Philosophy Discussion Forums

Burning ghost:

Would you say that the only "actual Democracy" is direct Democracy? Is Representative Democracy not also a form of actual Democracy? It seems to me that there is no obvious, objectively existing dividing line between the two. The extent to which the public delegates decision making to elected representatives is a matter of debate, with no clear right answer.

On the referendum: It was agreed by act of Parliament (and therefore agreed by our elected representatives) that a single referendum would take place. That referendum has now happened. If we then decide we're going to have more referendums to decide on details, how far are we going to take that?



Advice to Togo1:

Just call it "campaign rhetoric". Seems to work.

As an example let us look at th Iraq war. If the public could have force the government in th UK to put it to the national vote then the UK may have never been invloved.

For me democracy is about the people of a nation being able to legally petition the government and demand a national vote. This not only put more responsibility on the government to inform the public about its decisions, but adds political resppnaibility to the people.

In Switzerland the people can start a petition and if they get enough people to sign in within a certain perios of time then the vote has to go national.

The western world puts on this pretense of "fighting for democracy", but to me many forms of "democracy" are undemocratic.

Someone listed the meaning of "fascism" on this forum. The US, an apparent "democracy" just happened to tick the majority of these boxes.

Burning ghost:

As an example let us look at th Iraq war. If the public could have force the government in th UK to put it to the national vote then the UK may have never been invloved.

I presume you would regard that as having been a good thing. Especially with the benefit of hindsight. But what about other issues? Take the death sentence. Last time I looked, the majority of the UK population were in favour of bringing back capital punishment for some serious crimes. But the majority of elected representatives are against it. Possibly that's a good thing? As a member of the public, when I read news of the latest heinous violent crime it's easy for me to say "string him up!" and then return to my daily life. I think it might be a good thing that the actual decision is in the hands of people who have to consider the consequences for a bit longer than 5 seconds.

For me democracy is about the people of a nation being able to legally petition the government and demand a national vote. This not only put more responsibility on the government to inform the public about its decisions, but adds political resppnaibility to the people.

In Switzerland the people can start a petition and if they get enough people to sign in within a certain perios of time then the vote has to go national.

It depends what you mean by "the people of a nation". Obviously you don't mean all the people - just a large vocal subset. In that case, we have the question of how many signatories the petition has to garner in order to automatically prompt a national referendum.

To me, that's not what democracy necessarily is. I agree with public votes on broad matters of principle, such as whether the country is run according to the principles of what we sometimes label as "the left" (relatively high taxation and strong public services) or "the right" (low taxes and an emphasis on the power of markets). But for people, whether politicians or public, to vote on issues that require specific knowledge it seems obvious to me that the specific knowledge has to have been aquired before a meaningful vote can be cast. That's why we have the concept of representative democracy. We hire representatives to consider the details and we vote for them, or for their opponents, based on the broad principles, or philosophies, that (we hope) underpin their specific decisions.

The western world puts on this pretense of "fighting for democracy", but to me many forms of "democracy" are undemocratic.

I think the question of whether it makes sense to wage wars in order to impose democracy is a specific issue that has to be dealt with individually.

Someone listed the meaning of "fascism" on this forum. The US, an apparent "democracy" just happened to tick the majority of these boxes.

I don't think it is true that the US ticks the "fascism" boxes. It's always possible that it could get there, as it is with any other country. And it can be argued that some aspects of President Elect Trump's personality suggest parallels with some previous fascistic leaders. But only some. And perhaps only superficially. And that's a long way from saying that the US is a fascist state. There are plenty of counter-arguments that it is constituted in such a way that it is extremely unlikely to turn into one.

How do we think it's going so far?

Is the UK continuing its glorious march towards freedom from bureaucracy and self determination? Or is Brexit a slow motion car crash that is swallowing up vast amounts of legislative time and is going to cost us a fortune? Or somewhere in between?

Does anybody who voted for Brexit feel disappointed at all that the £350,000,000 per week for the NHS that we were promised probably won't materialise and instead what we'll got is a bill for trillions?

