UK General Discussion Thread: mayy lmao

[they don't love you like i love you]

So Tony, if you were a member of the Wisconsin legislature in 2007, would you fight to instate the death penalty? If you were an official in California's government around 2012 or so, would you fight against legalizing gay marriage?

...seriously?

The analogies fit. Wisconsin voted to reinstate the death penalty in 2006. California voted to ban gay marriage via Prop 8.

[Antonio the Sixth]

So Tony, if you were a member of the Wisconsin legislature in 2007, would you fight to instate the death penalty? If you were an official in California's government around 2012 or so, would you fight against legalizing gay marriage?

...seriously?

The analogies fit. Wisconsin voted to reinstate the death penalty in 2006. California voted to ban gay marriage via Prop 8.

No they don't. There is a myriad of differences between those referendums and the Brexit vote and I really don't think it's worth listing them all, but one of the most obvious one is that it was organized through the PM's initiative and the consent of the Parliament.

[they don't love you like i love you]

So Tony, if you were a member of the Wisconsin legislature in 2007, would you fight to instate the death penalty? If you were an official in California's government around 2012 or so, would you fight against legalizing gay marriage?

...seriously?

The analogies fit. Wisconsin voted to reinstate the death penalty in 2006. California voted to ban gay marriage via Prop 8.

No they don't. There is a myriad of differences between those referendums and the Brexit vote and I really don't think it's worth listing them all, but one of the most obvious one is that it was organized through the PM's initiative and the consent of the Parliament.

A PM of the opposing party.

[ag]

So Tony, if you were a member of the Wisconsin legislature in 2007, would you fight to instate the death penalty? If you were an official in California's government around 2012 or so, would you fight against legalizing gay marriage?

...seriously?

The analogies fit. Wisconsin voted to reinstate the death penalty in 2006. California voted to ban gay marriage via Prop 8.

No they don't. There is a myriad of differences between those referendums and the Brexit vote and I really don't think it's worth listing them all, but one of the most obvious one is that it was organized through the PM's initiative and the consent of the Parliament.

And why is that at all important?

[ag]

Is the idea that the representatives of the people should abide by the decisions of the majority really that weird?

It is not so much weird, as simply wrong.

Who knew that "modern pragmatic centrists of the 21st century " would be the ones to resurrect Burke and Maistre?

I have always thought of myself as a (small-"c") conservative. It is the conservatism that moved, not me.

Likewise, I have always viewed referenda, especially nationwide referenda, as deeply objectionable within the framework of representative democracy. There is a reason we elect parliaments.

[Antonio the Sixth]

We can debate as long as we want about the merits of referenda. However, when a referendum on such a highly salient and fundamental issue is called by the holders of representative democratic legitimacy, when it gives rise to a campaign that dominates all political debates for almost a year, when the basic stakes are made extremely clear (even if the greater implications might not be), then yes, the result of such referendum is morally binding.

[ag]

We can debate as long as we want about the merits of referenda. However, when a referendum on such a highly salient and fundamental issue is called by the holders of representative democratic legitimacy, when it gives rise to a campaign that dominates all political debates for almost a year, when the basic stakes are made extremely clear (even if the greater implications might not be), then yes, the result of such referendum is morally binding.

On the PM Cameron, yes. So, he did the right thing and resigned. Not on anybody else: and, definitely, not on the opposition. I can see no "moral" reason anybody has to do the wrong thing here.

[they don't love you like i love you]

I mean Tony's argument might make an ounce of sense for members of the PM who allowed the referendum's party but sure not for opposition. Especially if it's someone who opposed allowing the vote in the first place.

[Phony Moderate]

Yeah, there is a school of thought that believes in referenda only on issues of constitutional significance - EU, voting system, devolution and so on. Such people would vote with their conscience on the issues that BRTD mentioned because they don't believe that referenda should be held on those issues.

[Silent Hunter]

So Tony, if you were a member of the Wisconsin legislature in 2007, would you fight to instate the death penalty? If you were an official in California's government around 2012 or so, would you fight against legalizing gay marriage?

...seriously?

The analogies fit. Wisconsin voted to reinstate the death penalty in 2006. California voted to ban gay marriage via Prop 8.

In the UK House of Commons, those are considered conscience issues and they generally aren't even whipped votes.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Specifying once again that unlike Antonio I don't think MPs are morally obliged to vote any particular way, I still fail to see how what ag is arguing doesn't communicate some degree of contempt for democracy and, yes, desire to prove everything UKIP has been saying about the oligarchical, paternalistic unresponsiveness of the British governing class absolutely correct. I also don't know where to begin with his contention that a referendum should have consequences only for the career of the prime minister who called it. It's so transparently ludicrous that it's hard to believe he seriously believes it.

Yeah, there is a school of thought that believes in referenda only on issues of constitutional significance - EU, voting system, devolution and so on. Such people would vote with their conscience on the issues that BRTD mentioned because they don't believe that referenda should be held on those issues.

