Brexit - Will it be ratified?

Brexit – Will it be ratified?

  • Yes

    Votes: 19 55.9%

  • No

    Votes: 9 26.5%

  • Unsure

    Votes: 6 17.6%
  • Total voters
    34
  • Poll closed .
C'mon NT you are not claiming to have feelings are you ? Unless a General Election clears out the Brexiters it won't be ratified and as it is only advisory on a small majority it won't be acted on.
 
I suspect there will either be a general election or more likely another referendum on the terms of our future relationship with Europe before an exit. Not confident but I reckon there is a 60% plus chance of the electorate having another say
 
Mr. Charts said:
I suspect there will either be a general election or more likely another referendum on the terms of our future relationship with Europe before an exit. Not confident but I reckon there is a 60% plus chance of the electorate having another say
Click to expand...

Won't that depend on who becomes Prime Minister? I suspect that May could go down that route, but Leadsom has a solid Brexit following and will have to tread carefully not to upset them - probably not a problem for her because she's now solid Brexit anyway!
 
Mr. Charts said:
I suspect there will either be a general election or more likely another referendum on the terms of our future relationship with Europe before an exit. Not confident but I reckon there is a 60% plus chance of the electorate having another say
Click to expand...

Nail in the coffin for democracy if the UK votes again.

Might cause more problems with civil unrest in the UK.
 
By
Mark Buchanan
During the next couple months, the various candidates to replace U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron will debate what to do now that voters have decided to leave the European Union. They should keep in mind that doing exactly what the voters said might not be the wisest -- or even the most democratic -- approach.

Direct democracy, in which voters decide specific issues en masse, is actually rather unusual. Typically, they leave such decisions to elected officials, such as a president or legislature, whom they provide with the time and resources needed to make well-informed choices.

As it happens, there may be a very good reason that government has historically developed this way: Smaller groups can actually make better decisions, particularly on complex issues. As researchers from Berlin's Max Planck Institute for Human Development note in a recent paper, the wisdom of crowds works well only on questions that individuals can answer relatively easily.

Suppose you're asking whether California's population is larger than Britain's (it's not). If you get nine people to vote, they'll probably get the right answer. If you get a million people to vote, they'll almost certainly get it right. The power of the crowd washes away the possibility of error.

But now try a harder question: If you fold a piece of paper on itself 25 times, will the result be taller than the Empire State Building? Most people would say no, even though the actual thickness would be about 10 miles. Asking a larger group to vote would only increase the certainty of getting it wrong.

The Max Planck researchers show that smaller groups perform particularly well when questions come in an unpredictable mix of easy and difficult. Under general conditions, they suggest, the optimal group size for making good decisions is fairly small -- often around 10 to 15, and typically less than 40.

No wonder decision-making bodies around the world work with small numbers. Think of juries, parish councils, central bank boards or parliamentary committees, which tend to have between five and 40 members.

Brexit

Granted, this research might not apply directly to the U.K. referendum, which arguably didn't have a right answer. Yet it certainly suggests that a referendum was an awfully crude instrument for deciding such an important and difficult issue -- especially given that the British public holds wildly distorted views on, say, the number of immigrants in the country (estimated by the public at more than twice the actual level).

Voters clearly expressed their discontent on a number of issues, including immigration and globalization. U.K. leaders can't ignore this, but they should also question the naïve view that respecting democracy demands invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, triggering the formal process of taking the U.K. out of the EU. There's a good reason that voters gave them the power and resources to examine such choices carefully. In deciding how to respect the voters' will, and whether this requires Britain to leave or stay, that is precisely what they should do.


http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-07/brexit-casts-doubt-on-the-wisdom-of-crowds
 
Democracy is hypocrisy!

This Brexit referendum has provided excellent ammunition for me to use against all the idiots in this forum who argue in favour of democracy. It’s great fun watching the left leaning libertards being hoist by their own petard!:LOL:
 
new_trader said:
This Brexit referendum has provided excellent ammunition for me to use against all the idiots in this forum who argue in favour of democracy. It’s great fun watching the left leaning libertards being hoist by their own petard!:LOL:
Click to expand...

The alternative of dictatorship has been tried and failed dismally lots of times. Although democracy has its drawbacks nobody has come up with anything better or are you about to enlighten us ?
 
Pat494 said:
The alternative of dictatorship has been tried and failed dismally lots of times. Although democracy has its drawbacks nobody has come up with anything better or are you about to enlighten us ?
Click to expand...

Maybe in your dichotomous and fallacious world, there are only two choices: dictatorship and democracy. You are quite mistaken.

Meritocracy - I happen to like this one.
Power should be vested in individuals almost exclusively based on ability and talent.​
Plutocracy - Many, including Aristotle and Plato liked this one.

Another interesting and seemingly more efficient way would be the corporatocracy.
 
hhiusa said:
Maybe in your dichotomous and fallacious world, there are only two choices: dictatorship and democracy. You are quite mistaken.

