Hacker News Reader

Comment by elcct | Hacker News Reader

But whatever they call it, it is majority indeed and that's the democracy - you either accept that majority wins or well... don't know

View on HN

I'm sorry to be rude but this is a very basic interpretation of democracy. It has some serious limitations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_rule#Limitations

typically we practice more complex implementations of democracy and as a rule we use majority rule for things like social questions as opposed to key strategic and economic ones.

Or realise that the 52-48 reflects a point in time, that things change and therefore it's perfectly ok to campaign against brexit, and try to stop it.

Or do you subscribe to the point of view that we should only have had a single general election and abide by that result for all time?

Considering the British people never voted to join the EU in its current form, I'm not sure why membership of the EU should be seen as the default option.

If we weren't asked whether we wanted to join a post-Lisbon Treaty EU, and once we were in it, we actively said we don't want it, why should we remain in it?

This is factually incorrect. As a parliamentary democracy we voted for all the governments that agreed to all such treaties and had the right to veto or reject any of them (which we did, the Schengen or euro treaties being examples thereof).

People voted in general elections for many different reasons. People voting for a pro-EU party didn't necessarily support the EU. And all those elections took place under a flawed first-past-the-post system.

I mean, if you want to keep moving the goalposts as your arguments are rebutted, that's fine. It just makes you not appear to be acting in good faith.

I don't see how I'm moving the goalposts. All I'm saying is that the EU referendum result must be respected.

General election results must also be respected, but they revolve around a number of issues, so are not a good indicator of voters' opinion of membership of the EU.

Besides, the Conservatives were elected into government with a manifesto promising an in-out referendum. The government has delivered on that promise and is carrying out the will of the people, as decided in that referendum.

> All I'm saying is that the EU referendum result must be respected.

It is being respected. This might be news to you, but we don't live in a fascist dictatorship where dissent is forbidden.

So, in your view, not a single thing any government has done (with the exception of joining the Common Market) has been agreed to by the population. Interesting.

Things such as the NHS, the minimum wage and same-sex marriage are things governments have achieved with overwhelming support from the people. But it's true that the people didn't have a direct say on these things. I don't see it as a problem though because, unlike the EU, the majority of people are perfectly happy with these things.

Nice assertions. I think this would be a good time for you to step back and examine the profound contradictions in your thought processes. And remember, in your future, no dissent is allowed.

Not sure what that has to do with my comment. Perhaps you meant to reply to someone else?

I disagree with what you said about it being okay to attempt to stop Brexit, even after we voted against membership of the EU and never agreed to be part of it in the first place.

Bizarre.

We did agree to be in the EU.

In any case, I trust you'll never vote again or protest against any voting outcomes that you disagree with as you seem to think that once a vote has been held, the outcome can never be disagreed with.

I'm not sure how we agreed to be in the EU when we voted to leave on 23rd June.

I don't expect everyone to be happy about the outcome of votes, but I do expect outcomes to be respected.

I'm not opposed to decisions being overturned, but I don't think it's right to re-run a vote right after it has been carried out. We haven't even left the EU yet. At some point after we've left the EU, perhaps there will be grounds to take another look at membership of the EU. But not straight away.

I want as many people as possible to participate in elections and referendums (even if I disagree with them), because I want everyone's voice to be heard. That's what it means to live in a democracy. And so I certainly intend to continue voting.

Luckily you're not in charge of how our democracy works.

> the 52-48 reflects a point in time

The number of people who claimed to wish they could change their vote after the result was surprising. How many referendums do we need before people decide they've voted "properly"?

The number of people who claimed to wish they could change their vote after the result was surprising. How many referendums do we need before people decide they've voted "properly"?

Maybe that's the reasons why direct democracy by means of referendums is [considered to be] not always a good idea.

Of course, not always. It is only a good idea when you can agree with the result, of course.

I'm not sure if you can describe modern democracies as a will of the majority -- marijuana legalization, civil rights movements, anti war sentiments as examples.

I would say moderate oligarchies. 'Oligarchy' sounds negative, but it is not always bad.

But that will is not reflected in voting...

The referendum is a poll. UK has representative, parliamentary democracy.

Exactly - so we should disregard the original referendum (a mere poll, as you put it) on the basis of which the British government signed up in 1975 to what was then the embryo EU - though only those experienced in deciphering subtexts in official documents really understood at that time that federation was the real goal not merely the establishment of a free trade area.

> the original referendum (a mere poll, as you put it) on the basis of which the British government signed up

You seem to be trying a reductio ad absurdum argument here and failing.

The UK joined the EEC in 1973, without a referendum but based on an act of Parliament. In 1975 they held an explicitly non-binding referendum that supported staying in the EEC. In other words, that referendum voted to maintain the status quo. You can "disregard" it if you wish, but that would also just mean maintaining the status quo.

The UK has never held a binding referendum on EEC/EU membership. According to the UK's crufty "constitution", this means Parliament gets to decide. If Parliament does nothing, the UK remains in the EU.

The court also relied somewhat heavily on a more specific feature of UK constitutional principles: that if Parliament has granted a right to British citizens, only Parliament itself may revoke it. The European Communities Act 1972, the court held here, has the effect of granting certain individual rights to British citizens (such as a right of appeal to various EU courts). As these were granted by an Act of Parliament, they can only be revoked by another Act of Parliament, not by a decree of the Government. Therefore the European Communities Act 1972 must be properly repealed by Parliament, not de-facto rendered inoperative by action of the Government.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com