Brexit at Glastonbury 2016 - a video compilation

[blackred]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Sorry, you said representative democracy. I presumed you meant PR elections from that.

 

Democracy is the will of the majority. It doesn't get any more clear.

The will of the majority doesn't get to mean by default that all minority opinion is suppressed. It's all about how you operate it, and anyway the will of the minority (the alternative to te will of the majority) is very definitely not representative.

That aside, in a binary decision, the only sensible representation that can occur is for the majority to get their wish.

How the fuck do you think "representative democracy" is meant to work? By not representing people's views?

 

If it's false, tell me the democracy alternative. I don't believe you can.

And if someone calling me intellectually dishonest makes these unsupported claims and runs away, wtf does that make you?

Thanks for acknowledging you were putting words in my mouth.

If you want an overview of democratic systems Wikipedia is a decent starting point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_democracy

There are many different systems, we have a parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarch - we have only had 3 whole union referendums in the modern era, and only one which was explicitly legally binding - legally binding referendums are a form of direct democracy and overwhelmingly not what we live by.

Being against referendums (at least legally binding ones) is only opposing one type of democracy, not all - that was my point and one you seemed to miss. I suspect you know this already hence my claims of you being intellectually dishonest, apologies if that's not the case.

 

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, blackred said:

Thanks for acknowledging you were putting words in my mouth.

If you want an overview of democratic systems Wikipedia is a decent starting point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_democracy

There are many different systems, we have a parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarch - we have only had 3 whole union referendums in the modern era, and only one which was explicitly legally binding - legally binding referendums are a form of direct democracy and overwhelmingly not what we live by.

Being against referendums (at least legally binding ones) is only opposing one type of democracy, not all - that was my point and one you seemed to miss. I suspect you know this already hence my claims of you being intellectually dishonest, apologies if that's not the case.

 

You suggested there was a more representative democracy than majority rule (via a representative or not).

Care to tell me what it is, rather than putting up distractions from what you said?

 

Edited July 7, 2016 by eFestivals

[blackred]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

You suggested there was a more representative democracy than majority rule (via a representative or not).

Care to tell me what it is, rather than putting up distractions from what you said?

 

Not that there was a more representative democracy in terms of PR (which i think is what you are implying?), but that we live in a representitive democracy (as in the democractic system) whereas ruling by referendum is direct democracy (a different democratic system). You suggested to Matt that the only alternative to direct democracy was a dictatorship - this is not true as there are a multitude of other democratic systems, including the one we actually live under - I think you know this already and were using the argument to back up your contrarian stance, mob rule or nothing is a lesson that was learned centuries ago.

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, blackred said:

Not that there was a more representative democracy in terms of PR (which i think is what you are implying?), but that we live in a representitive democracy (as in the democractic system) whereas ruling by referendum is direct democracy (a different democratic system). You suggested to Matt that the only alternative to direct democracy was a dictatorship - this is not true as there are a multitude of other democratic systems, including the one we actually live under - I think you know this already and were using the argument to back up your contrarian stance, mob rule or nothing is a lesson that was learned centuries ago.

Direct democracy or (properly) representative democracy has the same outcome. If the majority are in favour of something that's what you get.

Having the representatives act contrary to public opinion is those representatives not representing the public's will, and so cannot be democracy.

We have FPTP here, which ends up being the will of the minority. While that might change what Parliament decides to do towards the EU from what the result of the referendum was, that cannot be viewed as a better democratic outcome by any understanding of democracy. It's clearly contrary to the stated will of the people.

 

[DeanoL]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

If remain had won, exactly the same message would have been going towards the leavers.

One side had to be the losers and get nothing of their wish. That's how democracy works.

Right. As has happened every time in the past. It's taken UKIP 25 years of campaigning to build a base, get a referendum on the EU, and win a referendum on the EU. 25 years of getting fuck-all votes at elections (local and national), 25 years of the public consistently electing political parties that wanted to remain in the EU. At no point during any of that did they ever go "you know what, the public have spoken, they don't want to leave the EU, let's stop". And 25 years on, through dogged tenacity they finally accomplish what they want, and one vote finally goes there way.

