Philthy posted:

Or will they double down saying it got better as they eat their canned beans on toast huddled around a trashbin fire.

OctaviusBeaver posted:

Yeah sure that sounds like an actual thing that happened irl

This morning I met someone with a different political opinion than me who told me they are dumb and wrong and also now agree with me. Makes you think

Ape Fist posted:

Decebal posted:

I thought that James VI united the thrones of Scotland and England. How can there be a question about splitting up again ????

Decebal posted:

What's the point of the Monarchy then ?

Lichy posted:

sounds like the UK is trying to run on Linux at this point

Y-Hat posted:

did that british neo-nazi take over your account

irish people are lovely (or at least they are in america) but that doesn't make them "not white"

Pon de Bundy posted:

uhh anti polish sentiment just seems retarded , I can't see modern Americans getting mad at any kind of white Christian immigrant population ...Mexicans and Arabs tho ...

Cthulu Carl posted:

My only experience with the Welsh is the CK2 game wear I accidentally got a son to be king of one of the Welsh kingdoms after marrying him to an Ethiopian princess so all the kings or whatever of that place because very swarthy and Ethiopian Othrodox or whatever.

I think it's may fault they don't like immigrants now

MizPiz posted:

So I've heard Britain has become either a real life Children for Men or V for Vendetta, is that true? Or has it become a different movie where the country has become a bleak and horrible place?

Rah! posted:

Like 90% of the people who claim native ancestry probably don't have it either. It's a way for boring lily-white motherfuckers to pretend they're more exotic and interesting...which is funny considering plenty of people who claim native ancestry are racist as gently caress.

City of Tampa posted:

i dunno, they are both on a seesaw together so they're probably good friends just having a spirited political discussion, they probably bonded over their shared desire to smell bad and to look like they smell bad

Roylicious posted:

Actually there are Brits who think this. The logic is that 'well if we are voting for the future of our country and they are already retired and whatnot then surely it matters more to the youth who this vote will actually affect?' Gordon Ramsay actually said that in an AMA yesterday.

It's not necessarily flawed logic although it is kinda not ever going to happen that way ever ever.

spud posted:

We should have let 10x more in to spite the boomers. That will show them.

Decebal posted:

Jesus, someone actually considering democracy bad and trying to make the idea palatable.

Why isn't there any outrage about this ? If Trump wrote something like that lol

The Enlightened Elites guiding the Commoners. Just bring back the Peer system then

quote:

What kind of democracy is appropriate to an era of fast, decentralised communication? How should the government deal with all those articulate citizens who stand shouting from the sidelines?

Imagine having to develop a system today that would express the will of the people. Would it really be a good idea to have them all queue up at polling stations every four or five years with a bit of card in their hands and go into a dark booth to put a mark next to names on a list, names of people about whom restless reporting had been going on for months in a commercial environment that profits from restlessness?

People care deeply about their communities and want to be heard. But a much better way to let the people speak than through a referendum is to return to the central principle of Athenian democracy: drafting by lot, or sortition as it is presently called. In ancient Athens, the large majority of public functions were assigned by lot. Renaissance states such as Venice and Florence worked on the same basis and experienced centuries of political stability. With sortition, you do not ask everyone to vote on an issue few people really understand, but you draft a random sample of the population and make sure they come to the grips with the subject matter in order to take a sensible decision. A cross-section of society that is informed can act more coherently than an entire society that is uninformed.

Experiments with sortition have been successfully applied in the US, Australia, and the Netherlands. The most innovative country so far is certainly Ireland. In December 2012, a constitutional convention began work in order to revise several articles of the constitution of Ireland. Its members were not just a committee of MPs working behind closed doors, but a mixture of elected politicians and ordinary people: 33 elected politicians and 66 citizens, drafted by lot, from both Ireland and Northern Ireland. This group met one weekend per month for more than a year.

An independent research bureau put together the random group of 66 citizens, taking account of age, sex and place of birth. The diversity this produced was helpful when it came to discussing such subjects as same-sex marriage, the rights of women or the ban on blasphemy in the current constitution. However, they did not do all this alone: participants listened to experts and received input from other citizens (more than a thousand contributions came in on the subject of gay marriage). The decisions made by the convention did not have the force of law; the recommendations first had to be passed by the two chambers of the Irish parliament, then by the government and then in a referendum.

By talking to a diverse cross-section of Irish society, politicians could get further than they could have by just talking to each other. By exchanging views with elected officials, citizens could give much more relevant input than they could have in an election or a referendum.

What if this procedure had been applied in the UK last week? What if a random sample of citizens had a chance to learn from experts, listen to proposals, talk to each other and engage with politicians? What if a mixed group of elected and drafted citizens had thought the matter through? What if the rest of society could have had a chance to follow and contribute to their deliberations? What if the proposal this group would have come up with had been subjected to public scrutiny? Do we think a similarly reckless decision would have been taken?


