Good troll. I didn't get through the entire set of replies, but so far nobody has zoomed in into the fact that temperature is adjusted downward to correct for urban heat islands. Bravo!
Right, so you're saying the best economic decision a country can make is to stop importing stuff, and make consumer and government spend go through the roof. Good luck with that.
Because a public referendum is an infinitely superior choice for issues like this, as opposed to trusting an elite few who represent monied interests first and the people a very distant second.
How come? Do you also think that treatment of a brain tumor is best determined by popular vote? I'm pretty sure a brain surgeon represents his income first and his patients only a very distant second.
Dude, you had at least 6 elections to elect representatives that would do what you want them to do. If Maastricht was such a big deal, why wasn't Maastricht an important topic in any election? You live in a representative democracy, so take your responsibility and vote in people that will do what you want them to do, and actually have a plan doing it.
But guess what, only loonies were up for that job. So essentially, the UK couldn't find representatives to get themselves out of the EU, so now they're telling people that think this is a absolutely terrible idea to plan an exit. Good thinking.
These minorities are asking for a second vote. So what is the majority afraid of? If there is an actual majority supporting leave, the second vote would surely turn out the same, right? It's a bit like an operating system, when you ask it to something potentially destructive, it will ask you for a confirmation "[Y/N]". If it is absolutely destructive (such as removing Perl from a Debian operation system), you will have to enter "Yes, do as I say".
It's quite clear that the 'majority' is shit-scared that the emperor doesn't have clothes, and that a confirmation referendum would see a 55% remain vote.
Yes. They voted to restrict immigration recently. Now they're seeing that it has severe fall-out with the EU freezing their involvement in programs that involve free movement of people. Most notably research. So Switzerland will soon have a new referendum on the issue.
The fact is that Tesla states that: ""Autopilot is by far the most advanced driver assistance system on the road, but it does not turn a Tesla into an autonomous vehicle and does not allow the driver to abdicate responsibility."
According to the GP, while taking human psychology into account, this is what makes this a fundamentally flawed and extremely dangerous product. People will watch Harry Potter movies in this car, they will have horrible response times because they don't need to pay attention, they will get into accidents when the 'driver assistent' fails, and Tesla will try to abdicate responsibility each and every time based on contractual terms.
As long as the population keeps on voting the elitists into office, yes, they can do this. Referendums are not the answer, voting in people that represent you is. But apparently that's too difficult for the Brits as they managed to vote in at least 70% MP's that do not agree with the 52% that want to leave.
If the people choose to leave, they should freaking vote in people that agree with them. As it stands, they voted in a parliament where 70% of their representatives don't agree with them. If it's that important to them, they should vote in UKIP or something. But they don't, because they realize that the only people willing to govern and follow them on this issue are nutjobs that will screw the country even worse than the bunch of fucktards they prefer over them. And what does that say about their opinion?
70% of the elected members of parliament want to stay. If there were elections now, a little under 70% of the elected members of parliament want to stay. Is democracy working?
How many times did the UK have a chance to elect parliament since 1975? If this issue was that important, it seems you had ample opportunity to vote in people that would step out of the EU and deal with the consequences. And here you are: voted to leave the EU with a parliament that doesn't want to do this. Vote in people that can lead you out of the EU instead of being a spoilt child and force the grownups to deal with your tantrum.
And still, with all that stuff going on, the population of the UK voted for a parliament where 'remain' gets a 70% vote. If the UK wants to leave the EU, they should at least have the wits to vote in representatives that want it too. They didn't. So what now? Ignore the democratic institutions that are set up to handle exactly these kind of questions?
It's actually quite ironic. The population of the UK mistrusts their own representatives so much that they have the need to counteract them in a referendum that in the end will give these same representatives that they mistrust a must greater power over their lives. People are just stupid I guess.
Nope, but it got one. 67%. I think in a representative democracy there can only be one type of referendum. A recall. Do you agree with the current parliament majority on this particular issue, or, do you find this issue important enough to disband parliament and do a re-election to vote in people that agree with a change in direction?
Well, if you would hold a referendum next week, you probably get a different result. Hold it next month, and the result will be different yet again. There's a reason that we don't have direct democracies in the Western world and have opted for representative democracies. Ronald Reagan was chosen to represent the American population as president, with limited mandate, checks and balances around him, under the assumption that he could make balanced decisions (which I all disagreed with, btw, but I don't argue his mandate). If the UK population wants to leave the EU they should vote in people that share this opinion. In contrast, two years ago, they voted in people of which 70% are against leaving. So the sum total of direction is inconsistent. If the population thinks this is the single most important issue, they'd better vote in the representatives that will enforce this. They didn't think it was that important at that time, and guess what, if they would hold elections at this point in time instead of this stupid referendum, they would still vote in a majority that would be against leaving. Simply because they think other things are more important than this particular issue.