Meritocracy - I happen to like this one.
Power should be vested in individuals almost exclusively based on ability and talent.​
Plutocracy - Many, including Aristotle and Plato liked this one.

Another interesting and seemingly more efficient way would be the corporatocracy.
Click to expand...

And who is going to judge the merits of one person over another ? And on what basis ? If they brought in things like compassion you would be near the bottom !

Plutocracy is very nice for the robber barons of the corporate world. The rest of us would be wage slaves earning peanuts.

Maybe sitting in Parliament or Congress should be made on a lottery basis for a term of 6 months. A short term before the slobs entrench themselves and are difficult to evict.
 
Pat494 said:
Plutocracy is very nice for the robber barons of the corporate world. The rest of us would be wage slaves earning peanuts.
Click to expand...

Quit it with the hyperbole of the robber barons. How exactly are they robber barons? Just because they make more money than you want them to? Quit calling them wage slaves. Some people are actually happy to have a simple life. They do not view themselves as making "peanuts" in comparison to others. In fact, they do not feel the need to compare themselves to others at all.

As for those who are unsatisfied, they could always do more to improve their situation. Nothing will ever happen if they just sit on their hands and complain like you are. "Oh, poor me I am wage slave."

Absolutely nothing is stopping those people from starting their own business. Certainly not from a financial perspective. It costs "peanuts", to use your term, to form a corporation. If they have a good idea, then they should strike out on their. The fact is that most will not do this. Not because they do not have the resources, but because they like the security of working 9 to 5 and having a promised pension. If they do not have an idea or the intelligence to start their own business and become a "robber baron" CEO themselves, it is nobody's fault but their own.

CEOs, founders, business owners, execs,... make obscene money because they initially took all the risk on themselves.

The one-percenters are the one-percenters because only 1% of the population at best is willing to put forth the effort. Everyone else would rather work for somebody else. They are implicitly choosing this path because by not choosing to work for themselves by doing whatever it takes to get there.

Pat494 said:
Maybe sitting in Parliament or Congress should be made on a lottery basis for a term of 6 months. A short term before the slobs entrench themselves and are difficult to evict.
Click to expand...

Quit it with the hyperbole of the robber barons. How exactly are they robber barons? Just because they make more money than you want them to?

That would work as well as the real lottery. Ever heard of the lottery curse. Give some dumb schmuck $20 million dollars and he will blow it all, go bankrupt and end up worse than where he started. These wage slaves that you speak of would be no better off if you gave $100 million because they have not the foggiest about how to make and or manage money.

Nearly 70% of lottery winners end up broke within seven years. Even worse, several winners have died tragically or witnessed those close to them suffer.
Click to expand...
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/tragic-stories-lottery-winners-article-1.2492941

Pat494 said:
And who is going to judge the merits of one person over another ? And on what basis ? If they brought in things like compassion you would be near the bottom !
Click to expand...

Where there is the kicker. It is not, so I am not. You cannot bring in things that are irrelevant to someone's merits. That is an appeal to emotion fallacy.

Ex. 1
A: "I really want to be a doctor but I do not have the intellect to complete medical school successfully."
B: "That's alright. You are so downtrodden, we will give you a license even though you had a D average all the way through medical school."

Do you want him operating on you? I think not.

Pretty simple actually. We already have a judgment system in place for such things. There are also already intrinsic judgment systems in place. You should have already noticed which majors and profession went by the waist side during the recession in 2008. Medicine and law are pretty stable. Social sciences are obviously not so stable. I cannot begin to tell you how many people I know moaned about not being able to get a job after getting a doctorate in comparative literature or history or communications. Guess what, Sherlock, the reason is obvious.

1. intelligence
2. influence
3. reputation
4. criminal record or lack thereof
 
Last edited:
Atilla said:
By
Mark Buchanan
During the next couple months, the various candidates to replace U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron will debate what to do now that voters have decided to leave the European Union. They should keep in mind that doing exactly what the voters said might not be the wisest -- or even the most democratic -- approach.

Direct democracy, in which voters decide specific issues en masse, is actually rather unusual. Typically, they leave such decisions to elected officials, such as a president or legislature, whom they provide with the time and resources needed to make well-informed choices.

As it happens, there may be a very good reason that government has historically developed this way: Smaller groups can actually make better decisions, particularly on complex issues. As researchers from Berlin's Max Planck Institute for Human Development note in a recent paper, the wisdom of crowds works well only on questions that individuals can answer relatively easily.

Suppose you're asking whether California's population is larger than Britain's (it's not). If you get nine people to vote, they'll probably get the right answer. If you get a million people to vote, they'll almost certainly get it right. The power of the crowd washes away the possibility of error.

But now try a harder question: If you fold a piece of paper on itself 25 times, will the result be taller than the Empire State Building? Most people would say no, even though the actual thickness would be about 10 miles. Asking a larger group to vote would only increase the certainty of getting it wrong.

