[Closed] EU Referendum - are you in or out?

seosamh77 - Member

I disagree, my reasons are stated above.

Your reasons are a defense of totalitarianism not democracy "It might be unrepresentative and undemocratic but at least it gives strong leadership. And governments can get on with the job without interference from the electorate"

irelanst - Member

At least Cameron waited until the pig was dead!

Well played 😆 (point of order, the pig [i]could[/i] be dead in my example too)

😆 shoosh, you're making a tadger of yourself with that comment.

Really? Your defence of "majority rule" by a minority:

seosamh77 - Member

is it better to have a system of majority rules? So then government can get on with a specific stated job with out interference etc.

The "interference" is from the majority of the electorate.

totalitarianism? 😆

If the majority could agree they would easily have their way.

btw, PR gives undue influence to tiny parties, a lot more easily than FPTP can. where's the "democracy" in that?

I'm voting to stay because I think the EU is progressive. Every thought experiment I've done tells me that leaving is regressive.

But more than this, I think a vote to leave will end up with no one getting what they want. We still need to trade with the EU. The examples of trading treaties and zones without EU membership - Switzerland and Norway - both have to make contributions to the EU budget and have to accept freedom of movement as part of those deals.

As far as I see it, we leave we end up with the people who voted to leave wondering why they've not stopped freedom of movement or contributing to the EU budget and the people who voted to stay pissed off that we no longer have a seat at the table. Oh and there's an unnecessary recession which makes us even more miserable (see Switzerland before negotiating its trade deals).

The more I think about it this referendum is a dangerous opportunity to score a massive own goal.

seosamh77 - Member

If the majority could agree they would easily have their way.

Ah, I was waiting for "Of course their votes count- they just have to vote for a different party than the one they actually want". And there it goes.

You miss my point, when I raised totalitarianism. At no point did I suggest that's what we have; but your attempt to defend our undemocratic election process is exactly the argument used to defend dictatorships. Strong government! Effective! No interference from the majority of the people! And no wonder.

You're searching for some kind of utopia, it doesn't exist. You either set up your systems so that means largely coalitions that need to compromise. Or you set up the system so it tends towards one party rule.

Both systems have their benefits and pitfalls. Neither are more or less democratic.

Put it this way, say the last election was PR and we ended up with a coalition government of UKIP, DUP and the Tories? Where's the democracy in UKIP or the DUP causing deadlock until the tories granted them some of their twisting fantasies?

PR being some kind of zenith of democracy is nonsense, it may work in scotland, due to the middle of the road parties generally wanting to work in the spirit of co-operarion... but that's a fairly skewed example imo, scottish politics is pretty vanilla in flavour.

seosamh77 - Member

Neither are more or less democratic.

A system that makes millions of votes irrelevant is less democratic than one that doesn't. And a system that allows a minority vote to create a majority govenment is less democratic than one that doesn't. Simple statements of fact. I suppose it's easy to be blase about disenfranchisement and lack of representation when your vote is one of the ones that counts.

seosamh77 - Member

Put it this way, say the last election was PR and we ended up with a coalition government of UKIP, DUP and the Tories? Where's the democracy in UKIP or the DUP causing deadlock until the tories granted them some of their twisting fantasies?

What's stopping the tories from working with other parties?

I feel like I'm having an argument with someone that insists neither black or white are more or less black than the other. There [i]are[/i] benefits to white, and black has its problems. But that doesn't mean white is any more black.

A system that makes millions of votes irrelevant is less democratic than one that doesn't

True.

Where's the democracy in UKIP or the DUP causing deadlock until the tories granted them some of their twisting fantasies?

Also true.

The only question is which of these two evils is the lesser...?

As I understand one of the main reasons for FPTP's existence is to prevent a scenario as described (UKIP/DUP) ever coming into being. I am happy to be proved wrong.

So why not replace the HOL with a PR system, instead of one that's made up of Bishops, and businessmen who buy their peerages

PR gives undue influence to tiny parties, a lot more easily than FPTP can

mrlebowski - Member

exactly, dude. 😆 which is more or less is entirely open to interpretation. I happen to think it's much of a muchness, so either system works for me.