In my country of the Netherlands, a change in the constitution requires a 2/3d majority vote in parliament, a re-election of parliament, followed by a majority vote. The insertion of the re-election gives the voters sufficient power to elect representatives that can counter the vote if they don't agree. I think the UK should also go for a re-election of parliament to give the voters a chance to speak about how important they really think this issue is wrt all other issues that the country is facing. That's what a representative democracy is about. Careful balance, not mob rule.
Yes, it's a democratically voted referendum, but is such a vote democratic in a representative democracy? The UK is now in the paradoxical situation where a majority of the elected representatives don't agree with the outcome of a single direct question to their constituents. So which one is more important? The representative democracy, or the verdict of a current population on a single point in time?
Referendums are for demagogs, not for making actual decisions. The UK should disband parliament, write out new elections, and if the population decides that this issue is the most important issue of our times, they should vote in representatives that will not only do what they ask them to do, but also follow up and commit to the consequences. Just saying no and let their representatives that don't agree with them deal with it is immature and not worthy of a country with a great democratic tradition.
I think the wise thing to do is write out new elections. If it came to a vote today in parliament to leave the EU, the majority of representatives would say no. If the UK population really wants to leave, let them elect representatives that are in favor of leaving and are responsible for carrying it out. As it stands, 70% of the people's representatives don't want to leave the EU, so how can they be trusted to do this?
You shouldn't have referendums. Not like this. This is not democracy, it's mob rule. The UK is now in a situation where 70% of the elected officials are in favor of staying in the EU, but are being forced to follow the opinion of a small majority of the population that voted on the future of the country for the next half century while being bombarded with lies and misinformation from both sides for a few months. I think the only thing the UK can do at this point is disband parliament instantly, have new elections, and have the representatives take a vote on what they want to do with the EU. If the UK population is really behind leaving the EU, let them freaking select the representatives that will force it through.
And guess what, if elections would be held tomorrow, there still won't be a majority for leaving the EU. This referendum is undemocratic.
Yes, they are the 2nd biggest economy in Europe. They have a GDP of €2.6 trillion. The largest economy in Europe, the EU, has a GDP of €11.7 trillion. So I guess the UK has the upper hand.
Slashdot Mirror
Good troll. I didn't get through the entire set of replies, but so far nobody has zoomed in into the fact that temperature is adjusted downward to correct for urban heat islands. Bravo!
Right, so you're saying the best economic decision a country can make is to stop importing stuff, and make consumer and government spend go through the roof. Good luck with that.
Good luck getting a free trade deal with the US without becoming a state.
Because they convinced them that the vote was about immigrants. They clearly wanted the immigrants to leave.
This action will re-format your hard-drive erasing all data on this volume. Are you sure you want to continue [Y/N]"
Y
Formatting Hard-drive...
How come? Do you also think that treatment of a brain tumor is best determined by popular vote? I'm pretty sure a brain surgeon represents his income first and his patients only a very distant second.
So a confirmation referendum should be a walk in the park, right?
Interesting. So an unelected bureaucrat will pull Article 50 without consulting the elected parliament. And you're complaining about the EU?
Dude, you had at least 6 elections to elect representatives that would do what you want them to do. If Maastricht was such a big deal, why wasn't Maastricht an important topic in any election? You live in a representative democracy, so take your responsibility and vote in people that will do what you want them to do, and actually have a plan doing it.
But guess what, only loonies were up for that job. So essentially, the UK couldn't find representatives to get themselves out of the EU, so now they're telling people that think this is a absolutely terrible idea to plan an exit. Good thinking.
These minorities are asking for a second vote. So what is the majority afraid of? If there is an actual majority supporting leave, the second vote would surely turn out the same, right? It's a bit like an operating system, when you ask it to something potentially destructive, it will ask you for a confirmation "[Y/N]". If it is absolutely destructive (such as removing Perl from a Debian operation system), you will have to enter "Yes, do as I say".
It's quite clear that the 'majority' is shit-scared that the emperor doesn't have clothes, and that a confirmation referendum would see a 55% remain vote.
Yes. They voted to restrict immigration recently. Now they're seeing that it has severe fall-out with the EU freezing their involvement in programs that involve free movement of people. Most notably research. So Switzerland will soon have a new referendum on the issue.
The fact is that Tesla states that: ""Autopilot is by far the most advanced driver assistance system on the road, but it does not turn a Tesla into an autonomous vehicle and does not allow the driver to abdicate responsibility."
According to the GP, while taking human psychology into account, this is what makes this a fundamentally flawed and extremely dangerous product. People will watch Harry Potter movies in this car, they will have horrible response times because they don't need to pay attention, they will get into accidents when the 'driver assistent' fails, and Tesla will try to abdicate responsibility each and every time based on contractual terms.
