Even if it comprises of a huge amount of smaller groups.
I'm not saying to vote every four-five years, but just that we do vote for our home government, so it makes sense to let people at least once vote for an even larger government with an even larger power over them.
edited by Robin Alexander on 6/25/2016
|
|
|
+3
link
|
Beau Mercy
Posts: 76
6/25/2016
|
Either people vote for E.U. leaders, or people they voted for vote for them (as is the case with the Council). The real issue is that they don't. Turnout at the last E.U. election was well under 50%.
I've read lots of rhetoric about the influence of E.U. laws over the lives of British people, but I've struggled in vain to find any actual, clear examples of it for people who aren't farmers, fishermen, or import/export firm executives. Your assertion that "we have no say in how we get taxed" is simply false. In fact, tax rates in the United Kingdom are set in Westminster. The E.U.'s power over taxation is indirect and very limited.
edited by Beau Mercy on 6/25/2016
--
Monster Hunter Beau Mercy, Friend of the Church, A Blood-Cousin to Predators, Straw-haired Tomcat
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Passionario
Posts: 777
6/25/2016
|
You have dramatically advanced the liberation of night.
--
Passionario: Profile, Story, Ending
Passion: Profile, Appearance
|
|
|
+10
link
|
.JPG)
Snotra
Posts: 67
6/26/2016
|
Zero wrote:
Robin Alexander wrote:
[It's a strange organisation really. It'd be like South America and USA giving power over to Canada, say, and forming "The Americas Union", and then not allowing their people to vote over whether they're happy with that lack of self-governing and sovereignty . . . I feel obliged to lighten the situation by linking you this.
And this. Keeping Brexit in perspective. - yes my tongue is in my cheek.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aICdqBehm10
edited by Snotra on 6/26/2016
--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Snotra
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Dungerson
Posts: 44
6/26/2016
|
Well, economically, if worst come to worst, the UK can always sell London to these charming hooded figures - I hear they can give you a really good price for that...
--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/profile/Dungerson
|
|
|
+10
link
|
Saklad
Posts: 528
6/26/2016
|
I think the referendum should have required a supermajority to make such a massive change, and I think there should be a second referendum between now and the finalization two years from now. An anecdotally large amount of people seem to regret their “protest votes”, and there may be a different outcome now that people realize their votes DO count.
The EU also reminded me vaguely of the US under the Articles of Confederacy, except that it seemed to work quite well with the cultural divides in Europe. I think that the EU has problems, especially concerning how hard it is for citizens to petition for change, but I feel they are entirely solvable.
If anyone disagrees with me on what I just said, feel free to dispute it. I might be weird, but I actually enjoy online debating, especially when I find I was wrong or confused. (That doesn’t mean I’m supporting the Jovial Contrarian for mayor, though.)
--
Saklad5, a man of many talents
|
|
|
+2
link
|
Saklad
Posts: 528
6/26/2016
|
The Eurozone is a bit problematic as it makes targeted fiscal policy almost impossible. While shared currency is great and all, distinct economies require specific actions to resolve crises, and the only solution would be to somehow make all of the Eurozone economies merge with each other.
--
Saklad5, a man of many talents
|
|
|
+2
link
|
Mr Sables
Posts: 597
6/26/2016
|
Jeremy Saklad wrote:
I think the referendum should have required a supermajority to make such a massive change, and I think there should be a second referendum between now and the finalization two years from now. An anecdotally large amount of people seem to regret their “protest votes”, and there may be a different outcome now that people realize their votes DO count.
Ah, this is where I wish I was nicer on other sites, so I could copy/paste a reply XD
I think - going forward - there's nothing wrong with creating a law about what counts as a majority in a referendum, so that say 60% is needed for any given side to win, but I don't think such a rule could - or should - be applied retroactively . . . this is something both sides should have considered at the time of the referendum, but not now. This is part of why the demand for a second referendum irks me severely.
I'll try to take this point by point:
Firstly, people should already know that their votes matter. We just recently had a coalition too close to call, while Scotland's referendum was 51/49, even closer than this one . . . children learn about the suffragettes, adverts blare the importance of voting, and a simple click of google can tell you all you need to know about your vote . . . we were given an entire year to research each side, register to vote, and to then make that vote. If people didn't turn up or spoiled their ballots, that's their fault and the public as a whole shouldn't be penalised. That being said, many lies were spread by both campaigns (installing rules about this for future would be good).
Secondly, this would set a bad precedent. I for one would seriously never vote again. If we can just overturn a referendum or vote - based on what we think should have been a rule during the voting process, or what we think of as a low majority - why ever trust a referendum ever again? People took the time to vote, but now others want to say their vote was meaningless, simply because the 'wrong' side won? That's not how democracy works. Democracy is voting for a side, then accepting the results based on what the majority voted. Plus, what if the results constantly flip-flop, or the other side decides they also dislike the new results, or any number of things? Do we just keep voting for ever and ever until we someone get 75% or more of the votes? Is 75% even enough, if people can contend even a majority vote in a fair referendum? What about 99%? The 1% will still feel overlooked? When does it end?