@Clover Switzerland and Norway export more than they import so it makes sense they would pay into the EU budget and accept things like freedom of movement, also remember Norway's government wanted to join (despote No vote in Referendum) so signed up to pretty much the whole shebang. In our case given we import so much more than we export surely the EU should pay us ?

@tmh as you well know @Edukator's chart shows that "Brexit" fx moves are small beer, a rounding error.

@mrleb its not out of the question to see UKIP with more MPs than the Lib Dems for example and holding sway in a coalition.

Northwind - Member
I suppose it's easy to be blase about disenfranchisement and lack of representation when your vote is one of the ones that counts.

in what planet, going by my posts on here, does it sound like i voted for either the SNP or the tories? 😆

Northwind - Member
What's stopping the tories from working with other parties?

Northwind - Member
I feel like I'm having an argument with someone that insists neither black or white are more or less black than the other. There are benefits to white, and black has its problems. But that doesn't mean white is any more black.

I'm not the one refusing to see the benefits or negatives of both systems. in balance, I believe they are much of a muchness. you seem to think different. We're allowed to disagree.

FWIW, I come from a position of once believing PR to be better, but I've changed my mind. so I'm not being beligerant for the sake of it, I have thought about it and came to my own conclusions. YMMV.

The Flying Ox - Member
The same experts that warned and warned and warned and warned about the 2008 crash?

molgrips - Member
No.

I'm going with 1). Hanlon's Razor and all that.

3, Recessions[ which IMHO are inevitable in capitalism] are much harder to predict that the consequences of leaving the EU on the world economy, our economy and the EU economy.

A doctor cannot say if a smoker will get cancer[ and some dont even if the Dr warned them] that does not mean its unwise of them to say smoking isn't good for your health and you should stop or you should ignire them if they do.

Its aweak argument you put fwd

you do so because you cannot negate their facts you just say NONE can predict the future 100% accurately for ever - well no shit. Thsi fact dies no tmean their prediction is false

A narrow view of what constitutes a democracy is what Robert Dahl termed a polyarchy which has elected officials, free and fair elections, inclusive suffrage, rights to run for office, freedom of expression, alternative information and associational autonomy. In widening their definition for the purpose of their indices, EIU and Freedom House take into account civil liberties etc. Neither Dahl nor the EIU nor Freedom House worry about the nature of the electoral system - I think it is therefore pretty safe to say that the nature of system does not effect how democratic a country is - of course it does effect how proportionate representation is which is a different thing.

It is not a failure of comprehension, you think a more proportional system equals greater democracy, I think you misunderstand what democracy means as a word.

We were debating whether all votes counts - do you wish to continue to debate this point or just do this ? you have nothing intellectual to give in a reply, and we both know this, and its not a controversial point i made.
Just Google strength and weakness of FPTP
I have no idea,belligerence aside, why you are now doing this.

The Debate for you to "forget again"

Me - Its hard to argue a system where not all votes count is fairer than a system where all votes do count

You - But all votes count in both systems hence they are democratic

Its still not true only votes for winners count and no amount of this will make your view correct. Its not really that big a deal so I am not sure why you need to do this. Educate yourself and move on- not all votes counting is a weakness of FPTP and only votes for winners count

Deal with this as you see fit but denial of facts seems the least sensible choice 😕

We were debating whether all votes counts

what a nonsense idea - all votes cannot 'count' - the only way to affect that would be to hold a referendum on every issue

we live in a representative democracy, we neither think nor support the idea of referenda on every issue, nor would we ever want it, democracy has been rightly called the tyranny of the majority - however that would have seen the continuation of the death sentence, the likely continued criminalisation of abortion, and more like than not the continuation of slavery and overt discrimination.

[img] [/img]

'the people' often actually don't know what they want, they'll vote for two contradictory policies or will vote for things that really are quite illiberal, based upon pure emotion or habit - do you think that the seatbelt laws were popular at the time? drink driving laws?

The example of our current government is a good one - the 'will of the people' wishes to tackle the deficit, but also doesn't want cuts, they want the police to do more to make the roads safer, but don't want to be pulled over for speeding, they want to tackle homelessness, but don't want to see their house prices drop, and they want to reduce alcoholism, but don't want to see minimum prices. The 'will of the people' is often intelligent enough to see what is best for it in the long term, but in the short term, like turkeys, they are unwilling to vote for christmas.

