The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[DungBeetle]

Having wavered a little, I am ready to pronounce that a second referendum before leaving would be deeply undemocratic.....

So following the result of the first referendum would be democratic?
The first referendum is 'the will of the people'?

The results of that referendum were:
29% couldn't vote;
20% didn't vote;
26% voted for;
25% voted against

74% of the population didn't vote to leave the EU; how is leaving the EU democratic?

I am a remainer but where are these figures from?  Are you using the non votes from new born babies to make a political point???

Democracy is the will of the people - are you saying children aren't people?

This kids voting stuff has to be a wind up surely?


Are we being whoosed?

Who said anything about kids voting?

In a representative democracy an elected politician represents everyone who voted for them, or against them, or didn't vote at all (for whatever reason).

In a referendum the result is only determined by those who vote.

If people are so concerned about democracy, wouldn't a referendum where half the population don't count be very much undemocratic then?

Your point is utterly ridiculous.  You can’t use babies not voting to dilute the leave vote.  

You've made a statement, you haven't given a reason.

In an election the voters decide on the people they want to make decisions for them - those people then make decisions on behalf of the entire population.

In a referendum the voters decide on the decision themselves.

The first option means a decision is made on behalf of the all 'the people'
The second option means a decision is made on behalf of about half 'the people'

Which better represents the will of 'the people' i.e. democracy?


EDIT: to put it another way - democracy is about deciding the will of the people; what if the people don't have a single will? How is it the will of the people if 25% of them want one thing and 24% want another?

The referendum was advisory.  The people voted on an advisory basis to the people who already represent them.  babies can’t vote so they therefore did not vote to leave so you can use it as a political point scoring exercise.

Like I said I’m a remainer but lines of attack like you have used just make you look desperate.  You can use the people who didn’t vote to make your poInt so why go to extremes?

[TightEnd]

Keir Starmer this morning: 'I don’t think at this stage anybody is talking about extending Article 50.'

Emily Thornberry this afternoon: 'We need to extend Article 50.'

---

I think both big parties are in an utter mess on the whole thing.

[TightEnd]

Keir Starmer ad-libbed his pledge that no one was ruling out Remain, to the fury of his Labour colleagues.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/09/labour-rift-over-keir-starmers-brexit-speech/

[TightEnd]

Labour now has 3 positions on Brexit:

out (Corbyn);
ref with Remain an option (Starmer);
postpone & stay in EEA (Thornberry)

Corbyn - interview soon on bbc news
1. Labour would force govt back to Brussels if deal falls in Parly
2. He won't say if he'd vote Leave or Remain in another Brexit vote
3. Denied Labour would be breaking promise to Leave voters

point 1, how?


what a mess on all sides

[Pokerpops]

Having wavered a little, I am ready to pronounce that a second referendum before leaving would be deeply undemocratic.....

So following the result of the first referendum would be democratic?
The first referendum is 'the will of the people'?

The results of that referendum were:
29% couldn't vote;
20% didn't vote;
26% voted for;
25% voted against

74% of the population didn't vote to leave the EU; how is leaving the EU democratic?

I am a remainer but where are these figures from?  Are you using the non votes from new born babies to make a political point???

Democracy is the will of the people - are you saying children aren't people?

This kids voting stuff has to be a wind up surely?


Are we being whoosed?

Who said anything about kids voting?

In a representative democracy an elected politician represents everyone who voted for them, or against them, or didn't vote at all (for whatever reason).

In a referendum the result is only determined by those who vote.

If people are so concerned about democracy, wouldn't a referendum where half the population don't count be very much undemocratic then?

Your point is utterly ridiculous.  You can’t use babies not voting to dilute the leave vote.  

You've made a statement, you haven't given a reason.

In an election the voters decide on the people they want to make decisions for them - those people then make decisions on behalf of the entire population.

In a referendum the voters decide on the decision themselves.

The first option means a decision is made on behalf of the all 'the people'
The second option means a decision is made on behalf of about half 'the people'

Which better represents the will of 'the people' i.e. democracy?


EDIT: to put it another way - democracy is about deciding the will of the people; what if the people don't have a single will? How is it the will of the people if 25% of them want one thing and 24% want the thing that I want?

fyp

[nirvana]

Having wavered a little, I am ready to pronounce that a second referendum before leaving would be deeply undemocratic.

This is the most important decision the  country has made for forty years. When we elect a government, it just lasts a few years, but the result of this could be in place for decades. We need to be sure that we are doing the right thing. Last time, the narrow majority included protest voters who thought their vote wouldn't affect the result and there were people who didn't bother to vote for the same reason. Both of those should have learnt their lesson, to say nothing of people who voted leave, but now understand the situation better and would vote differently. The reason hardline leavers don't want another referendum is not because it is 'undemocratic' - if they really were champions of democracy they would support one. It's because they fear they will lose. But, in a scenario where it looks like the result is likely to be different now, it would be undemocratic not to run it again before making the biggest change to our lives for a generation.