There's also the moral/prudential issue to consider. Leaving the EU was always going to be a bad idea, but it's not an intrinsic moral dispute.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Honestly, my main issue with Labour MPs' votes isn't even mainly a moral one. Above all, I just think it looks terrible. It looks terrible when you see the right-wing party perfectly unified in being willing to ratify the people's decision (even though, within that party, we all know that a majority view the people with the utmost contempt and think it was a horrible decision) whereas the left-wing party is split in half and the only voices for what is effectively the "f**k the voters" option come from that party. In a way, I'd accept their vote a lot better if this had been framed as political vote in which even Tories had felt free to vote their conscience (even though I'd still hope it passes). But as it stands, all those Labour MPs did was empty posturing - for a cause that has already lost, no less.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

OK, consider this. Should an MP whose constituency voted overwhelmingly against Brexit be obliged to vote to make a path for it? Each MP represents her or his own constituency, not general electorate.

The situation here is weird anyway. What's the point of having a referendum if its results can be possibly blocked by parliament? You either do a truly biding one or you don't waste time and money.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Re: the last couple of pages of discussion:  Is it totally reactionary of me to argue that "public opinion" (which, for what little it's worth, was invented as an industry by men who explicitly stated their belief that the "masses" in an increasingly democratic society must be subject to what they referred to - without any trace of irony - as Propaganda)  can be - and is - easily manipulated by unscrupulous actors?

[Vosem]

How do we live in times where I agree much more often with Antonio than with Vosem now?

It seems that, while we perhaps have a great deal of agreement on the policy ends we would like to see, we have much less agreement on the means, or perhaps on our priorities.

Anyway, I'm a bit agnostic as to the topic of the discussion at hand. Certainly, if the government made a promise to abide by the results of the referendum -- and the government did -- then the government indeed should abide by it, and if it feels that it cannot, then it should step down and either call for new elections or allow a new government to be formed. I understand where ag is coming from about the results only being binding on David Cameron, but the May government is a direct continuation of his, and the promises he made are clearly still in effect. If, hypothetically, an election were to be held tomorrow and the Conservatives were swept out of power, the new government would not have to abide by the results of the referendum, especially if it campaigned against it.

The idea that voting against a referendum, or holding an opinion that contradicts it, is somehow anti-democratic is ludicrous, and it's one that I've only even seen emerge in the past few years. The US has had a long serious of referenda about gay marriage or marijuana legalization, and no politician ever changed their mind because of the result of a referendum, nor would he ever be expected to. We have a somewhat different political culture, with the separation of the executive branch of government from the legislative, but...still. This is especially the case if a referendum had a close and not-particularly-decisive result, like the Brexit referendum (where Cameron was very stupid, and not clever at all, to not impose a turnout or super-majority requirement; Scottish referenda, for instance, typically require at least 40% of the electorate to vote yes to pass, which would've made Brexit nigh impossible).

As for referenda in general...I tend to think the basic idea of representative democracy is to elect representatives who can make educate decisions on behalf of the populace. Direct democracy can sometimes have a very positive effect, such as with the marijuana legalization referenda in the United States, but just as frequently it hands down decisions that are ridiculous (recall the fluoride referendum in Portland a few years ago, where a small minority of committed anti-fluoride advocates essentially condemned the city to poor dental health in a low-turnout referendum) or clearly deletrious to the public good; the point of having elected representatives is so that decisions like that don't get through. I don't see what's even so controversial about this concept -- in the US, I was taught this in the 8th grade, and it's considered a fundamental idea for any civics course, even a pre-high school one. Otherwise, why not have referenda for everything? What's the purpose of a legislature at all?

Honestly, my main issue with Labour MPs' votes isn't even mainly a moral one. Above all, I just think it looks terrible. It looks terrible when you see the right-wing party perfectly unified in being willing to ratify the people's decision (even though, within that party, we all know that a majority view the people with the utmost contempt and think it was a horrible decision) whereas the left-wing party is split in half and the only voices for what is effectively the "f**k the voters" option come from that party. In a way, I'd accept their vote a lot better if this had been framed as political vote in which even Tories had felt free to vote their conscience (even though I'd still hope it passes). But as it stands, all those Labour MPs did was empty posturing - for a cause that has already lost, no less.

These sorts of opinions fade quickly; consider how overwhelmingly the American public supported the Iraq invasion in 2003 and how willing it was to reward its opponents just 5 years later. If you really think Brexit will backfire (as you seem to), this is definitely the right call from a political standpoint. Unless you're questioning the vote from a moral standpoint?

I mean Tony's argument might make an ounce of sense for members of the PM who allowed the referendum's party but sure not for opposition. Especially if it's someone who opposed allowing the vote in the first place.