You want democracy? You can't handle democracy!

seosamh77 - Member

in what planet, going by my posts on here, does it sound like i voted for either the SNP or the tories?

None- you don't have to be, to avoid getting the worst of FPTP. Most voters find their party may gain or lose by FPTP, and this alternates. But I think it's correct to say, nobody in modern times has lost out to the extent UKIP voters have, with the greens a distant second. There's been a lack of graphs in this thread, I dedicate this to Junkyard

[img] [/img]

seosamh77 - Member

the point still stands about smaller parties gaining undue influence, doesn't matter if there are UKIP, DUP, Lib Dems, Greens or the monster raving loony party.

UKIP aren't a "smaller party", they're the 3rd biggest in the UK, with over 10% of the vote. You're not talking about giving them undue influence, you're talking about not wanting them to have their [i]due [/i]influence. Meanwhile, the largest parties have the undue influence and that's far more troublesome because they already hold most of the cards.

seosamh77 - Member

I'm not the one refusing to see the benefits or negatives of both systems.

Do you really think that's what I'm doing? I specifically said that both systems have advantages. Less democratic and undemocratic systems have huge benefits (we'd quite likely have lost ww2 if we'd not had a murderous fascist on our side) Democracy frankly is a liability at times, and almost always a massive inconvenience. If the goal was just to run a country, it's a terrible way to do it.

The benefits of FPTP come at the cost of proportionality and representation, both of which are fundamental to meaningful democracy. And there's a fine line here, between accepting this cost but believing it's worth it, and just pretending there's no cost. Maybe I'm wrong but you don't seem comfortable with the undemocratic aspects.

Believing that a less democratic system is worth it for a more functional government is a position I can respect, but disagree with. Claiming that it's no less democratic, I can't.

There are measureable differences, but depending on how you measure things you can come to different conclusions, both look attractive depending on your view point. But ultimately, they're systems based on extremely narrow party politics, so both are fundamentally flawed, before you even kick a baw.

The alternative, I dunno. But I know PR isn't going to fix our democracy, or the political landscape we live under. People are clearly motivated by fear and that will always win out, regardless of system.

It's why, I reckon, if the polls are sitting 50:50 come this vote, out will ultimately lose as people will shit it from change at the last minute if they we inclined to vote out. Just so happens that fear will work in favour of the way I want to vote this time.

My basic point is, really we should be looking at more inventive and progressive ways of improving our democracy, as giving ukip some seats isn't the answer.

The example of our current government is a good one - the 'will of the people' wishes to tackle the deficit, but also doesn't want cuts

And you persist with the myth that the only way to tackle the deficit is to have "cuts".

That's despite the fact that it's failed.

People refusing to accept the Tory narrative which uses the excuse of a deficit to cut social spending is not an example of supporting two contradictory policies.

Specially when they see this :

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/17/uk-tax-costs-government-16bn-each-year-audit-report-says ]UK tax fraud costs government £16bn a year, audit report says[/url]

And money spunked on hungry profiteers :

[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/money/loans-credit/crippling-pfi-deals-leave-britain-222bn-in-debt-10170214.html ]Crippling PFI deals leave Britain £222bn in debt[/url]

Perhaps also a growing awareness that over the last 90 years the UK has almost always had a budget deficit.

And that getting people back to work cuts the deficit.

In the same way that growing unemployment increases the deficit.

Austerity is a [u]choice.[/u]

Just like increasing taxation is also a choice.

Yep, you're absolutely right - Tory narrative totally wrong about austerity, complete and utter lies that were rejected by the public at the last election, you can have it all if you really want it, wah, wah, wah...

jam today and jam tomorrow, jam forever more

Corbyn riding in to save the day on wave of popularity

etc.

The only thing wrong with the Tory narrative is that there is no alternative to austerity. There is, I just gave two examples that would reduce the deficit, ie, reduce tax fraud and stop handing money over to private companies.

Plus of course they contradicted themselves in 2010 by claiming they were putting up VAT to reduce the deficit. So it turns out that tax increases can reduce the deficit, according to the Tories.

Plus as I pointed out that as people get back into work the deficit will naturally reduce......less unemployment benefit is paid and more tax is collected.