I'm busy implementing additional bureaucracy required for Brexit. Previously our clients had to comply with EU rules, now they have to comply with UK rules that replace the UK rules, and with EU rules, if they want to do business there.

Togo: Interesting. Keep us posted on how that's going. I don't know what industry you work in, but that sounds quite far-sighted. The company I work for hasn't even started thinking about it yet.

So, how do we think it's going? Who's stockpiling tins of baked beans and insulin ready for March next year?

Steve3007 wrote: ↑July 23rd, 2018, 5:19 pm So, how do we think it's going? Who's stockpiling tins of baked beans and insulin ready for March next year?

Is it going to be a Hard or Soft Brexit? Do you predict a referendum on the referendum?

Even though we're now only 8 months away from it, it's difficult to predict what sort of Brexit it's going to be because of the absolute chaos in government. "Crashing out without a deal" seems to be the current fashionable term. But opinions seem to even be divided over whether this would be a good or a bad thing.

Given to madness and lies in the original Brexit campaign there certainly is a lot of talk of another referendum of some kind. But I think that would cause such uproar from the hard-line Brexiters that it couldn't really ever happen. Jacob Rees-Mogg, Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage would storm parliament and overthrow the government.

A second referendum on the final deal strikes me as the best we can realistically hope for now.

I doubt either main party would risk putting a bill forward for it, but maybe the SNP or Lucas would.

My view is that the only legit way to overturn a referendum vote is with another referendum vote. And now we have a clearer idea of what the reality of Brexit means, and will have an actual deal/no deal on the table, it's legit to ask for a second ref. Not to mention all the shenanigans of the Leave campaign which are coming out.

I suspect a Remain result from a second ref would scrape a win, causing a lot of resentment from Brexiteers and the possible resurgence of UKIP. But that's deal-with-able. Meanwhile Labour can present alternative solutions to the people who want to see a change from the neo-liberal staus quo and Tory Austerity.

The discussion around Brexit seem to be all about the economy, however surely the most important part of the European Union is the unity of its people around the common cause of better living standards for all members.
The UK is a European country not just geographically but culturally, and it is the cultural ties between European countries that are more important than the economic ones to the UK economy, the economy will look after itself so long as close and friendly conditions exist between our European neighbours and us.
I myself voted remain and am a dedicated Remainer or Remoaner call me what you will, I believe that the EU with all its faults is a great institution and we should not only remain part of it but become better integrated into its political and economic structures including the Euro and ultimately Schengen.
I am a European and the leave decision if taken to its conclusion removes my perceived citizenship of Europe.
If we leave the EU we run the risk of being trapped in what amounts to an Island Prison with Brexit leave politicians and our ruling elite plus their masters acting as the populations political guards able to impose what laws they choose to mitigate the mess both economic and social that they have instigated.
The latest opinion polls in the UK show a majority in favour of a new referendum on whether to stay in or continue to leave the EU lets just hope that sanity and commonsense triumph and this happens.

Has anyone else noticed that a lot of the avid brexiteers are wealthy. The cynic in me wonders how Aaran Banks is going to gain from Brexit?

Rederic wrote: ↑July 30th, 2018, 6:14 am Has anyone else noticed that a lot of the avid brexiteers are wealthy. The cynic in me wonders how Aaran Banks is going to gain from Brexit?

Interesting you think this as the spin from the remoaners is that those who voted to leave are old and stupid, not usually people who are very well off.

Mark1955 wrote: ↑July 30th, 2018, 1:51 pm

Rederic wrote: ↑July 30th, 2018, 6:14 am Has anyone else noticed that a lot of the avid brexiteers are wealthy. The cynic in me wonders how Aaran Banks is going to gain from Brexit?

Interesting you think this as the spin from the remoaners is that those who voted to leave are old and stupid, not usually people who are very well off.

Wot about Rees-Mogg?

Interesting you think this as the spin from the remoaners is that those who voted to leave are old and stupid, not usually people who are very well off.

I think one of the problems that the "remainers" have faced when trying to oppose the "leavers" is that the word "remainer" is easier to alter, to turn it into a pejorative term. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a way to do the equivalent of "remoaner"" to the word "leaver".