And a good half of those that oppose them go "well the people have spoken, let's roll over and let it happen"

And that's why the dickheads always win.

You're right - had remain won, the exact same message would be going towards the leavers. And we'd be having another referendum within a decade. Is that fair? Is that respectful of democracy? I don't know. But it's what would happen. And if we refuse to fight on those terms because we think we're better then we'll continue to lose.

[DeanoL]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 Accepting democracy is about accepting when you lose as much as it's accepting when you win.

And if the Kippers had that attitude we would never have had a referendum and been here in the first place.

[Lad]

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

And if the Kippers had that attitude we would never have had a referendum and been here in the first place.

Are you still cryarsing about the result?

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

You're right - had remain won, the exact same message would be going towards the leavers. And we'd be having another referendum within a decade. Is that fair? Is that respectful of democracy? I don't know. But it's what would happen. And if we refuse to fight on those terms because we think we're better then we'll continue to lose.

Try applying the same thoughts to Scottish indy, and see how consistent your thinking is with how you feel about the EU vote.

(we could have a discussion about whether a super-majority should be required or not, but let's stick with how the rules were last time and are likely to be next time - that a one-vote majority wins).

Do you really think that if Scotland voted for indy it shouldn't count?

I doubt you do, or at least not with the same strength of feeling you have about the EU vote.

[DeanoL]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

Try applying the same thoughts to Scottish indy, and see how consistent your thinking is with how you feel about the EU vote.

(we could have a discussion about whether a super-majority should be required or not, but let's stick with how the rules were last time and are likely to be next time - that a one-vote majority wins).

Do you really think that if Scotland voted for indy it shouldn't count?

I doubt you do, or at least not with the same strength of feeling you have about the EU vote.

But Scotland voted to stay in the UK and the SNP are still pushing to change that and have another vote - is that wrong?

And if they voted leave, would it be fair for people who wanted to stay to campaign for another vote if they felt they could win it? Sure.

I don't have the same strength of feeling about it as I do the EU vote because I'm not Scottish. It's not my vote.

[DeanoL]

8 minutes ago, Lad said:

Are you still cryarsing about the result?

If you mean making sure it doesn't happen, yeah.

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

And if the Kippers had that attitude we would never have had a referendum and been here in the first place.

No, not really true. There's been much wider support for an eu ref for decades than just with kippers. Plenty of polls showed a large majority in favour of having a ref.

But anyway, I reckon it's hard to call a democratic vote invalid using any rationale within a democracy - and particularly one where the 'change' side won. The fact of 'change' winning surely shows the validity of having the vote in the first place?

If the political system doesn't act on the will of the people what democracy can we really have? I hate to say it with the result going against me, but in a country where Parliament so often acts against the majority view of the population this is the best democracy I can remember having in my lifetime.

[Lad]

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

If you mean making sure it doesn't happen, yeah.

It's happened.

[DeanoL]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

No, not really true. There's been much wider support for an eu ref for decades than just with kippers. Plenty of polls showed a large majority in favour of having a ref.

But anyway, I reckon it's hard to call a democratic vote invalid using any rationale within a democracy - and particularly one where the 'change' side won.

Sure - all I question is the period of validity. General elections have one set. Referendums don't - they're designed to show the opinion at a moment in time. Scotland having a second referendum say 3 years after the first seems okay, but having a second EU referendum 3 months after the first seems wrong? It's just a matter of degrees rather than a fundamental difference?

I don't even want a new campaign. I'd be fine with a snap referendum, we vote next week, no campaigning allowed. I think Remain would win easily in those circumstances. Which means what? I don't know. Most recent result wins? Best of three? To me it just means the public are split and have no strong opinion one way or the other - so it should be left to government to decide, and the referendum is kinda meaningless.

Just now, Lad said:

It's happened.

Cameron signed Article 50 today?

[blackred]

26 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Direct democracy or (properly) representative democracy has the same outcome. If the majority are in favour of something that's what you get.

Having the representatives act contrary to public opinion is those representatives not representing the public's will, and so cannot be democracy.

