|
Strudel Man posted:Holding a referendum and then ignoring the results wouldn't make the government look very good from a democratic point of view. I think it's in the best interests of a government to look at the results of a democratic process and say "Go back, we hosed up" when poo poo like the Brexit fallout is happening. Like, democracy stops working well as soon as it runs everything into the ground because the voters are too stupid or uninformed to realize what's happening.
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 09:30 |
|
|
No no, we voted ironically to leave
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
quote:@AP Purely vindictive. No bearing in reality. GB was a global economic leader for 200 years before the EU even existed. Has anybody yet pointed out that so were Greece, Rome, and Egypt?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I think it's in the best interests of a government to look at the results of a democratic process and say "Go back, we hosed up" when poo poo like the Brexit fallout is happening. Like, democracy stops working well as soon as it runs everything into the ground because the voters are too stupid or uninformed to realize what's happening.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:There's an argument for not putting something like this to a vote in the first place, absolutely. Once you have, though, you're pretty much stuck. Reserving some decisions for elected officials is quite permissible in a democracy, but outright overriding the popular will, legitimately expressed, generally is not. This is why we have different term lengths for our elected representatives, short for the House, medium for the President, long for Senators, and lifetime appointments for justices. Different degrees of insulation from the public's fickleness.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Couldn't the Queen just veto it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I think it's in the best interests of a government to look at the results of a democratic process and say "Go back, we hosed up" when poo poo like the Brexit fallout is happening. Like, democracy stops working well as soon as it runs everything into the ground because the voters are too stupid or uninformed to realize what's happening. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:Couldn't the Queen just veto it? The Monarchy retains the right to do a lot of things in government by virtue of not ever exercising the right to do so. If HM stepped in, things would get much worse. The Royal Family is supposed to represent a non-partisan, unifying symbol the whole UK can get behind, regardless of politics. Much like the American flag in the US. By getting involved, they would just tarnish that as well as becoming the target for whichever side loses chanting "ANACHRONISM!" and the like.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
I know it's democracy and all but it doesn't seem logical to me that a decision that momentous should be decided by a simple majority. Like if 10,000,000 people want to stay in the EU, and 10,000,001 people don't, the former can just go get hosed? A decision like that about the fate of your entire nation state seems like is should require a super-majority either way. A super-majority to join the EU in the first place, and a super-majority to leave. And isn't this whim-of-the-uneducated-mob the entire reason we use representational democracy anyway? Because at any given time 51% of the people could be loving stupid about a particular issue? Why wasn't this decided in parliament? Imagined has a new favorite as of 20:49 on Jun 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Was there any popular approval process for joining in the first place? I guess I don't actually know, but my presumption was that the decision to join/set the thing up originally was made at higher levels.Imagined posted:And isn't this whim-of-the-uneducated-mob the entire reason we use representational democracy anyway? Because at any given time 51% of the people could be loving stupid about a particular issue? Why wasn't this decided in parliament?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Imagined posted:I know it's democracy and all but it doesn't seem logical to me that a decision that momentous should be decided by a simple majority. Like if 10,000,000 people want to stay in the EU, and 10,000,001 people don't, the former can just go get hosed? Officially, it will be. Parliament makes the final call to do anything with this vote.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Was there any popular approval process for joining in the first place? I guess I don't actually know, but my presumption was that the decision to join/set the thing up originally was made at higher levels. The UK originally joined the European Economic Community in 1973. This organisation was mostly intended for economic cooperation among member countries. Wikipedia tells me that the UK didn't want to join earlier, but the Suez Crisis made them change their position. There was no referendum (Norway held one at that time and as you know, Norway has never become a member of the EU). Around the late 80s - 90s, countries started using the EEC for making treaties about much more than just economics. In 1993 the European Union was created when all 12 EEC member states signed the Treaty of Maastricht. There were no referenda for that either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I think it's in the best interests of a government to look at the results of a democratic process and say "Go back, we hosed up" when poo poo like the Brexit fallout is happening. Like, democracy stops working well as soon as it runs everything into the ground because the voters are too stupid or uninformed to realize what's happening. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I think it's in the best interests of a government to look at the results of a democratic process and say "Go back, we hosed up" when poo poo like the Brexit fallout is happening. Like, democracy stops working well as soon as it runs everything into the ground because the voters are too stupid or uninformed to realize what's happening. We held a referendum and 50% of people think we should nuke ourselves, welp get the codes. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