The Max Planck researchers show that smaller groups perform particularly well when questions come in an unpredictable mix of easy and difficult. Under general conditions, they suggest, the optimal group size for making good decisions is fairly small -- often around 10 to 15, and typically less than 40.

No wonder decision-making bodies around the world work with small numbers. Think of juries, parish councils, central bank boards or parliamentary committees, which tend to have between five and 40 members.

Brexit

Granted, this research might not apply directly to the U.K. referendum, which arguably didn't have a right answer. Yet it certainly suggests that a referendum was an awfully crude instrument for deciding such an important and difficult issue -- especially given that the British public holds wildly distorted views on, say, the number of immigrants in the country (estimated by the public at more than twice the actual level).

Voters clearly expressed their discontent on a number of issues, including immigration and globalization. U.K. leaders can't ignore this, but they should also question the naïve view that respecting democracy demands invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, triggering the formal process of taking the U.K. out of the EU. There's a good reason that voters gave them the power and resources to examine such choices carefully. In deciding how to respect the voters' will, and whether this requires Britain to leave or stay, that is precisely what they should do.


http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-07/brexit-casts-doubt-on-the-wisdom-of-crowds
Click to expand...

in the soviet union only one took the decisions, the man of steel stalin
 
hhiusa said:
Quit it with the hyperbole of the robber barons. How exactly are they robber barons? Just because they make more money than you want them to? Quit calling them wage slaves. Some people are actually happy to have a simple life. They do not view themselves as making "peanuts" in comparison to others. In fact, they do not feel the need to compare themselves to others at all.

As for those who are unsatisfied, they could always do more to improve their situation. Nothing will ever happen if they just sit on their hands and complain like you are. "Oh, poor me I am wage slave."

Absolutely nothing is stopping those people from starting their own business. Certainly not from a financial perspective. It costs "peanuts", to use your term, to form a corporation. If they have a good idea, then they should strike out on their. The fact is that most will not do this. Not because they do not have the resources, but because they like the security of working 9 to 5 and having a promised pension. If they do not have an idea or the intelligence to start their own business and become a "robber baron" CEO themselves, it is nobody's fault but their own.

CEOs, founders, business owners, execs,... make obscene money because they initially took all the risk on themselves.

The one-percenters are the one-percenters because only 1% of the population at best is willing to put forth the effort. Everyone else would rather work for somebody else. They are implicitly choosing this path because by not choosing to work for themselves by doing whatever it takes to get there.



Quit it with the hyperbole of the robber barons. How exactly are they robber barons? Just because they make more money than you want them to?

That would work as well as the real lottery. Ever heard of the lottery curse. Give some dumb schmuck $20 million dollars and he will blow it all, go bankrupt and end up worse than where he started. These wage slaves that you speak of would be no better off if you gave $100 million because they have not the foggiest about how to make and or manage money.


http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/tragic-stories-lottery-winners-article-1.2492941



Where there is the kicker. It is not, so I am not. You cannot bring in things that are irrelevant to someone's merits. That is an appeal to emotion fallacy.

Ex. 1
A: "I really want to be a doctor but I do not have the intellect to complete medical school successfully."
B: "That's alright. You are so downtrodden, we will give you a license even though you had a D average all the way through medical school."

Do you want him operating on you? I think not.

Pretty simple actually. We already have a judgment system in place for such things. There are also already intrinsic judgment systems in place. You should have already noticed which majors and profession went by the waist side during the recession in 2008. Medicine and law are pretty stable. Social sciences are obviously not so stable. I cannot begin to tell you how many people I know moaned about not being able to get a job after getting a doctorate in comparative literature or history or communications. Guess what, Sherlock, the reason is obvious.

1. intelligence
2. influence
3. reputation
4. criminal record or lack thereof
Click to expand...

I used to be young and callous once but time and the kindness of others have shown me a better way.
 
Leadsom, who supported the pro-Brexit campaign, has pledged to immediately invoke Article 50 if elected, starting the two-year withdrawal process. Legal experts have said that would be illegal without the approval of Parliament and threatened lawsuits. The first was filed this week by lawyers representing Deir Dos Santos, a U.K. hairdresser.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...first-suit-to-force-brexit-vote-in-parliament

Ordinary guy gets my vote. (y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

hhiusa
Big Protests Tomorrow? Over 10K?
Replies
0
Views
2K
hhiusa
hhiusa
JackRab
Brexit odds at bookies vs polls vs trade
Replies
13
Views
4K
JackRab
JackRab
GMoore87
Johnson’s Brexit timetable crashes in the UK Parliament
Replies
19
Views
3K
NVP
NVP
kissindicator
Brexit: Fight or Flight?
Replies
1
Views
1K
0007
0007
hhiusa
  • Poll
Brexit 2016 Cameron Referendum Poll
Replies
2
Views
3K
hhiusa
hhiusa
Top