We have FPTP here, which ends up being the will of the minority. While that might change what Parliament decides to do towards the EU from what the result of the referendum was, that cannot be viewed as a better democratic outcome by any understanding of democracy. It's clearly contrary to the stated will of the people.

 

Changing the subject now?

A PR based system of parliamentary democracy would not necessarily lead to the same results as a direct democracy, you are being intellectually dishonest again. We would still be electing representatives to vote in our interests (fundamentaly different from our wishes). The point being that we abrogate responsiblity to these people in the hope they are better able to make these decisions on our behalf. Most people don't want to spend the time researching each issue that goes to parliament to allow themselves to have an informed vote so we elect others to do so on our behalf, if we don't believe they are doing this we get the opportunity to vote them out (in theory at least). Not suggesting this is a perfect system - but it's the the one we live under.

As for the referendum and it's result, I agree that we can't go back on it. It needs to be ratified by parliament so we can hold our representatives accountable in 2020 (or earlier), hopefully some important lessons have been learned from all involved and I would be surprised if this didn't impact the terms of any indyref2 (though i also don't doubt that they would win even with changed terms).

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Sure - all I question is the period of validity. General elections have one set. Referendums don't - they're designed to show the opinion at a moment in time. Scotland having a second referendum say 3 years after the first seems okay, but having a second EU referendum 3 months after the first seems wrong? It's just a matter of degrees rather than a fundamental difference?

While referendums don't have a fixed term attached, they're very standardly considered to be the final word on an issue, that should stand for a generation.

This idea is such a fixed and standard democratic idea that the SNP stated - twice - in the independence white paper that it was a once in a generation vote.
(the myth factory says it was just some personal comments by Salmond, but like all of the myth factory it's bollocks. You can read it for yourself in the white paper).

Arguments then start about how long exactly 'a generation' should be, but common practice around the world would say not less than 15 years.

(as someone who followed and still does the Scottish indy campaign I've seen the arguments around this sort of thing play out hundreds of times),

There can be exceptions to that 'rule', and the SNP have in all fairness played it perfectly to legitimately claim an exception, with both of "a material change" and a elected mandate to pursue indyref2 in the event of brexit. I think they'd be wasting their time with another vote (and I fully expect them to try and not have one) but I fully accept their right to do so given the circumstances if they wish.

Democracy is not a new idea, and the issue we have at the moment has happened thru history, to evolve for the considered best as I lay it out above.

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, blackred said:

Changing the subject now?

A PR based system of parliamentary democracy would not necessarily lead to the same results as a direct democracy, you are being intellectually dishonest again.

My words are clear and specific in their meaning. The only dishonestly is your claim back at them.

Yes, the representatives can fail to represent public opinion - but that doesn't make them a representative of the people, that makes them something else and less than democratic.

And more so after there has been a public referendum. And there HAS been a public referendum.

We are where we are. Trying to change the rules afterwards is just being a bad loser.

[DeanoL]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

Democracy is not a new idea, and the issue we have at the moment has happened thru history, to evolve for the considered best as I lay it out above.

Evolution of these systems is directed though. The whole "this is what's happened" and "this is how it works" so "we have to go along with it"... sure that's an option. Maybe the sensible one. But those standards and precedents haven't evolved naturally as some sort of biological democratic organism. They've been directed by the actions of people. I'm not denying I'm swimming against the tide, but change comes from action, not from accepting the status quo. You can let democracy be a thing that happens to you or be a thing you're part of. You can go with the flow or try and direct that evolution.

We've had so few referenda in the past I'm not sure the strength of precedent is very strong at all. I think this referendum also saw a sea-change in campaigning tactics that will have a huge effect on all future democratic votes. Democracy is shifting really quite fundamentally right now, and so I feel okay challenging certain assumptions.

[DeanoL]

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

This idea is such a fixed and standard democratic idea that the SNP stated - twice - in the independence white paper that it was a once in a generation vote.

And the leave campaign openly said if the result was within a few points, they'd be campaigning for another EU referendum. They were not going to wait a generation and Farage said as much.

Had it gone the other way, you could have had this argument with Farage instead of me. And maybe you'd have been right. Maybe you are now.