I would probably split hairs with you here as I wouldn't assert that it should never happen (for some of the reasons you point out) but I would, on balance, still think it undemocratic.

[Jon MW]

Having wavered a little, I am ready to pronounce that a second referendum before leaving would be deeply undemocratic.....

So following the result of the first referendum would be democratic?
The first referendum is 'the will of the people'?

The results of that referendum were:
29% couldn't vote;
20% didn't vote;
26% voted for;
25% voted against

74% of the population didn't vote to leave the EU; how is leaving the EU democratic?

I am a remainer but where are these figures from?  Are you using the non votes from new born babies to make a political point???

Democracy is the will of the people - are you saying children aren't people?

This kids voting stuff has to be a wind up surely?


Are we being whoosed?

Who said anything about kids voting?

In a representative democracy an elected politician represents everyone who voted for them, or against them, or didn't vote at all (for whatever reason).

In a referendum the result is only determined by those who vote.

If people are so concerned about democracy, wouldn't a referendum where half the population don't count be very much undemocratic then?

Your point is utterly ridiculous.  You can’t use babies not voting to dilute the leave vote.  

You've made a statement, you haven't given a reason.

In an election the voters decide on the people they want to make decisions for them - those people then make decisions on behalf of the entire population.

In a referendum the voters decide on the decision themselves.

The first option means a decision is made on behalf of the all 'the people'
The second option means a decision is made on behalf of about half 'the people'

Which better represents the will of 'the people' i.e. democracy?


EDIT: to put it another way - democracy is about deciding the will of the people; what if the people don't have a single will? How is it the will of the people if 25% of them want one thing and 24% want the thing that I want?

fyp

Not leaving the EU isn't the will of the people just as much as leaving isn't.

Everyone I mentioned it to in the office doesn't have a problem understanding this argument.

If all 'the people' are fairly evenly split between yes, no, can't vote and didn't vote - how can any decision based on this be democratic?

I have no argument here for or against Brexit, or for or against a second referendum - what I have a problem with is people using an abstract concept such as democracy to support or oppose their arguments when there's nothing democratic about making a national decision based on results like we had.

[Pokerpops]

Having wavered a little, I am ready to pronounce that a second referendum before leaving would be deeply undemocratic.....

So following the result of the first referendum would be democratic?
The first referendum is 'the will of the people'?

The results of that referendum were:
29% couldn't vote;
20% didn't vote;
26% voted for;
25% voted against

74% of the population didn't vote to leave the EU; how is leaving the EU democratic?

I am a remainer but where are these figures from?  Are you using the non votes from new born babies to make a political point???

Democracy is the will of the people - are you saying children aren't people?

This kids voting stuff has to be a wind up surely?


Are we being whoosed?

Who said anything about kids voting?

In a representative democracy an elected politician represents everyone who voted for them, or against them, or didn't vote at all (for whatever reason).

In a referendum the result is only determined by those who vote.

If people are so concerned about democracy, wouldn't a referendum where half the population don't count be very much undemocratic then?

Your point is utterly ridiculous.  You can’t use babies not voting to dilute the leave vote.  

You've made a statement, you haven't given a reason.

In an election the voters decide on the people they want to make decisions for them - those people then make decisions on behalf of the entire population.

In a referendum the voters decide on the decision themselves.

The first option means a decision is made on behalf of the all 'the people'
The second option means a decision is made on behalf of about half 'the people'

Which better represents the will of 'the people' i.e. democracy?


EDIT: to put it another way - democracy is about deciding the will of the people; what if the people don't have a single will? How is it the will of the people if 25% of them want one thing and 24% want the thing that I want?

fyp

Not leaving the EU isn't the will of the people just as much as leaving isn't.

Everyone I mentioned it to in the office doesn't have a problem understanding this argument.

If all 'the people' are fairly evenly split between yes, no, can't vote and didn't vote - how can any decision based on this be democratic?

I have no argument here for or against Brexit, or for or against a second referendum - what I have a problem with is people using an abstract concept such as democracy to support or oppose their arguments when there's nothing democratic about making a national decision based on results like we had.

Fair enough. I can understand your point, and to some extent agree with you.

Shame nobody was thinking about this before June 2016 though. All those people that we chose to make decisions for us really let us down didn’t they? Bastards! They gave us a clear binary choice, didn’t tell us that the result could be seen as ‘advisory’ and shit happened. Hard to put the genie back in the bottle now.