Thirdly, if people regret their vote, that's their problem (sorry to be harsh). They had a year to research facts and figures, so they were capable of making an informed choice (information has come to light that both campaigns have made untrue claims, but many of these could have been discovered with a quick search, which I found out by doing said searches during the campaigns to try and verify claims). I'd also add a minority probably regret their votes; news pieces need to get people to buy or watch what they have to say, and "most people are happy" isn't news, and if 'regret' is a factor then we should be able to redo every general election ever. Plus, it's been three days - that's nowhere near long enough to see what effect this vote will have long-term.
Lastly; the petition for this referendum has had foreigners sign (googling British postcodes), and people hacking to create multiple signatures, according to many news pieces, Twitter accounts, and so forth . . . I don't doubt it's genuinely reached 100k signatures, but there's no way that 3m are legitimate British citizens.
- In short, I think a second referendum makes an absolute mockery of democracy
(I'd also add that we won't leave 'two years from now' - firstly, we have to enact Article 50, which is the point the two years will begin from, and this likely won't happen until we get a new PM in October . . . this referendum is also advisory, not legally binding, so there's every chance parliament may not choose to enact that article either ((although it'd be shooting itself in the foot come next general election)) and Scotland could theoretically overrule any decision to leave, too, although not many people are sure whether that's possible, as we're all up in the air and none of this has happened before . . . basically, while we're likely to leave, we still may remain)
|
|
|
+2
link
|
Curious Foreigner
Posts: 210
6/26/2016
|
Jeremy Saklad wrote:
I think the referendum should have required a supermajority to make such a massive change, and I think there should be a second referendum between now and the finalization two years from now. An anecdotally large amount of people seem to regret their “protest votes”, and there may be a different outcome now that people realize their votes DO count.
I have seen one poll about voter happiness in the referendum, and it put the amount of leave voters unhappy with the result at 1%. Unless this poll is wrong to a ridiculous degree, it's safe to say that the protest voters wouldn't have been enough to turn the tide.
--
Cochimetl went North, and beyond. No poems, only candlelight now. (Well, maybe one poem.)
The Gun-Toting Gallivanter, after an extended absence, is back in London again.
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Eglantine-Fox
Posts: 872
6/27/2016
|
My condolences are absolutely for all the people in the UK who are now experiencing torrents of racialised abuse. Disgusting.
--
Eglantine Fox, the charming and androgynous Correspondent, teetering between hobbies of seduction and self-destruction.
Siobhan O'Malley, Irish patriot (or 'bl__dy Fenian' if you're impolite).
Isidore Day, an up-and-coming London gentleman. All allegations of wrongdoing are categorically denied.
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Diptych
Administrator
Posts: 3493
6/27/2016
|
That does seem to be what it all comes down to. For all the debate about economics - and I'm not convinced anyone really understands economics, even economists - the one group who are absolutely delighted with the result is the Neo-Nazis.
--
Sir Frederick, the Libertarian Esotericist. Lord Hubris, the Bloody Baron.
Juniper Brown, the Ill-Fated Orphan. Esther Ellis-Hall, the Fashionable Fabian.
|
|
|
+2
link
|
Pyrodinium
Posts: 639
6/27/2016
|
It's happening! But what is the price?
Londoners call for capital to break away from the rest of Britain following Brexit vote
Seriously though whatever side you are on, I just hope that your country will recover from this transition soon.
--
My profiles: http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Pyrodinium
(A Monster hunter on the hunt of his twin brother's killer. Overprotective dad of his twin's daughter)
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Rudolph~of~Taured
(an indeterminate person of potentially rubbery lineage)
* All social actions except photographers and loitering welcome!
|
|
|
+4
link
|
Roxana Smith
Posts: 2
6/27/2016
|
I was wondering whether Fallen London storylines may reflect this decision in the future.
|
|
|
0
link
|
Jermaine Vendredi
Posts: 588
6/27/2016
|
I think that already happened.
--
No plant battles, please.
https://www.fallenlondon.com/profile/Jermion
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Diptych
Administrator
Posts: 3493
6/27/2016
|
"Police believe there has been an increase in hate crimes and community tensions since last week’s referendum. Initial figures show an increase of 57% in reported incidents between Thursday and Sunday compared with the same days four weeks earlier, the National Police Chiefs’ Council said – 85 incidents were reported compared with 54 during the earlier period.
"“It’s no coincidence this has come off the back of the EU vote,” said a police source."
Sad times.
"Joanna Ciechanowska, the director of POSK’s gallery, who has lived in the UK for 35 years, said she had never encountered racism before.
“All of a sudden a small group of extremists feel empowered. The margins of society feel that they can do it because they think they have the support of half of the nation. It’s sad because living here for so many years and being married to an Englishman I have never actually encountered any racism in this country, and this is the first time it happened straight in my face."
--
Sir Frederick, the Libertarian Esotericist. Lord Hubris, the Bloody Baron.
Juniper Brown, the Ill-Fated Orphan. Esther Ellis-Hall, the Fashionable Fabian.
|
|
|
+7
link
|