Apart from those small details there's nothing wrong with the Tory narrative that there is no alternative to austerity.

Of course if the Tories really knew how to tackle a budget deficit, or even cared, we wouldn't have had deficits for most of the last 90 years. After all no party has been in power more for the last 90 years than the Tories.

3, Recessions[ which IMHO are inevitable in capitalism] are much harder to predict that the consequences of leaving the EU on the world economy, our economy and the EU economy.

Apart from those small details there's nothing wrong with the Tory narrative that there is no alternative to austerity.

Yes there is - its false. The Tories are running a relatively loose fiscal policy compared with other developed and lower growth economies.

They haven't cut spending - spending has been reduced as a % of GDP but only towards recent levels
They continue to spend more than they receive - run a budget deficit - why not, we are in a period of low growth?
They haven't cut the deficit in half - they have reduced the deficit as a % of GDP (naughty spinning which Dave and George have been pulled up for in the past)
The level of givernment debt continues to rise.

And that's "AUSTERITY" - just shows the level of conditioning that people have been exposed to.

Plus they have not pretended that the only policy is cuts. It's obvious that the deficit is the difference between expenditure and revenue and much has been made of why revenue patters have been difficult to forecast and/or archived, not least in the context of this thread the relatively weak economic performance of our largest trading partners.

Anyway back to more Brexit BS......

Its because you are trying really hard not to

We have el nino years and we have non el nino years

We cannot predict when we will have an el nino year but we can predictw what will happen when we do

In this case we are saying here lets put some massive stress or action if you prefer neutrality on the economy and being asked What will happen
As we know the trigger we can say what the consequences will be hence the unanimity [ except for those who want to leave, No one neutral is saying anything other than the same thing - hence you do this lame attack.

you can keep comparing chalk with cheese and making sophist arguments if you like- I suspect you do like it.

So we can't predict el nino, only the effects of el nino, and yet we can predict both when a recession (which you previously said are much harder to predict) will occur and the effects of the recession.

And I'm the one comparing chalk and cheese.

@mrleb its not out of the question to see UKIP with more MPs than the Lib Dems for example and holding sway in a coalition.

I can only hope that particular little horror story never comes to be...

Plus they have not pretended that the only policy is cuts.

No of course not, they are pretending that there is no alternative to cuts.

They are pretending that the deficit can't be reduced without enforced cuts, as opposed to naturally occurring expenditure cuts which come with falling unemployment or implementation of a living wage.

Ninfan parrots this Tory myth and expects everyone to swallow it without question. Then he wonders why they haven't.

And of course you are right THM, the Tories have failed in stated aim of clearing the deficit by last year, abysmally in fact. As I said, the other thing about cuts in expenditure is that it doesn't work as claimed. If it did then today Greece would have an economy the envy of Europe.

The FT, which knows about this sort of stuff, said after the chancellor's autumn statement :

[i]George Osborne has denied that his Autumn Statement marked the end of austerity, insisting there were still difficult decisions to take with billions of pounds to be cut from public spending and welfare.[/i]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eb1b710c-9419-11e5-b190-291e94b77c8f.html#axzz4B4AH3iPk

Righto. So based on your answer I see two possibilities here:

I think you are comparing two very different things indeed.

To go with the weather forecasting analogy - if you see a massive rainstorm approaching on the radar, you predict very well that it is going to rain in a specific town to the hour. However with showery conditions those same forecasters cannot predict to the hour when it will rain in that same town.

Are they bad forecasters? No, they are as good as we can get, but the point is that the conditions causing the rain are completely different.

So the same economists predicting recession here are doing so based on entirely different conditions than in 2008. But then again, a lot of people predicted a recession shortly after the financial crisis in 2007 - it's the crisis that many people didn't predict, not the recession 🙂 The referendum though does not need predicting, it's scheduled, and it has one of two outcomes.

Haven't followed this thread, but Sarah Wollaston all over the news today - I'm amazed its taken this long for someone to say how crap the Leave campaign leaflets were with their - £250million could go to the NHS headline.
I'm sure it was[s] months[/s] weeks ago I binned that leaflet!

No of course not, they are pretending that there is no alternative to cuts...
...Ninfan parrots this Tory myth and expects everyone to swallow it without question.

Really?.