Parliament is not going to overturn the referendum result. You can't ask an entire country's opinion on a thing and then say "WELL YOUR OPINION SUCKS", it tends to get you kicked out of office the next year. Though, come to think of it, the conservatives have successfully torpedo'd their own boat. I think the next UK election is going to be a slaughter because all the liberal party needs to do is point to the impending economic recession.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:Though, come to think of it, the conservatives have successfully torpedo'd their own boat. I think the next UK election is going to be a slaughter because all the liberal party needs to do is point to the impending economic recession. It doesn't help that they did an interview with the figurehead of the Leave party asking him how he was going to use all this freed up income and use it to fix the country and his response was "If you thought I was going to do that that's your own problem, but thanks for all the money with no discretionary oversight!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:Couldn't the Queen just veto it? Surprisingly, no. The monarch of the United Kingdom actually maintains quite little power; though she gives power through her position, she has very little ability to directly make proclamations on how the country is run. The UK has maintained its monarchy specifically because of this: there's no reason to overthrow your king and decapitate him when he's not actually doing anything. She can certainly give guidance and yell at people about issues, but actually trying to take the reins and steer the country herself would be a gigantic upset for the English balance of power. Chances are if she disapproves of Brexit, she's absolutely talking Cameron's ear off about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
England is a gift that keeps on giving.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:Parliament is not going to overturn the referendum result. You can't ask an entire country's opinion on a thing and then say "WELL YOUR OPINION SUCKS", it tends to get you kicked out of office the next year. First someone has to decide to actually do the deed and activate Article 50. And nobody ever will, because it means signing your name on a huge disaster, and nobody with the power to do so loves the truth more than they love themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Kennel posted:England is a gift that keeps on giving. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Surprisingly, no. The monarch of the United Kingdom actually maintains quite little power; though she gives power through her position, she has very little ability to directly make proclamations on how the country is run. The UK has maintained its monarchy specifically because of this: there's no reason to overthrow your king and decapitate him when he's not actually doing anything. Isn't the Royal Family still a thing mostly because they're a huge tourist attraction?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Kennel posted:England is a gift that keeps on giving.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Surprisingly, no. The monarch of the United Kingdom actually maintains quite little power; though she gives power through her position, she has very little ability to directly make proclamations on how the country is run. The UK has maintained its monarchy specifically because of this: there's no reason to overthrow your king and decapitate him when he's not actually doing anything. I believe the UK monarchy is different from the other European constitutional monarchies in that the UK monarchy has theoretical power. It's just that trying to use it would lead to a lot of trouble. In the other monarchies, such as in the Netherlands, it literally says in the constitution that the monarch does not have any power, and has no more than an advisory role to the government. So the Dutch king doesn't even have theoretical power. Clitch posted:Isn't the Royal Family still a thing mostly because they're a huge tourist attraction? The advantage of this is that in times of disaster, the king can give a nice speech about how we should help each other and that he's there for us and all that. Obama has that role in the US, but in his case, whenever he gives a general speech of support for the country, half of the population scoffs at his 'lies' and wish for someone with a dead hamster on his head to become president. The amount of monarchy-haters in the Netherlands is only 5 or 10%, so the king can reach way more people with his politically neutral speeches. On top of that, a monarch is much more iconic than a figurehead president like Germany has, and doesn't cost all that much more (presidents tend to spend a lot of money, too).
