Europe III: April F-EU-Ls

[Dogg Thang]

it would damage the publics trust in politics for generations

Because up to right now, trust has been high...?

[Asura]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...cted-says-hunt

Jeremy Hunt has said that if May's Deal fails next week then Brexit could end up being cancelled and if that happens it would damage the publics trust in politics for generations

He makes the mistake of believing anyone trusts politicians already. This whole mess, the benefits fiasco, Clegg getting into power while recanting effectively a signed contract... I honestly don't know what to make of politics these days.

[Cassius_Smoke]

It really feels like world politics as a whole has just ran out of steam or something. It seems like a combination of people not giving a **** about politics, politicians not even caring if they look inept or corrupt and a general acceptance that nothing will change regardless who is voted in.
Its like looking in to the eyes of a dying animal that's accepted its fate.

[Dogg Thang]

What's worrying is that I agree with that sentiment and then I ask "what's post-politics?" and it's really an open door for dictatorships and right wing mentalities. When you have politics that looks so weak, it creates an opening for someone who comes in pushing strength. Pushing power. At whatever cost. That's a very bad thing.

Some of you have mentioned this in this thread but it feels like you need a change in system to remove the Tory or Labour thing because neither serve you well at the moment.

[QualityChimp]

This is the dangerous problem, for me.
I keep feeling helpless and disinterested in politics because I can't believe the position we're in with Brexit, but that's precisely the moment to keep fighting.

The Conservatives' gamble to win back the UKIP votes and retain power by promising a referendum they thought would say remain failed and they can't admit they were wrong or it needed assessing before blundering into it, but here we are.

There's an episode of The Fresh Prince where he's trying to chat up his cousin's teacher by dressing up as an intellectual professor, complete with smoking jacket, pipe, glasses and fake moustache.
When he's rumbled and she notices it's a fake moustache he cries "no it's not!"
She then rips it off and he still says "no it's not!"
As she storms out the room and Will is chastised by his cousin, he weakly cries one more time "no it's not!"

The Government act like a bunch of school kids doing whatever it takes to stay relevant, but it needs a grownup to walk into the room and shout "That's a fake moustache!"

[Neon Ignition]

It's happening in loads of countries, there's a growing feeling that politics and politicians approaches need to change but their unwillingness to do anything about it creates a breeding ground for extreme groups. When it comes to left leaning politics it's a dead end road and is why Labour hits brick walls in what it's willing to do. Campaigners and the media spend a lot of time talking about the youth vote but it's a fake movement, if young voters replacing dying older right voting people was a thing the Tories would have disbanded twenty years ago. The reality is young voters and idealistic but quickly convert to right wing political views with age which is why parties like the Tories persist and others like the Greens etc barely hold on for life consistently.

The result is that a very self-centred political class continue making the rules whilst left leaning vocal opponent wind up Saturday shoppers by moaning through a megaphone at M&S shoppers. The problem festers long enough that the general public reaches a tipping point and moments such as the referendum or Trump etc give them a shop to tip the table over.

The public voted by a majority (the percentage of the majority never mattered) to Leave but I doubt many of that 52% ever really cared if we actually did leave, they just wanted politicians to finally notice the desire for change and it was a good opportunity to be loudly heard with little care for fallout because the EU body simply isn't that popular and had itself made it clear it had little interest in discussing issues or change.

Trump is similar, a loud statement to a political class that wasn't listening but once again likely largely from voters who didn't actually think he'd win and so now have a lot more than they bargained for. Now with Trump there's years of damage to sort out but ultimately it's likely unlikely he'll win a second term. Brexit is more difficult because it will be much more lasting and not a single MP has the nuts or competence to pull it off.

For Labour (because the Tories aren't going to do it), they probably can take a 'Cancel Brexit' stance and pull it off but they really, really need to start taking a stance that focuses on enacting change and to actually stand by it. Banging on about public services doesn't work as no-one trusts Labour with money at all and currently, even with this mess, they're still at least a decade from power.

[Dogg Thang]

the percentage of the majority never mattered.

When it comes to something so important, the percentage should matter. Even on small things, we would take that into account. If you were going out for a meal and 52% of your group wanted Indian food and the others didn't, you'd have to be a dick to go to an Indian restaurant. You'd look for a third option. If 95% of your group wanted Indian food, that would be very different. The repercussions of this decision are far greater than a single meal. The percentage should definitely matter.

