|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Wed 3 Apr 13:13
The Brexit vote was like this:
'D'you want £100 free?'
'Yes!'
After the vote: To get your £100 you have to swim across the Forth with an old fridge on your back.
'Oh, we didn't know that.'
'It's what you voted for - it's compulsory.'
'But that's a T&C we weren't told about. We were mis-sold.'
'It's democracy.'
'Then democracy's f**ked. It was at the time of the vote and still is.'
'Here's your fridge coming now...'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Wed 3 Apr 14:33
100 quid free?does this money fall from the sky?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Wed 3 Apr 14:51
The point I'm making is that it's not the Brexit farce (negotiations and parliamentary votes) that are the worst of democracy's defects - it was completely f**cked from the start. The referendum vote was undemocratic, because we were sold it without being given the T&Cs.
It's a bit like you buy a TV and when you take it out the box it's a hedge-trimmer and you take it back and say this is not what I bought - it's a hedge-trimmer and the reply is well that's what we call a TV!
Does democracy only mean the right to vote, without knowing what you're voting for?
Yes I know it's the same in a General Election. I dunno why - I had this daft idea that democracy was about a free choice of known variables.
Gee what a mug I am!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Wed 3 Apr 15:13
"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European union or leave the European Union"
Those are the T&C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Wed 3 Apr 15:20
They are indeed. Doesn't say anything about leaving the single market though in that question.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Wed 3 Apr 15:30
That wasn't the question.Most knew what was at stake.The turnout tells us that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Wed 3 Apr 15:46
<<< Most knew what was at stake. >>>
I don't think so. At least I thought Brexit would mean:
a) not having to pay any more to the EU
b) controlling immigration
c) making our own laws
d) making our own trade deals
But it seems to me what Brexit will actually mean is much closer to staying in the EU than that.
I think many were fooled into thinking the choice we were given was leave lock, stock and barrel or stay in.
Post Edited (Wed 03 Apr 15:47)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Wed 3 Apr 15:53
Thank Theresa May for that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Wed 3 Apr 15:54
Piddling gains, bigger losses is how it's looking to me now.
Post Edited (Wed 03 Apr 15:57)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Fri 5 Apr 00:00
I was just wondering - we're being told to respect the referendum vote, "because that's democracy." But if that's democracy, is it going to be the norm that campaigners can come out with whopping lies and there's no comeback: anything goes? Has the referendum set a precedent that means any amount of false information is allowable in campaigning before a public vote?
If that Referendum vote is an example of democracy as it should be, doesn't it make democracy the business of deception and lies?
How is there no regulation of the nonsense and whoppers fed to the public during campaigning?
Post Edited (Fri 05 Apr 00:02)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Fri 5 Apr 07:19
Quote:
onandupthepars, Fri 5 Apr 00:00
I was just wondering - we're being told to respect the referendum vote, "because that's democracy." But if that's democracy, is it going to be the norm that campaigners can come out with whopping lies and there's no comeback: anything goes? Has the referendum set a precedent that means any amount of false information is allowable in campaigning before a public vote?
If that Referendum vote is an example of democracy as it should be, doesn't it make democracy the business of deception and lies?
How is there no regulation of the nonsense and whoppers fed to the public during campaigning?
Ah but those who voted Leave maintain that the Remain campaign did a lot of scaremongering, so that makes it alright, doesn't it?
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Fri 5 Apr 13:03
"The many lies of the Remain campaign," according to Daily Globe:
http://www.dailyglobe.co.uk/comment/the-many-lies-of-the-remain-campaign/
Yes I can see it was happening on both sides.
Especially eye-catching is this:
"If the “£350m per week” slogan on the bus was misleading, then Osborne’s claim that households would be £4,300 worse off* if they voted to leave the EU was far worse."
I think the main item that influenced me was the "£350 million a week." It seemed like a fact, whereas I didn't take much notice of what the Remain campaigners said, as it all seemed to be scare-mongering.
So I would say I was fooled by misinformation and most of all by that £350 million.