Sortition could provide a remedy to the democratic fatigue syndrome that we see everywhere today. The drawing of lots is not a miracle cure any more than elections ever were, but it can help correct a number of the faults in the current system. The risk of corruption is reduced, election fever abates and attention to the common good increases. Voting on the basis of gut feeling is replaced by sensible deliberation, as those who have been drafted are exposed to expert opinion, objective information and public debate. Citizens chosen by lot may not have the expertise of professional politicians, but they add something vital to the process: freedom. After all, they don’t need to be elected or re-elected.

Juries for criminal trials that are chosen by lot prove that people generally take their task extremely seriously. The fear of a chamber that behaves recklessly or irresponsibly is unfounded. If we agree that 12 people can decide in good faith about the freedom or imprisonment of a fellow citizen, then we can be confident that a number of them can and will serve the interests of the community in a responsible manner.

If many countries rely on the principle of sortition in the criminal justice system, why not rely on it in the legislative system? We already use a lottery like this every day, but we use it in the worst possible form: public opinion polling. As the American political scientist James Fishkin famously remarked: “In a poll, we ask people what they think when they don’t think. It would be more interesting to ask what they think after they had a chance to think.”

Democracy is not, by definition, government by the best, elected or not. It flourishes precisely by allowing a diversity of voices to be heard. It is all about having an equal say, an equal right to determine what political action is taken.

In order to keep democracy alive, we will have to learn that democracy cannot be reduced to voting alone. Elections and referendums become dangerously outmoded tools if they are not enriched with more sensible forms of citizens’ participation. Structured deliberation with a random sample of citizens promises to generate a more vital, dynamic and inclusive form of democracy. In Utrecht, the fourth city of the Netherlands, the city council now drafts by lot 150 citizens to co-create its sustainable energy plan. These processes may become a permanent feature of any modern democracy.

The most common argument against sortition is the supposed incompetence of the those who have not been elected. A body of elected representatives undoubtedly has more technical competencies than a body chosen by lot. But what is the use of a parliament full of highly educated lawyers if few of them know the price of bread?

Besides, the elected do not know everything. They need staff and researchers to fill the gaps in their expertise. In much the same way, a representative body chosen by lot would not stand alone. It could invite experts, rely on professionals to moderate debates and put questions to citizens. Legislation could arise from the interaction between it and an elected chamber.

The arguments put forward against sortition are often identical to the reasons once put forward for not allowing peasants, workers or women to vote. Then, too, opponents claimed it would mark the end of democracy. Do we think Brexit might still have been possible if citizens had been truly invited to express their grievances and search for solutions together with those they had voted for?

If David Cameron had opted for the genuine participation of citizens, he would have obtained a much clearer view of what people really wanted, a powerful list of shared priorities, an agenda for further negotiations, and created much less distrust between the masses and the ruling class. On top of that, he would have gained global admiration for daring to tackle a complex challenge by an innovative process that values people’s voices instead of counting their votes. He could have set a new standard for democracy, rather than serving as its gravedigger.

Ewan posted:

Mate, that's Ewan McGregor. He can wear whatever the gently caress he likes.

EL BROMANCE posted:

It's not even a particularly uncommon name.

Saint Isaias Boner posted:

i don't agree since democratic mandates are routinely twisted or interpreted in whatever direction politicians feel like without descending into fascism but I think it would be very dangerous for the political class to attempt to go against this referendum by, for instance, trying for a deal that allows for free movement of people. The referendum campaign unleashed forces that they can't control and if they're thwarted again will cause them to flock to any far right movement that shows up to exploit the obvious weakness of the British political system.

blowfish posted:

doesn't actually change: trade with countries outside the EU

whatever7 posted:

Is EU still the largest "single market" 'after UK gently caress off?

Can UK and US form a bigger "single market"?

Young Freud posted:

It's definitely outdated but almost never used correctly to begin with, especially with the "third world".

Young Freud posted:

I never heard of "fourth world" until today but you're right, it feels like there should be something for migrant or stateless populations, especially today.

I never knew there was a "second world" (which was used to describe Communist countries at the time) or what it meant even though I heard "first world" and "third world" constantly. And, of course, "third world" is pretty much a poisoned word, since it usually prefaces "shithole" or "hellhole" or some sort of descriptor for poor economic conditions instead of just being a country unaligned with the West or a former colony.

Moridin920 posted:

you know this is kinda like reading /r/relationships where I go 'jesus christ have some loving self respect man' but on a nation-state level

the gently caress is wrong with you people over there why is that even still a thing that exists?

Chichevache posted:

What stops a robot with a bomb?