What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

So Democracy is Fake in the UK? (1 Viewer)

fantasycurse42

Footballguy Jr.
If Brexit doesn't happen, and Parliament overturns Brexit, what does it say about the voting process there? 

Does it say your vote doesn't matter if the government disagrees with it?

While I think they need to work harder to avoid a hard Brexit, overturning Brexit, which appears to have legs, sets a terrible precedent.

Does anyone disagree with this?

 

General Malaise

Poop Lord
Democracy?  Thought they had kings and queens and crap?  Pippa and Meghan and princes and stuff?  All I ever see in the papers anyway.

 

2Squirrels1Nut

Footballguy
If Brexit doesn't happen, and Parliament overturns Brexit, what does it say about the voting process there? 

Does it say your vote doesn't matter if the government disagrees with it?

While I think they need to work harder to avoid a hard Brexit, overturning Brexit, which appears to have legs, sets a terrible precedent.

Does anyone disagree with this?
Wait, what?

 

Dedfin

Footballguy
All this Brexit stuff is dumb. I don't care what they do. Ever since being told they are not allowed to own Africa, Britain has lost their damned minds.

 

fantasycurse42

Footballguy Jr.
Agree. But if they don't want it anymore maybe they should allow their representatives to fix it? :shrug:  
Umm, they had a vote. I'd be fairly confident that those who voted to leave haven't changed their minds. 

You can spin it however you want, but it is a bad look. 

 

Dedfin

Footballguy
The precedent being set is pretty ####ty one, all I'm saying. 
I agree. Britain's dumb voters really backed the adults into a corner. What do you think should happen? I don't think the EU is going to let Britain have any sweetheart deals like they had while in. This move is going to hurt all of the EU, but most of all Britain.

 

msommer

Footballguy
If Brexit doesn't happen, and Parliament overturns Brexit, what does it say about the voting process there? 

Does it say your vote doesn't matter if the government disagrees with it?

While I think they need to work harder to avoid a hard Brexit, overturning Brexit, which appears to have legs, sets a terrible precedent.

Does anyone disagree with this?
Don't disagree as such. The thing is the Brexit campaign was all smoke and mirrors selling a fairy tale that had no place on Earth.

A very small majority votes yes to the fairy tale and since then layer by layer it has been exposed as the fraud it was (except, obviously if you ask Boris and Nigel).

The deal they have on the table is so fra from the Brexit fairy tale that it's not even funny. And a hard Brexit is even worse.

So, now the question is: Do you take the decade of economic trouble that will (IMHO) follow a break up with the EU because some slimeballs sold a slim majority some snake oil, or do you act in what appears to be the country's favor and put an end to the fairy tale?

We''l get our first look at the answer to that tomorrow

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dinsy Ejotuz

Footballguy
If Brexit doesn't happen, and Parliament overturns Brexit, what does it say about the voting process there? 

Does it say your vote doesn't matter if the government disagrees with it?

While I think they need to work harder to avoid a hard Brexit, overturning Brexit, which appears to have legs, sets a terrible precedent.

Does anyone disagree with this?
Parliament has to pass laws to implement Brexit, as the UK is a parliamentary democracy.  It's been unable to do so, mostly because the whole thing was built on a foundation of lies to begin with and there is no solution that implements what voters were promised.

If you want to argue that the UK is not a direct democracy, well, yeah.  We already knew that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

fantasycurse42

Footballguy Jr.
Right. How many people voted to leave just as a gag? Some people saw it as a complete joke. Now it's going to crush London and the UK. Banks are going to flee London in untold numbers.
Do you really believe this #### you spew? 

Britain's dumb voters really backed the adults into a corner. 
You aren't the adult and enrage others by saying this (I'm not saying me, I'm saying those who voted leave) - what you're saying is "I'm smarter than you and your vote means nothing!" 

You think that is a good way to promote agreements and meeting in the middle? 

 

[scooter]

Footballguy
If Brexit doesn't happen, and Parliament overturns Brexit, what does it say about the voting process there? 

Does it say your vote doesn't matter if the government disagrees with it?

While I think they need to work harder to avoid a hard Brexit, overturning Brexit, which appears to have legs, sets a terrible precedent.

Does anyone disagree with this?
"Brexit" was never guaranteed. I think everyone understood that a "Leave" vote still required approval from parliament. It's not unlike a state passing a law that requires Constitutional approval from the Supreme Court.

 

msommer

Footballguy
I don't know what the solution is, but maybe public referendums are the problem?