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Clitch posted:Isn't the Royal Family still a thing mostly because they're a huge tourist attraction? The Royal Family is basically Britain's First Family, in a sense. One of the things Elizabeth has done is that she basically took the Royal Family off public money - the Royal Family is entirely self-funded. Another reason why its continues to exist is that the Queen basically never makes any political statements. They have no political enemies, and because of this, Parliament continues to tolerate their existence. There's definitely been an undercurrent of the idea of turning England into a Republic, but since it is practically a Republic anyway, it's never really had overwhelming support.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Quite frankly I think the British Empire is in decline.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Kennel posted:England is a gift that keeps on giving. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
http://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aK3BGPO_460sv.mp4
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:Parliament is not going to overturn the referendum result. You can't ask an entire country's opinion on a thing and then say "WELL YOUR OPINION SUCKS", it tends to get you kicked out of office the next year. Just for you non-Brits: this is the main opposition party: with the image updated to show those senior members who have resigned in the last 24 hours. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:I believe the UK monarchy is different from the other European constitutional monarchies in that the UK monarchy has theoretical power. It's just that trying to use it would lead to a lot of trouble. In the other monarchies, such as in the Netherlands, it literally says in the constitution that the monarch does not have any power, and has no more than an advisory role to the government. So the Dutch king doesn't even have theoretical power. That doesn't go for all the monarchs. For instance: According to the Danish constitution the king has all of the executive powers and shares legislative authority with parliament. This is mostly because large parts of the constitution haven't been changed since 1849. So basically when reading it you should substitute "cabinet/prime minister" for "king" to get how things work today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
So have people across the UK begun stocking up on aluminum baseball bats lately?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
Not spelling it that way they're not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
Pigsfeet on Rye posted:So have people across the UK begun stocking up on aluminum baseball bats lately? No, they have those 6 in wide bats what for hittin' them bouncing softballs and spanking prep school classmates
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
Pigsfeet on Rye posted:So have people across the UK begun stocking up on aluminium baseball bats lately? FTFY
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
Thank god Britain has sane gun laws.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:Thank god Britain has sane gun laws. Makes it easy for a real country to take it back under their wing. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Kennel posted:England is a gift that keeps on giving. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
There's congressional primaries in New York tomorrow. In the 10th district, Jerry Nadler, a Dem who voted for the Iran deal, is being challenged by a guy named Oliver Rosenberg. Rosenberg is TOTALLY not an empty suit being propped up by pro-Israel groups to punish Nadler for his vote. He's a strong candidate who knows many things. For example, check out his opening statement from a radio debate this morning:quote:"I'm running because I love my city and I know we can make it fabulous. What makes New York City great is you can come from anywhere and be who you want to be in New York City and it breaks my heart to see what's happening to it. Everywhere you go it's just Duane Reades and banks. Mom and pop shops can't afford the rent. We're losing what makes New York City special. Lee's Art Shop, Renaissance Diner, H & H Bagels. I can't get my bagels and schmear. We want our bagels back! You'll note that he quoted Alexander Hamilton the musical character in that stream of consciousness, not Hamilton the historical figure. Oliver, you were a Republican as recently as last year and tried to delete a lot of pro-GOP tweets. What do you have to say about that? quote:"Jerry has no idea what it's like to be gay, a teenager and in the closet with the pressure to conform. When I was 19 and in the closet, I did what my family told me to do. I've grown and come to accept who I am, now who people say I should be. I am gay and I was a Democrat trapped in a Republican's body." Oh for sure man. There's more here: http://gothamist.com/2016/06/27/brian_lehrer-hosted_candidate_debat.php And the full 20 minute segment here, which is worth a listen: http://www.wnyc.org/story/meet-candidates-ny-10-primary/?hootPostID=f91e0b81ac12f499316f73d7804d2c50 What a trainwreck.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 00:51
|
|
Tater Love 
|
I think this is the first one that actually made me say "Oh, my god!" out loud. This breaks the neck.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
flosofl posted:I think this is the first one that actually made me say "Oh, my god!" out loud. this kills the skater
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 09:30 |
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I think it's in the best interests of a government to look at the results of a democratic process and say "Go back, we hosed up" when poo poo like the Brexit fallout is happening. Like, democracy stops working well as soon as it runs everything into the ground because the voters are too stupid or uninformed to realize what's happening. Gotcha. People get to vote, provided they make the right choices. (This kills the democracy.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 01:11
|
|