But that's the problem, you see. That side will go out and start campaigning again the day after they lose. While we will fight among ourselves about whether we should keep campaigning and if it's fair and if it's democratic and that's why they always win. And me spending time arguing this with you makes me just as guilty as you are.

You have a lovely rulebook there about how democracy should work. It's really great. But they don't give a toss about your rulebook, they're not playing by it and they never agreed to play by it. It's the same argument you threw at me about Corbyn - we're hamstringing ourselves by respecting an ideal that can't actually win.

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Evolution of these systems is directed though. The whole "this is what's happened" and "this is how it works" so "we have to go along with it"... sure that's an option. Maybe the sensible one. But those standards and precedents haven't evolved naturally as some sort of biological democratic organism. They've been directed by the actions of people. I'm not denying I'm swimming against the tide, but change comes from action, not from accepting the status quo. You can let democracy be a thing that happens to you or be a thing you're part of. You can go with the flow or try and direct that evolution.

We've had so few referenda in the past I'm not sure the strength of precedent is very strong at all. I think this referendum also saw a sea-change in campaigning tactics that will have a huge effect on all future democratic votes. Democracy is shifting really quite fundamentally right now, and so I feel okay challenging certain assumptions.

Yep, they're the considered opinions of people, many people, and not just those who might use them to benefit themselves. It's worth checking thru democratics histories to see how and why that consensus has come about.

You say "You can let democracy be a thing that happens to you or be a thing you're part of", as tho you've had no part of the democracy we're discussing, when you've been fulling involved and (presumably) played your part by casting your vote. Unless you think your own vote should carry more weight than other votes, it's how the equally-weighted votes are cast that counts.

Ultimately it seems you're trying to claim there's a better democracy despite you not being able to put your finger on it, with which you might be able to over-turn a democratic result.  It ends up being you trying to call yourself a democrat whilst protesting about democracy, and that's a bit too fruitcake for me.

[blackred]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

My words are clear and specific in their meaning. The only dishonestly is your claim back at them.

Yes, the representatives can fail to represent public opinion - but that doesn't make them a representative of the people, that makes them something else and less than democratic.

And more so after there has been a public referendum. And there HAS been a public referendum.

We are where we are. Trying to change the rules afterwards is just being a bad loser.

Ok - we are now debating the value of PR rather than your initial assertation that their was a binary choice between direct democracy and dictatorship. I hope you can accept that you initial statement to Matt was demonstrably wrong - either intentionally misleading or due to ignorance (i suspect the former).

Representatives can fail to represent public opinion, they frequently do - this is a system we have accepted over centuries as being less bad than direct democracy, no suggestion from me that it is a perfect system. Working in the publics interest rather than wishes is an ideological difference, and if you feel that the mandate is for the latter then fair enough though strictly speaking is incorrect (they are representatives of their constituencies interests)

I have not once suggested altering the rules, please stop your usual tactic of putting words in peoples mouths. Ratifying this through the commons is following the rules, and allows democratic accountability for the decisions. Yes - this does mean that I feel representatives should be held to account for following the publics wishes if it's later proven that it wasn't in their interests, that is the system we live under, to suggest differently is trying to change the rules.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

And the leave campaign openly said if the result was within a few points, they'd be campaigning for another EU referendum. They were not going to wait a generation and Farage said as much.

So we prove we're better than Farage by acting like Farage?

It's unfortunate that it was a close vote, but votes can be close.

 

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

Had it gone the other way, you could have had this argument with Farage instead of me. And maybe you'd have been right. Maybe you are now.

Yep, I'm sure I'd be posting the all same things at kippers.

I happen to think the consistency I'm trying to have is the right way to go with this.

 

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

But that's the problem, you see. That side will go out and start campaigning again the day after they lose. While we will fight among ourselves about whether we should keep campaigning and if it's fair and if it's democratic and that's why they always win. And me spending time arguing this with you makes me just as guilty as you are.

Except the point of my argument is try and get you to realise the weakness of your own, so that we can move onto the much more important discussion of what we now do instead.

The world hasn't ended. There's always shit circumstances to be dealt with. We need to get on with dealing with them.