Five years plus now I've been pointing out that the cuts were a willo-the-wisp, and that government spending hasn't actually fallen.

Still, not like anyone ever listens to me:

Don't be silly - Cameoron's got the next election sown up already - why do you think there's been no Referendum on Europe? because thats the promise he'll deliver in the next election manifesto, job jobbed.

Which lies happily in time for Boris to take over mid second term, to take the third win.

[url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/too-tory-or-not-tory-enough ]POSTED 4 YEARS AGO # REPORT POST[/url]

😆

Ernie you are right budgetery responsibility ("austerity") to you is a choice, its the best choice, realistically its the only choice. Lets look at the alternatives

Cut tax fraud - we are trying to do that already, all governments of all colours. However like all crime we will always have tax fraud and evasion.

Invest to grow the econony, thus sounds great but almost certainly wouldn't work as all you'll get is a short term boost for the money spent and a larger national debt thus making worse the original problem

Spending cuts are direct, they reduce your outgoings. Planned tax rises and cutting fraud/evasion are somewhat speculative, you don't know how they are going to turn out. We can see numerous examples of countries which just kept on borrowing, sooner or later the music stops and you can borrow no more. Game over.

realistically its[austerity] the only choice

Economic "necessity" of the EU.

If it's so successful why has no other region of the world replicated it ? There are free trade areas, there are organisations such as the GCC and ASEAN but no where has tried to replicate what has been done in Europe expanding the organisation far beyond trade and creating a Frankenstein currency cobbled together of widely disparate economies and without a brain. Each limb just does its own thing.

There is a reason the EU being unique, its not a good idea.

Junky there is no other choice, the downside risk of spedning more to grow the economy which then fails (which it could do for reasons beyond our control like an EU recession) means game over. Country bust. Deleveraging is slow and painfull and realistically we have not really felt the pain yet. We have far to go.

Good questions - if its so crap why has no one left then and why do those in Europe, outwith the EU, join the ETA to effectively be in the market

Go on then what is the answer?

There is a reason LEAVING the EU being unique, its not a good idea

The "argument" works both ways.

as for ASEAN - how wrong can a person be - your ability to produce evidence that refutes your opinion is incredibly impressive

Its basically the EU in Asia but 30 ish years younger

On 15 December 2008, the members of ASEAN met in the Indonesian capital of Jakarta to launch a charter, signed in November 2007, with the aim of moving closer to "an EU-style community".[28] The charter turned ASEAN into a legal entity and aimed to create a single free-trade area for the region encompassing 500 million people. President of Indonesia Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono stated: "This is a momentous development when ASEAN is consolidating, integrating, and transforming itself into a community. It is achieved while ASEAN seeks a more vigorous role in Asian and global affairs at a time when the international system is experiencing a seismic shift". Referring to climate change and economic upheaval, he concluded: "Southeast Asia is no longer the bitterly divided, war-torn region it was in the 1960s and 1970s

Junky there is no other choice

As much shes upset with all the lies, I think Wollaston has seen which way the wind is blowing,

followinng a vote for remain the VoteLeave camp would have a lot of explaining to do regarding the depths of dishonesty theyve sunk to

I wonder what other Leavers might jump ship, before the 23rd,
Borris will be thinking how he can come out of this looking clean, its obviously always been about his career

There a lots of economic theories but on a really simplistic level answers to stagnation are:

Keynes: Public spending in areas which stimulate the circular flow of income the most, that'll be housing and infrastructure then. Current policy = limit housing development through planning restrictions that make land unavailable or not affordable (the house builders cartel holds the land and does nothing with it).

Monetarist: cut interest rates and print money. This has its limits as once you have 1% interest rates and a market flooded with money you have no more ammunition left. One of the reasons is that the ability to borrow huge sums leads to speculation in things like land that put it out of the reach of those who might use it for building so there is no building and thus no stimulus.

There is a reason the EU being unique, its not a good idea.

Pillock. There's only one Eu cos there's only one Europe. By which I mean only one of our continents has evolved in this particular way to this particular point.

"pillock". Silly insults again, Molgrips. It really doent't help your argument.

It's just linguistic garnish. You can ignore it if you like, my point is still there and it still stands.

I think you are comparing two very different things... it's the crisis that many people didn't predict, not the recession