Was I fooled to my best advantage? I honestly don't know. Which means the campaigning on both sides left me bewildered. If that's the object of democracy - to bewilder voters - it succeeded with me.
Was nobody else bewildered?
Should there be regulation to try to ensure that voters are fairly informed about what they're voting for or against?
Note:
*(from the same article:
"in reality the forecast stated that people would be better off – it would just be by 6% less compared to if a Remain vote was returned. This figure was also seen as overly pessimistic (studies for The Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics put the figure at 1.3 – 2.6%. A report by Open Britain even claimed the UK could be better off by 1.3%, mainly by cutting EU red tape. This was all ignored in the Treasury’s campaigning to the public.")
Post Edited (Fri 05 Apr 13:04)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Fri 5 Apr 14:09
I don't know anyone who could say they knew what they were voting for in clearer terms than "stay in" or "leave". And my friends include several former teachers and people across the spectrum of above and below academic intelligence.
I don't believe it when people try to defend the intelligence of the electorate by saying they're a lot smarter and better-informed than some give them credit for. I don't think it's "patronising" to say millions were bamboozled by the choice they were to make.
Whether it's a general election or Referendum I believe they're shams and that most people don't know or get what they vote for.
Nevertheless our sham democracy is better than some and better than no democracy at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Rastapari
Date: Fri 5 Apr 14:10
We've been bottom feeding off lies in this country all my 45 years, why get uptight about this lot?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Fri 5 Apr 14:36
It's something I heard a couple of days ago, Rasta.
That our decision to leave is of a momentousness similar to going to war or making peace. In such times there's usually a strong unity in the country and concensus for either peace or war. In the case of the Referendum vote it's nearly 50-50. That means it has divided the country at a time when we really needed to be together on such a big undertaking.
Besides that, I only realised this time round that democracy is based on "anything goes"campaigning - there's no equivalent of a trades descriptions Act.
I think what disturbs me most may be that democracy, as shown by the Referendum, has not even the desire for truth.
It's just a battle between campaigning teams. Sounds cynical but I honestly think that's what it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 5 Apr 16:24
''It's just a battle between campaigning teams. Sounds cynical but I honestly think that's what it is.''
I think that's a fair summing-up. The attitude seems to be that the end justifies the means. The increased role of social media has distorted things as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Fri 5 Apr 18:51
I'm a Remainer but I also believe in democracy and would have no problem with the UK leaving the EU if the Referendum had been a fair democratic process. It sticks in the craw that many voters were duped, conned, lied to, call it what you will.
The same would apply if Remain had won and I concede that many voters may have been scared into voting Remain but it's irrelevant because they lost. It would have mattered if Remain had won. What I'm trying to say is that both sides should have carried out a fair and honest campaign which would have produced a fair and honest vote.
Clearly this was not the case.
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parsweep
Date: Fri 5 Apr 19:34
I'm getting really p**ed off listening to remoaners crying foul .
Leave won the referendum and we should be out by now .
I voted YES" in the independence referendum . Guess what ? "NO" won it , so I accepted that result .
I suppose referendums only work when MP's get the result they want eh .
Bobvo
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Sat 6 Apr 00:27
As much as I know the remain campaign was project fear very much akin to the Better Together one pre 2014, how anybody actually fell for that £350 billion for the NHS still bewilders me.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: calpar
Date: Sat 6 Apr 01:12
Stand up for your rights
You have the right of freedom of speech, that means democracy, we are currently denied these rights
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Rastapari
Date: Sat 6 Apr 06:36
Quote:
onandupthepars, Fri 5 Apr 14:36
It's something I heard a couple of days ago, Rasta.
That our decision to leave is of a momentousness similar to going to war or making peace. In such times there's usually a strong unity in the country and concensus for either peace or war. In the case of the Referendum vote it's nearly 50-50. That means it has divided the country at a time when we really needed to be together on such a big undertaking.
Besides that, I only realised this time round that democracy is based on "anything goes"campaigning - there's no equivalent of a trades descriptions Act.
I think what disturbs me most may be that democracy, as shown by the Referendum, has not even the desire for truth.