 

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

You have a lovely rulebook there about how democracy should work. It's really great. But they don't give a toss about your rulebook, they're not playing by it and they never agreed to play by it. It's the same argument you threw at me about Corbyn - we're hamstringing ourselves by respecting an ideal that can't actually win.

Democracy can win and does win - but only if people are democrats.

 

 

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, blackred said:

Ok - we are now debating the value of PR rather than your initial assertation that their was a binary choice between direct democracy and dictatorship.

Except that wasn't my initial assertion. It was a choice between democracy and dictatorship.

As you pointed out, there's more than one version of democracy. You pick one, and then work to the rules of the one that's been picked. Rightly or wrongly we've picked the system we have, and that system gave us this referendum too with specific rules and statements around it (particularly that it would be binding).

Objecting to the rules only after the vote hasn't gone the desired way is as weak as it gets in democratic terms.

It is what it is. It's the clearest statement of "the people's" will it's possible to have.

7 minutes ago, blackred said:

Working in the publics interest rather than wishes is an ideological difference

it's also patronising bollocks, where someone has to nominate themselves as knowing better than anyone else.

All bow down to dear leader.

9 minutes ago, blackred said:

I have not once suggested altering the rules, please stop your usual tactic of putting words in peoples mouths. Ratifying this through the commons is following the rules, and allows democratic accountability for the decisions. Yes - this does mean that I feel representatives should be held to account for following the publics wishes if it's later proven that it wasn't in their interests, that is the system we live under, to suggest differently is trying to change the rules.

You're chosing to ignore that it was stated before Parliament that the result would be binding.

I happen to think that ignoring the public's will when it was clearly stated it would be enacted is a far worse result than anything brexit might bring us. It is a clear statement that the public's view counts for nothing if self-appointed* betters disagree.

(* they are self-appointing themselves as knowing better)

[DeanoL]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Except the point of my argument is try and get you to realise the weakness of your own, so that we can move onto the much more important discussion of what we now do instead.

Maybe it is a weak argument. So what? The strongest argument doesn't always win. The one presented best and shouted loudest often does better. I'd argue we've just seen that.

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

You say "You can let democracy be a thing that happens to you or be a thing you're part of", as tho you've had no part of the democracy we're discussing, when you've been fulling involved and (presumably) played your part by casting your vote. Unless you think your own vote should carry more weight than other votes, it's how the equally-weighted votes are cast that counts.

Except I did some campaigning for Remain, I engaged with a lot of people. I know for a fact that I changed some minds. So I'd argue my opinion probably carried more weight than others who only engaged by voting did. And obviously those whose entire job is campaigning probably carried even more.

What I actually meant by that bit you quoted is that letting democracy just happen to you is voting and doing nothing else. There's far more to it. Far more ways to engage. You may be content not to fight, to just let what happens happen. Which is fine. It just gets me when people tell others not to fight.

It's not about being better than Farage. It's about winning. He wouldn't have accepted a loss, he'd keep going, and he'd probably get results. I'm good with doing the same.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

Maybe it is a weak argument. So what? The strongest argument doesn't always win. The one presented best and shouted loudest often does better. I'd argue we've just seen that.

I wasn't so much trying to criticise you for making the argument you are, but for not moving on.

If we can't accept this vote that's against our wishes, then votes that favour our wishes shouldn't deliver either - and we get nothing at all of what we want.

It is what it is. Move on! There's gains to be had, and the tories are grabbing them for themselves.

4 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

So I'd argue my opinion probably carried more weight than others who only engaged by voting did.

And I'd argue that it only mattered before the vote. At the vote, all opinions carried equal weight.

 

 

 

[DeanoL]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

If we can't accept this vote that's against our wishes, then votes that favour our wishes shouldn't deliver either - and we get nothing at all of what we want.

Yeah it's a constant battle. Isn't that politics? It's always a constant battle. I'm under no illusion that Remain winning would have put leaving the EU to bed for a generation (and nor, frankly, should it).

But you get that if one side takes the "never give up, never surrender" option, and the other side takes a "it'll be what it'll be, let's just live with it" that the first side will, long term, win most of the time?

I can't argue that everyone taking the latter option would be most beneficial for us all but... well it's a prisoner's dilemma essentially.