Certainly on issues of constitutional significance (like withdrawing from the EU), it would perhaps be legitimate to seek public input, but certainly only to ratify a decision that's already been made; otherwise you get the tyranny of the 50% + 1 taking absolute power. As seems to be happening in Britain today, more or less.

So Tony, if you were a member of the Wisconsin legislature in 2007, would you fight to instate the death penalty? If you were an official in California's government around 2012 or so, would you fight against legalizing gay marriage?

...seriously?

Yes, seriously. What's the difference between American referenda and European referenda that disrespecting the latter means that you're disrespecting The People while in America there are issues on which both parties are in agreement against what The People think? I'm in agreement with you that the fact that it was organized by the government makes it binding on that government, but certainly not on the opposition, I would imagine.

You know I'm about as pro-EU as a left-winger could possibly be these days, but all those Labour MPs voting against article 50 are pathetic.

They happen to be the only honest Labour MPs.

TIL the role of an MP is to rule her constituents, not to put their desires into practice in the best-intentioned and most expedient way possible or any ~populist~ nonsense like that. How Burkean of you!

The role of an MP should be (isn't nowadays, but should be) to work towards the long-term public good. Full stop. No ifs, ands, or buts. It's also a bit disingenuous to suggest that "the constituents" of Labour MPs support Brexit; in very many cases, they don't. Also, while Brexit is a much less dramatic case, "put their desires into place" has had a tendency historically to lead to appeasement and minority repression. The reason democracy exists is so that tyrannical governments can be removed non-violently, not so that immediate popular will, which is very fleeting anyway, gets enacted.

Also, since when has "Burkean" been an insult? Burke is fantastic and still incredibly relevant in the modern day.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I think there are a few different general attitudes towards the wishes of one's constituents that one can have, from "following your own conscience and trusting they'll just vote you out if they're super-unhappy with it" (which seems to be your preference) to what Kirsten Gillibrand does (which I think gets a bad rap) to following the "public will" in general, at least on prudential issues. I don't think any is necessarily better or worse than the others; as I've said already, I'm just reacting against the idea that the latter is, either always or in this particular situation, somehow automatically horrifyingly inappropriate. You're right that there are plenty of Labour MPs whose constituencies voted against Brexit, but there are also plenty whose constituencies voted for it, and I'm not sure enough of the exact numbers to really argue on that count.

"Burkean" wasn't intended as an insult as such; I just wasn't sure if ag was aware of the profound conservatism of what he was suggesting.

[ChrisDR68]

I can't be the only one who thinks the result was quite impressive for Remain - the EU has never been loved at all yet over 16 million came out and voted for it. Polls a few years ago were showing around a 20-point lead for the exit side in a (then) hypothetical referendum.

In retrospect I think that's correct especially when looking at opinion polls in the UK with regard to this issue since 1977:



When adding in the ongoing Greek crisis which shows no sign at all of being solved and by extension the problems inherent with the Euro single currency and the fairly obvious ambition of the EU in the medium and long term to create a United States Of Europe, 48% in favour of remaining in the EU in the referendum was quite a good result for Cameron, Osborne and co.

[ag]

I still fail to see how what ag is arguing doesn't communicate some degree of contempt for democracy

Well, to begin with, I find referenda to be inherently anti-democratic. Should I continue?

[ag]

"Burkean" wasn't intended as an insult as such; I just wasn't sure if ag was aware of the profound conservatism of what he was suggesting.

You can trust that, as a good "small-c", conservative I am

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I still fail to see how what ag is arguing doesn't communicate some degree of contempt for democracy

Well, to begin with, I find referenda to be inherently anti-democratic. Should I continue?

.........................................

[Blair]

Am hearing lots and lots of chatter from Labor friends/twitter that Corbyn could be on his way out either in the Spring or the Summer, and that bids are being put together. Not sure how true it it is but the combination of Brexit+by elections, and the continued struggle of the Corbyn project could make it true

[Hnv1]

Am hearing lots and lots of chatter from Labor friends/twitter that Corbyn could be on his way out either in the Spring or the Summer, and that bids are being put together. Not sure how true it it is but the combination of Brexit+by elections, and the continued struggle of the Corbyn project could make it true

Long-Bailey as the corbynite successor? Doubt she can poll the leadership elections through

[White Trash]

I still fail to see how what ag is arguing doesn't communicate some degree of contempt for democracy

Well, to begin with, I find referenda to be inherently anti-democratic. Should I continue?

LOL

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Supposedly May is operating under the assumption a Scottish referendum will be called in the next fortnight or so.

[Serenity Now]

Am hearing lots and lots of chatter from Labor friends/twitter that Corbyn could be on his way out either in the Spring or the Summer, and that bids are being put together. Not sure how true it it is but the combination of Brexit+by elections, and the continued struggle of the Corbyn project could make it true

A source close to Corbyn has told the Telegraph that the claim is ‘absolutely untrue’ FWIW:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/08/brexit-debate-vote-live-theresa-may-pmqs/