It's just a battle between campaigning teams. Sounds cynical but I honestly think that's what it is.
Been saying that for years, not sure Britain is even classed as a democracy anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Berkey
Date: Sun 7 Apr 10:51
Don’t forget the electorate was gerrymandered to remove 3m expats and Eu in the uk who would have most likely voted remain. If remain had won narrowly and this was taken as a mandate for full integration and using the EURO despite never being mentioned in campaign wouldn’t leavers have been up in arms?
Leave never expected or wanted to win, they wanted it to be close to try and get a better deal and for some to remove Cameron and get the top job. Now other backbenchers shave hedged their other (conflicted) interests to profit from us leaving and have lost all objectivity.
Complete lack of honesty from leave mps that somewhere along the line something might have to be compromised especially something like the ecomomy or the nhs. It was sold as all of the good with nothing bad.
It needs to go to a ratification ref now people know there will be trade offs. I’m wandering when May will finally resign and with a long extension it will be dropped.
Back to being drenched in my own negativity….
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parsweep
Date: Sun 7 Apr 11:32
Yeh , and if leave win that one we'll have another one. Just to make sure we were really ,really sure .
Bobvo
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Sun 7 Apr 11:36
Why do we keep having these general elections every 5 years or so. Why don't we just have one more then never have another one. After all that election will need the will of the people. No need to ask again. 😂🤣😂🤣
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parsweep
Date: Sun 7 Apr 11:53
Why not have an election/
referendum every day . That way you'll never even have to honour a vote for one day .
What's happening here is disgusting and disrespectful a to the electorate .
Bobvo
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Sun 7 Apr 14:14
Our we could have a referendum where the case and the implications are laid out and people are on the hook for the proposition.
The problem with the no and leave camps were that a quasi party was created that made promises, and on the day of the vote that group disbands and nobody is responsible for delivery. Think of everyone distancing themselves from £350m
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parsweep
Date: Sun 7 Apr 15:13
Every mp in that parliament is sent there to represent the wishes of their constituents .
From day one , too many of them have assumed they know better than the people who elected them .
I've no beef with my mp as my constituency voted remain .
I'm disappointed ,but at least he's got the backing of his constituents .
All those who represent strong leave constituencies should be heading for their local jobcentres soon .
Bobvo
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Sun 7 Apr 16:16
Quote:
Parsweep, Sun 7 Apr 11:53
Why not have an election/
referendum every day . That way you'll never even have to honour a vote for one day .
What's happening here is disgusting and disrespectful a to the electorate .
No it's not. It's life. Things happen. People lie. A lot. Especially politicians. Get over it.
As general elections prove, people change their minds. Different people get elected.
What happened with the EU referendum was that on one day the electorate voted leave. They did it based on lies from both sides. I don't think anyone can claim any high ground. It's all a mess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sun 7 Apr 16:27
It must be very difficult for an MP to vote the same way as his or her constituents did in the referendum if he/she feels to do so would be to their economic detriment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parsweep
Date: Sun 7 Apr 16:29
What happened was . That on day 1 (given the choice) the public voted out .
On day 2 certain politicians started to
undermine that vote .
I'll get "over it" ok , but it doesn't make it right .
I still think the EU is a busted flush , but time will tell .
Bobvo
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Sun 7 Apr 18:51
Quote:
wee eck, Sun 7 Apr 16:27
It must be very difficult for an MP to vote the same way as his or her constituents did in the referendum if he/she feels to do so would be to their economic detriment.
There's a few up here who seem to tow their party line (regardless of the economic detriment or result in their constituencies)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Mon 8 Apr 02:03
There are lots of different kinds of democracy. I think ours is called a Parliamentary democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_democracy
Whatever ours is called, I think it would benefit the voters if, before a vote, we were reliably informed about the matter(s) to be voted on. Is there anyone who could do that and be independent and unbiased?
And would it be possible to regulate campaigners so they can't tell whoppers?
As an example, I never trusted Clegg an inch after he U-turned on student fees.