As long as the population keeps on voting the elitists into office, yes, they can do this. Referendums are not the answer, voting in people that represent you is. But apparently that's too difficult for the Brits as they managed to vote in at least 70% MP's that do not agree with the 52% that want to leave.
If the people choose to leave, they should freaking vote in people that agree with them. As it stands, they voted in a parliament where 70% of their representatives don't agree with them. If it's that important to them, they should vote in UKIP or something. But they don't, because they realize that the only people willing to govern and follow them on this issue are nutjobs that will screw the country even worse than the bunch of fucktards they prefer over them. And what does that say about their opinion?
70% of the elected members of parliament want to stay. If there were elections now, a little under 70% of the elected members of parliament want to stay. Is democracy working?
How many times did the UK have a chance to elect parliament since 1975? If this issue was that important, it seems you had ample opportunity to vote in people that would step out of the EU and deal with the consequences. And here you are: voted to leave the EU with a parliament that doesn't want to do this. Vote in people that can lead you out of the EU instead of being a spoilt child and force the grownups to deal with your tantrum.
And still, with all that stuff going on, the population of the UK voted for a parliament where 'remain' gets a 70% vote. If the UK wants to leave the EU, they should at least have the wits to vote in representatives that want it too. They didn't. So what now? Ignore the democratic institutions that are set up to handle exactly these kind of questions?
It's actually quite ironic. The population of the UK mistrusts their own representatives so much that they have the need to counteract them in a referendum that in the end will give these same representatives that they mistrust a must greater power over their lives. People are just stupid I guess.
Nope, but it got one. 67%. I think in a representative democracy there can only be one type of referendum. A recall. Do you agree with the current parliament majority on this particular issue, or, do you find this issue important enough to disband parliament and do a re-election to vote in people that agree with a change in direction?
Well, if you would hold a referendum next week, you probably get a different result. Hold it next month, and the result will be different yet again. There's a reason that we don't have direct democracies in the Western world and have opted for representative democracies. Ronald Reagan was chosen to represent the American population as president, with limited mandate, checks and balances around him, under the assumption that he could make balanced decisions (which I all disagreed with, btw, but I don't argue his mandate). If the UK population wants to leave the EU they should vote in people that share this opinion. In contrast, two years ago, they voted in people of which 70% are against leaving. So the sum total of direction is inconsistent. If the population thinks this is the single most important issue, they'd better vote in the representatives that will enforce this. They didn't think it was that important at that time, and guess what, if they would hold elections at this point in time instead of this stupid referendum, they would still vote in a majority that would be against leaving. Simply because they think other things are more important than this particular issue.
In my country of the Netherlands, a change in the constitution requires a 2/3d majority vote in parliament, a re-election of parliament, followed by a majority vote. The insertion of the re-election gives the voters sufficient power to elect representatives that can counter the vote if they don't agree. I think the UK should also go for a re-election of parliament to give the voters a chance to speak about how important they really think this issue is wrt all other issues that the country is facing. That's what a representative democracy is about. Careful balance, not mob rule.
Yes, it's a democratically voted referendum, but is such a vote democratic in a representative democracy? The UK is now in the paradoxical situation where a majority of the elected representatives don't agree with the outcome of a single direct question to their constituents. So which one is more important? The representative democracy, or the verdict of a current population on a single point in time?
Referendums are for demagogs, not for making actual decisions. The UK should disband parliament, write out new elections, and if the population decides that this issue is the most important issue of our times, they should vote in representatives that will not only do what they ask them to do, but also follow up and commit to the consequences. Just saying no and let their representatives that don't agree with them deal with it is immature and not worthy of a country with a great democratic tradition.
I think the wise thing to do is write out new elections. If it came to a vote today in parliament to leave the EU, the majority of representatives would say no. If the UK population really wants to leave, let them elect representatives that are in favor of leaving and are responsible for carrying it out. As it stands, 70% of the people's representatives don't want to leave the EU, so how can they be trusted to do this?
You shouldn't have referendums. Not like this. This is not democracy, it's mob rule. The UK is now in a situation where 70% of the elected officials are in favor of staying in the EU, but are being forced to follow the opinion of a small majority of the population that voted on the future of the country for the next half century while being bombarded with lies and misinformation from both sides for a few months. I think the only thing the UK can do at this point is disband parliament instantly, have new elections, and have the representatives take a vote on what they want to do with the EU. If the UK population is really behind leaving the EU, let them freaking select the representatives that will force it through.
And guess what, if elections would be held tomorrow, there still won't be a majority for leaving the EU. This referendum is undemocratic.
Yes, they are the 2nd biggest economy in Europe. They have a GDP of €2.6 trillion. The largest economy in Europe, the EU, has a GDP of €11.7 trillion. So I guess the UK has the upper hand.