What’s the solution Jon?

[Jon MW]

...
What’s the solution Jon?

Nobody knows, I just want everyone's argument to be conceptually coherent.

[kukushkin88]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45638646

http://www.nationalhealthexecutive.com/Health-Care-News/nhs-has-one-of-lowest-levels-of-doctors-and-nurses-in-western-world

[Woodsey]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45638646

http://www.nationalhealthexecutive.com/Health-Care-News/nhs-has-one-of-lowest-levels-of-doctors-and-nurses-in-western-world

‘It is not clear what is driving the trend’

[kukushkin88]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45638646

http://www.nationalhealthexecutive.com/Health-Care-News/nhs-has-one-of-lowest-levels-of-doctors-and-nurses-in-western-world

‘It is not clear what is driving the trend’

Possibly you missed it, there was a suggestion of what might have done it. Are we really saying we doubt a correlation between less doctor’s per capita and shorter average life expectancy? If we do we have to acknowledge it’s questionable whether having doctor’s is a worthwhile idea.

[kukushkin88]

funnily enough, finding it difficult to attract staff

So NHS is actively trying to recruit another 100,000 staff and the Labour bloke says this is caused by austerity?  Run that by me again?

Haha, was it Diane Abbott by chance or is there another Uber clown in their ranks? 🤣🤣🤣🤡🤡🤡

Do we think 8 years of real term pay cuts has played a part in this situation?

The financial crisis probably did of which labour would not have dealt with better than the Tories, highly likely worse as they like to piss money down the drain....

Like spending money on people to staff our hospitals? It’s kind of hard to see your point in this context, since we are taking specifically about a failure to provide funding to staff our hospitals.

The funding is there though.  They are actively recruiting.  The reason they are struggling to recruit is largely due to uncertainty over Brexit for potential overseas workers.

8 years of running something in to the ground, then providing limited emergency money once things are desperate, doesn’t count as funding something in my eyes.

Significantly increasing the NHS budget with consistently above inflation funding increases doesn’t constitute “running something into the ground”

The will never be enough money for the NHS in its current structure.

https://fullfact.org/health/spending-english-nhs/

The last paragraph is quite telling.

Anyway back to the original point.....

So I'm saying the reason they are struggling to recruit because they have dramatically cut pay. Do we agree that:

1: Pay rises have been frozen at 1% since 2010?
2: Inflation in this period is 24.8%?

Anybody for a massive pay cut? Nothing to do with difficulty retaining staff and recruiting?

[Jon MW]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45638646

http://www.nationalhealthexecutive.com/Health-Care-News/nhs-has-one-of-lowest-levels-of-doctors-and-nurses-in-western-world

‘It is not clear what is driving the trend’

Possibly you missed it, there was a suggestion of what might have done it. Are we really saying we doubt a correlation between less doctor’s per capita and shorter average life expectancy? If we do we have to acknowledge it’s questionable whether having doctor’s is a worthwhile idea.

What really stood out for me is that the figures they're looking at have only been consistently measured since the 80's; which makes a pretty big change to the context than the headline being about 'all time'.

But specifically on the point you make.

If we gave the health service infinite funds - less people would die
If we gave the health service no funds - more people would die

While the economy was booming Blair's government pumped unprecedented quantities of cash into the health service - when the economy collapses is it really appropriate to just carry on doing that? At the expense of every other government department?

i.e. the overall cause might not be clear, but even if it is because of austerity - isn't that just an emotional reaction you're having? Isn't it just the effect of what has to happen in the real world?

[RickBFA]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45638646

http://www.nationalhealthexecutive.com/Health-Care-News/nhs-has-one-of-lowest-levels-of-doctors-and-nurses-in-western-world

‘It is not clear what is driving the trend’

Possibly you missed it, there was a suggestion of what might have done it. Are we really saying we doubt a correlation between less doctor’s per capita and shorter average life expectancy? If we do we have to acknowledge it’s questionable whether having doctor’s is a worthwhile idea.

What really stood out for me is that the figures they're looking at have only been consistently measured since the 80's; which makes a pretty big change to the context than the headline being about 'all time'.

But specifically on the point you make.

If we gave the health service infinite funds - less people would die
If we gave the health service no funds - more people would die

While the economy was booming Blair's government pumped unprecedented quantities of cash into the health service - when the economy collapses is it really appropriate to just carry on doing that? At the expense of every other government department?

i.e. the overall cause might not be clear, but even if it is because of austerity - isn't that just an emotional reaction you're having? Isn't it just the effect of what has to happen in the real world?

Nailed it.