[noobish hat]

I don't think people are going to be growing more conservative as they age. It's a myth. For one thing, boomers are just looking like a particularly conservative generation. For another, thanks to how badly boomers have damaged the world, young people have not gained assets to be conservative about. When you can't afford a house or a family, you don't have a living wage, you don't have any savings, maybe you're not even paying taxes, you're going to become one of these selfish puddles of sludge voting for policies that protect these investments that you don't have.

[Cassius_Smoke]

I don't think people are going to be growing more conservative as they age. It's a myth. For one thing, boomers are just looking like a particularly conservative generation. For another, thanks to how badly boomers have damaged the world, young people have not gained assets to be conservative about. When you can't afford a house or a family, you don't have a living wage, you don't have any savings, maybe you're not even paying taxes, you're going to become one of these selfish puddles of sludge voting for policies that protect these invesents that you don't have.

I agree. Its much more likely young people just won't vote because no party in any position of power talks about the problems you have. I think its very short sighted of politicians to always be focusing on the Grey Vote, they won't be around forever. The next generation of Grey Voter (my generation and younger) will have less money, fewer home owners and probably hold a grudge.

[Asura]

When it comes to something so important, the percentage should matter. Even on small things, we would take that into account. If you were going out for a meal and 52% of your group wanted Indian food and the others didn't, you'd have to be a dick to go to an Indian restaurant. You'd look for a third option. If 95% of your group wanted Indian food, that would be very different. The repercussions of this decision are far greater than a single meal. The percentage should definitely matter.

Well yeah. To add to your metaphor, it's like your group are already going to an indian restaurant, and have booked and everything, down the point of ordering all the food in advance.

Then in your group of 50 people, 26 of them suggest you should go to an italian place across the road, where you haven't booked, and no-one has been before, and 24 people in your group don't want to go to.

[Neon Ignition]

50 years from now the current grey voters will be gone and no doubt the next grey voters will still not be voting for socially friendly parties. The greys of 50 years are gone and we're still here with Tories in power more often than not, there's always been a disinterest from the young voters as well. The trouble for parties that try to appeal to young voters is that they're quick to over promise and slow to deliver, that burn stays with them and they tend not to go back. Sometimes you get a push like Labours rise in the 90's but they're so adept at doing things badly they ruin it for themselves again. We saw it at the last election, Labour happy to promise lots to young voters to win support (not that it's ever enough as long as Scotlands off the table) but it's all to clear to see it'd end badly and they'd lose another generation of voters. Part of it is the career politician approach, each wave focuses on their own short term advancement. Corbyn can promise tons of privatisation and waved tuition fees because he'll be retired or pushing up daisies when it inevitably collapses around Labour again and their voting base dives over to the other side.

It's frustrating because the Tories really need a proper, at their heels serious competitor (ideally more than one) but Labour never takes a serious look at itself and sorts itself out. Even now they won't take a real stance.


Re: a second vote. 50% should always be the bar. The thing is, it's not an informal decision with different parties who are happy to bend to accommodate others, it's a binary decision decided by a majority outcome, even if that outcome is one person. holding a referendum and saying 65% is needed to take action is vote rigging, setting the bar unfavourably against one option in favour of another. Referendums are rare things and if they're going to do them for things then they need to be delivered as balanced as possible. The campaigning and any unfairness there is a whole other issue but for the vote count majority is the only fair way. 52%/48% may look narrow but it's over one million people in majority of one decision, that's a lot of people and a decisive outcome. Skewing the required figure is like losing a 50/50 coin toss then asking for best of three. The importance of the vote outcome to the nation is by the by, it's a binary optioned vote and it was no secret it was a major decision being given to the public.