It just seems crazy to me that during campaigning the lying is being allowed to get worse and worse without the slightest attempt to rein it in. It's far beyond the expression of opinions. I'd call it corruption actually. What else can you call it when you're lied to by people who are out to fool you for their own gain?
Yeh. IMO, our democracy is not just poor and all-but broken, it's just plain corrupt.
(Apologies to smarter folk who already knew it, but feeling shat on by our so-called democratic process is a new experience for me. I mainly only felt insignificant before.)
Post Edited (Mon 08 Apr 02:04)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Mon 8 Apr 07:58
Sorry, I've never been/voted Liberal democrat but Clegg never did a u-turn on student fees.
Yes it was in their manifesto, but that manifesto that was thoroughly rejected by the UK electorate in favour of two other parties (who both favoured student fees) .
Yes he went into coalition to form a government, but we didn't give him a mandate to ask for anything especially not free tuition.
Perhaps if free university tuition was that important we would have all voted for lib dem and given him a mandate but that policy and his party got thumped. He had 5 times less MPs than labour and 6 times less MPs than tories.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Mon 8 Apr 14:03
You could be right DBP. It's not the way I remember it though. Seems to me he didn't need a mandate to try to implement what he said he would regarding student fees, he only had to stick to what he promised? He was (supposedly) given a share of power - why did he not then use it to promote his own poilicies?
Anyway I doubt if everybody who voted Tory did so because they wanted to keep student fees. Nor was the student fees issue the main one that voters decided on. I would guess your average Tory voter believed their party would handle the economy better. I honestly don't think that if the Tories had included scrapping student fees in their manifesto it would have damaged their vote. The fact that they didn't and won anyway, didn't mean it was an idea that lacked electoral support.
Too much is made of the mandate idea. It's just not true that the party voted into government has all the right policies and the others have none.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Mon 8 Apr 14:18
Put it this way - it's another failing of our democracy - that we have no vote on individual policies. We have to vote for a party and it's policies as a whole, even if they include some duff ones. Then everybody goes about saying it's democratic - there's a mandate for it!
No: what about voting for policies instead of parties?
I've given two ideas for what could improve our democracy :
1. Unbiased information on what we're to vote on. before we vote.
2. voting for policies instead of parties.
I'm not saying it's easy or even possible to change the system, but these ideas seem right sensible to me. If we never come forward with any ideas for improvement, it'll never happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 8 Apr 16:12
Interesting idea, onandupthepars, but who would implement the policies voted for? You could argue that the EU referendum was voting for a policy but implementing it has not been easy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Mon 8 Apr 16:46
I see two hurdles to overcome work the issue by issue votes.
The first is that a programme of work (manifesto) is normally interlinked, either by strategy and/or economics. So using student fees as an example, labour/tory will have costed their manifesto out by making priority calls at the start. so if the decision on tuition fees is made to not charge then that impacts all future decisions. It would be like building a house in piecemeal with only an overall budget and no plan. You might get the kitchen type always dreamed of but suddenly realise you've no money left for the bathroom.
The second is that who do we vote in to carry this out? Party politics would become irrelevant as every policy is made in real time (not sure how we prioritise the order of work for the house) so do we vote for folk we like the look off? Assign randoms like on just duty, just hire full time people like the civil service? And what if like brexit you get people who don't believe or agree with our decision. Business would panic at the lack of a clear medium term plan etc
Is rather we had proportional representation myself so every vote counted and we matured into a minority /coalition style politics that rewarded collaboration etc
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Mon 8 Apr 21:47
I'd say the EU Referendum was voting for a bit more than a policy Wee Eck - several: regarding trade, immigration, employment, legislation etc.
Yes, DBP, you have identified some points regarding my ideas that would need plenty of discussion !
I like your idea of PR and rewarding collaboration (or co-operation).
As for everything promised in a manifesto being budgeted for and knock-on effects if changes were made? (Have I understood you right?) There's an easy way round that. Imagine no party politics, then
perhaps we, the public, could have two separate kinds of votes:
1. To elect individuals for government.
2. To decide the policies we want carried out by them.
Post Edited (Mon 08 Apr 21:52)
|
|
|
|
|
|