I also don't think if people voted to shoot themselves in the ####,  they should just sit there and :shrug:  "welp. they voted for it." 

I don't have any skin in the game, so I'm just :popcorn:
There are no solutions that doesn't do harm.

a. Vote yes tomorrow: Do the Brexit as it stands. This will hurt the UK economy quite a lot 

b. Vote no tomorrow - gives one of two outcomes:

1. Hard Brexit - Massive recession and a lot of chaos,

2. Cancel Brexit and give the finger to the majority of 2016 (and possibly do irreparable harm to the democracy in the UK)

It all spells that the UK is going to get ####ed. Thanks Boris and Nigel!

 
Last edited by a moderator:

msommer

Footballguy
"Brexit" was never guaranteed. I think everyone understood that a "Leave" vote still required approval from parliament. It's not unlike a state passing a law that requires Constitutional approval from the Supreme Court.
Actually, until a recent EU court ruling it was thought that there was no going back from involing article 50. So, for about two years after the election the story line was "Brexit means Brexit"

 

fantasycurse42

Footballguy Jr.
So now you're changing your argument. You claimed no-one would change their vote. I just showed you a poll that says otherwise.

Bye bye.
What were those polls before the vote?

You're aware the bookmakers had it 3-1 to stay? 

So if you're basing your argument on that, I find it humorous. 

 

ffldrew

Footballguy
BC those polls were wildly accurate before too.

You can't redo a vote bc you don't like the outcome - can't believe anyone would really argue against that, but here we are. 
You'll have to admit that there are a lot more of the Brexit voters that understand the outcome now that it is coming to light and weren't well informed at the time of the vote as to the difficulties Brexit would entail when they did vote for it. I think they should settle on the best "soft exit" deal they will get from EU and have another vote on a "soft" exit vs staying so the voters make this their "final answer".

 

fantasycurse42

Footballguy Jr.
https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/

This poll had it 48-46 to remain. Within the margin of error.

You're not doing well in here.
:lol:

Just answer my very simple questions in italics with yes or no, that's all you have to do.

Do you think bookmakers are stupid?

Here is an article as polling was opening for Brexit of all of the bookmakers in the UK and the bets they were taking:

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/06/latest-brexit-betting-what-are-odds-eu-referendum

They were all between 3/1 & 7/1 to leave - do you think bookmakers give out 3/1-7/1 odds when the situation remains close to a coinflip? 

 

ffldrew

Footballguy
:lol:

Just answer my very simple questions in italics with yes or no, that's all you have to do.

Do you think bookmakers are stupid?

Here is an article as polling was opening for Brexit of all of the bookmakers in the UK and the bets they were taking:

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/06/latest-brexit-betting-what-are-odds-eu-referendum

They were all between 3/1 & 7/1 to leave - do you think bookmakers give out 3/1-7/1 odds when the situation remains close to a coinflip? 
That was before Putin came in and doped the horses in the race.

 

Dinsy Ejotuz

Footballguy
You can't redo a vote bc you don't like the outcome - can't believe anyone would really argue against that, but here we are. 
Brexit Yes voters were told they could leave the EU, and keep the parts about free trade that they liked, and have an extra umpty-trillion dollars to spend on domestic priorities, and the Irish border would be left in place, and they'd be able to completely block foreigners from entering the country and on and on.

No solution put forth so far does more than two of those things.  So what, exactly, did the Brexiteers actually vote for?

 

msommer

Footballguy
You'll have to admit that there are a lot more of the Brexit voters that understand the outcome now that it is coming to light and weren't well informed at the time of the vote as to the difficulties Brexit would entail when they did vote for it. I think they should settle on the best "soft exit" deal they will get from EU and have another vote on a "soft" exit vs staying so the voters make this their "final answer".
The plan that is up for a parliamentary vote is the best soft exit the EU is willing and able to give. They have no reason to incentivize any exit

 

fantasycurse42

Footballguy Jr.
Brexit Yes voters were told they could leave the EU, and keep the parts about free trade that they liked, and have an extra umpty-trillion dollars to spend on domestic priorities, and the Irish border would be left in place, and they'd be able to completely block foreigners from entering the country and on and on.

No solution put forth so far does more than two of those things.  So what, exactly, did the Brexiteers actually vote for?
I'd like to look at the actual ballot, but I was under the impression the vote was to "leave or remain"... 

