Well, it worked for Charlie McCreevy.
Yeah, but, democracy, as we practice it, is also about informed decisions. People think harder about their choices when faced with a range of candidates and a STV (at least in Ireland and much of Europe). They don’t focus on a single issue, rather on a range of them (and yes, tribal loyalty), with the result that you end up with (in the case of the UK) a Parliament that is anti-Brexit (because people consider more than a single issue when voting for a candidate or party) and a one-off, yes-no question that provokes a single issue reaction, one that is amenable to both carrot and stick (the fact checking on both sides is long after the vote).
TL;DR we have representative democracy because people are bad at making single issue decisions when they want to sock it to the government.
What is the independent yardstick by which we determine if the people have made a good or a bad decision?
Independent of what?
Just because some individuals or groups of individuals don’t like it, doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
It’s not a perfect system, Hitler was elected, but the alternatives end with Maduro or Trump-children.
You’re complaining about referendums because you think people will make the ‘wrong’ decisions. I’m asking what puts you in a position to judge their decisions to be wrong.
No, I’m not saying the decisions are ‘wrong’, I’m saying people are bad at making yes/no decisions. The best interests of a person are not generally well served by a narrow yes/no decision on a broad subject, so a yes/no question on, say, a single constitutional amendment is okay, but a yes/no on, say, shall we eradicate poerty is more difficult.
Saying ‘yes’ to, shall we eradicate poverty, doesn’t take into account, for example, that the voter voting yes would be poorer as a result. Some will know and understand that and vote no, some will know and understand and vote yes. Others, though, will see the simple goal and miss the meaning behind the simple goal.
Shall we leave the EU? Yes. Okay, but leave means leave. Oh, I wasn’t expecting leave to mean leave. I was expecting to just fund the NHS, it needs more money.
So people make good decisions about narrow issues (like wanting to fund the NHS more and about who they elect to represent them. Generally speaking a politican represents their constituency. And that’s why representative democracy mostly works.
Shoult we as the EU even try to deal with a failed state run by Walter Mitty types?
Still at the eleventh hour they want a fudge over the border, not understanding that countries with written constitutions cannot have fudge laws; a law is consitutional or it is not.
Oh, and thank you slasher, that’s one I hadn’t heard!
What is with the hyperbole describing the UK as a “failed state”?
If the UK is a failed state where does that leave the likes of Italy and Spain with their wretched economies and unemployment and even more useless politicians than the current lot in the UK? The same UK that lent Ireland €3 billion a few years ago when we were on our uppers? I think that this type of commentary is the definition of hubris.
If the UK cannot achieve a negotiated exit (not just the WA stage) that is workable and equitable for all sides, and that doesn’t lead to a further decade or more of wrangling over trade deals and frictionless borders, then this will affect both sides badly and will have been a failure of negotiators from both sides (not just the UK side).
The UK only made a loan to protect its own banks, charged Ireland full interest on it and refused to allow Ireland to pay the money back early so as to benefit on interest in the long term. Please don’t pretend that was anything other than naked self interest on the part of the UK.
I love the way you wish to blame the EU for the failure of the UK to propose workable solutions, failure to plan and failure to be realistic.
If your counterpart in a negotiation is sufficiently delusional and incompetent, it is entirely possible to fail to come to a negotiated settlement without any blame being on your part. Negotiated settlements need not be “equitable” - when Ireland sought independence from the UK, were the terms offered really “equitable” to Ireland?
In any case, what is so bad about a no deal?
It merely increases the EU’s negotiating power. The only brexit that does not result in decades of trade and political negotiations is no brexit at all. Brexit means continuous discussion.
Indeed, and the not giving a shit about the pesky Irish has become once again a defining characteristic of the Irish relationship with England.
theguardian.com/commentisfr … -ignorance
I think the article is pretty close to what I’ve been hearing in my admittedly limited circle.
Mrs. Thatcher was none too keen on referendums and her remarks here have considerable relevance to the current crisis:
Interesting to note that the attitude of the broader ‘liberal’ establishment who cheerled the march to war on a number of occasions over the past 20 odd year in defence of ‘democracy’, is marked somewhat different when it comes to respecting the democratic process within their own sphere.
Similarly interesting to note that the attitude of some Irish people appears to be to seek to replicate the acttitude of the likes of Lloyd George and Churchill in their dealings with the Irish Plenipotentiaries during the Irish Treaty negotiations pre 1921. No doubt had these people been around at that time they would have been similarly predisposed to the cause of Irish independence from what was then possibly the most powerful political and trading bloc on the planet.
Even more ironic, when you consider her one real contribution to the EU’s structure was driving the creation of the Single Market that her so-called heirs in the ERG are so desperate to leave, having had their referendum.
In terms of varied opinions, I’d say Una’s circle is smaller than yours. Although if Trans activists are turning “anti-English” (which lets be real, probably just means taking a sensible view of history for a change) that probably must be jarring to Una.
The long read on the last set of negotiations. No breakthrough and both sides digging trenches.
Its amazing the level of self delusion of the Brexiteers
The typically performance on the AM show Davis et al clearly knows less about brexit than when he campaigned for it.
Nothing represents the revolting state of the tory government than Davis, Mogg and the bunch of circus freaks that make up the tory party
Any objective analysis would find Davis to be extraordinary clueless.
He thought he could go around and negotiate bilateral deals with individual EU countries!
His pronouncements on Brexit are simply beyond parody.