Don't get me wrong, for me it works the exact same from the opposite view. If all of the current mess leads to a second referendum, for me, it's a clean slate and if Remain won by one single vote then that's the outcome and we stay. Otherwise, you have 39 out of 50 people at the Indian Restaurant saying they want Italian but the other 11 are dicks and say 'tough, not enough of you want Italian so we're staying here'

[noobish hat]

50 years from now the current grey voters will be gone and no doubt the next grey voters will still not be voting for socially friendly parties. The greys of 50 years are gone and we're still here with Tories in power more often than not, there's always been a disinterest from the young voters as well. The trouble for parties that try to appeal to young voters is that they're quick to over promise and slow to deliver, that burn stays with them and they tend not to go back. Sometimes you get a push like Labours rise in the 90's but they're so adept at doing things badly they ruin it for themselves again. We saw it at the last election, Labour happy to promise lots to young voters to win support (not that it's ever enough as long as Scotlands off the table) but it's all to clear to see it'd end badly and they'd lose another generation of voters. Part of it is the career politician approach, each wave focuses on their own short term advancement. Corbyn can promise tons of privatisation and waved tuition fees because he'll be retired or pushing up daisies when it inevitably collapses around Labour again and their voting base dives over to the other side.

It's frustrating because the Tories really need a proper, at their heels serious competitor (ideally more than one) but Labour never takes a serious look at itself and sorts itself out. Even now they won't take a real stance.


Re: a second vote. 50% should always be the bar. The thing is, it's not an informal decision with different parties who are happy to bend to accommodate others, it's a binary decision decided by a majority outcome, even if that outcome is one person. holding a referendum and saying 65% is needed to take action is vote rigging, setting the bar unfavourably against one option in favour of another. Referendums are rare things and if they're going to do them for things then they need to be delivered as balanced as possible. The campaigning and any unfairness there is a whole other issue but for the vote count majority is the only fair way. 52%/48% may look narrow but it's over one million people in majority of one decision, that's a lot of people and a decisive outcome. Skewing the required figure is like losing a 50/50 coin toss then asking for best of three. The importance of the vote outcome to the nation is by the by, it's a binary optioned vote and it was no secret it was a major decision being given to the public.

Don't get me wrong, for me it works the exact same from the opposite view. If all of the current mess leads to a second referendum, for me, it's a clean slate and if Remain won by one single vote then that's the outcome and we stay. Otherwise, you have 39 out of 50 people at the Indian Restaurant saying they want Italian but the other 11 are dicks and say 'tough, not enough of you want Italian so we're staying here'

A simple majority is only appropriate when the two options are equal. Like if you asked the public which of two actions to take. It doesn't make sense when one option is the status quo and one option is a complete upset of the status quo with unknown consequences. Most votes on changes to the status quo require a super majority. The fact that the referendum didn't require one is just the cherry on the sky-high mountain of dumbass ideas that led to it happening in the first place.

It's all irrelevant anyway because it should never been put to public vote. I really don't understand why people think that it should happen just because the public voted for it, like the public are ever right about anything. Have you ever met the public? They are thick as two short and incredibly thick planks. And on top of being monumentally stupid, they're also bigoted for dayz. It's not a good look. Imagine if gay marriage had been up for referendum. We'd never have got it. Not many countries with gay marriage got it via a referendum.

[Dogg Thang]

I would label that stupidity on a grand scale, SF. If 51% of people vote to burn the UK to the ground, some common sense needs to come into play at that point. As Asura points out, the extra part of this metaphor is that you have already booked the Indian restaurant and ordered food. What's more, after it is decided to go to the Italian, it turns out that every dish that was promised isn't actually on the menu. It would be the very definition of moronic to continue in that case. You're suggesting that you run a country with a level of idiocy we wouldn't even accept when arranging an evening out. That makes no sense. It is also very clear it's not even a binary decision and should never have been. If it were, there would have been nothing to discuss over the last two years. You'd just go. But as has been pointed out, what people actually thought they were voting for and how varies massively so that each and every group within that would fall well below any kind of majority. It's not a real majority and it doesn't hold up to scrutiny and to continue because the vote happened is thick-headedness.

[Neon Ignition]

That's true (lord knows unless there's a second Brexit referendum they'll probably not table another for decades after this one) but the way the options were presented to the public to choose from is different than the measure used to decide an outcome.

The irony is, it looks like the only way to sort out the current mess is another referendum.

[Asura]

@Superman Falls sorry man, but I totally disagree.

To me, 52%/48% is a majority in mathematical terms, but it means "undecided" in pragmatic terms. It suggests, for all intents and purposes, half of people want outcome and half the people want another.

If it was "do x or do y" I might agree with you, but it wasn't - it was "maintain the status quo or change it" and that's a very different situation.

For the record, I'm a leaver, but had it gone the opposite way, I wouldn't have, for example, insisted that UKIP disband or stop campaigning. I would have agreed that it suggests the nation is undecided.