I'm fairly certain if you listen to all of the #### that is spewed at every election, across the world, throughout the history of time, everyone lobbying for their side is spewing a bunch of ####. 

Do you recall a time in our country when there was an election and someone spewed a ton of lies? Doesn't change the fact that as a voter, you need to do your homework and not take everything at face value. 

 

ffldrew

Footballguy
The plan that is up for a parliamentary vote is the best soft exit the EU is willing and able to give. They have no reason to incentivize any exit
And if this is the "best" that the Tories/Exitieers can get - then take it to the voters and see where it stands with the voters.

 

fantasycurse42

Footballguy Jr.
Is the idea here that we can't correct bad decisions from 3 years ago once we realize we weren't given accurate information leading up to the vote? No take backsies?
The idea is a vote matters, it isn't a preseason game :shrug:

The precedent here is absolutely terrible. 

 

Gr00vus

Footballguy
The idea is a vote matters, it isn't a preseason game :shrug:

The precedent here is absolutely terrible. 
I think I'm somewhat with you. But if they could figure out a way to get another vote on this, you'd be o.k. with that?

There was a massive disinformation campaign directed towards making Brexit happen, with major contributions from our pals in Russia. Given that circumstance, I'd like to think they should allow themselves some mechanism by which they reconsider this decision.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

fantasycurse42

Footballguy Jr.
I think I'm somewhat with you. But if they could figure out a way to get another vote on this, you'd be o.k. with that?
No, I wouldn't. I'll give an example that is a little closer to home; we know Trump is a ####### disaster, but he was voted in (and I think he'll be voted out in about 23 months) - I can't wait. With that, the result was the result, we can't revote, to me this is no different. 

You can't come back from the vote and say oops... Maybe they'll learn a lesson (hopefully a few people over here did). You go against a vote, you tip an ugly domino, and I don't think it should be done. You don't get a redo. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gr00vus

Footballguy
No, I wouldn't. I'll give an example that is a little closer to home; we know Trump is a ####### disaster, but he was voted in (and I think he'll be voted out in about 23 months) - I can't wait. With that, the result was the result, to me this is no different. 

You can't come back from the vote and say oops, maybe they'll learn a lesson (hopefully a few people over here did). You go against a vote, you tip an ugly domino, and I don't think it should be done. You don't get a redo. 
That seems unreasonable. An inability to correct mistakes of this magnitude as expediently as possible would be a pretty huge flaw in any governmental framework.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

fantasycurse42

Footballguy Jr.
That seems unreasonable. An inability to correct mistakes of this magnitude as expediently as possible would be a pretty huge flaw in any governmental framework.
So you just keep voting until you get the desired outcome? Whose desired outcome? 

 

Gr00vus

Footballguy
So you just keep voting until you get the desired outcome? Whose desired outcome? 
The outcome of whatever majority opinion dictates now that the constituency has more information and a fuller understanding of the results of the policy. I find it less desirable to subject a population to outcomes they now realize they don't want than to adhere to the permanence of a given voting event. Government, and the laws are there to serve the people, not the other way around. Sometimes events dictate special elections/votes.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

fantasycurse42

Footballguy Jr.
The outcome of whatever majority opinion dictates now that the constituency has more information and a fuller understanding of the results of the policy. I find it less desirable to subject a population to outcomes they now realize they don't want than adherence to the permanence of a given voting event. Government, and the laws are there to serve the people, not the other way around.
To your first 7 words, wasn't that the vote? 

To the rest of it; maybe the remain side should've done a better job informing them before the vote? Maybe the public should've done a little more homework?

 

Gr00vus

Footballguy
To your first 7 words, wasn't that the vote? 

To the rest of it; maybe the remain side should've done a better job informing them before the vote? Maybe the public should've done a little more homework?
Regardless of whether they were informed before that vote, they're informed now. Inability to act on more accurate information would be a critical flaw in a government framework.

They've had votes on whether to remain in the EU previously. Why aren't you upset that they had another in 2016, since they'd already had a vote on this same thing in the past and decided to be members? If you don't have a problem with the previous votes on this decision, why would you have a problem with another one?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

fantasycurse42

Footballguy Jr.
Regardless of whether they were informed before that vote, they're informed now. Inability to act on more accurate information would be a critical flaw in a government framework.

They've had votes on whether to remain in the EU previously. Why aren't you upset that they had another in 2017, since they'd already had a vote on this same thing in the past and decided to be members? If you don't have a problem with the previous votes on this decision, why would you have a problem with another one?
Huh?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top