Jump to content

Peoples vote ?


Observer II

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Confused52 said:

Asp, no need to be narky. Protest votes are rather unguided and I can object if I want, same right as the protest voters but without the dreadful side effects!

A protest vote is one that goes against someone's opinion apparently. Similar to someone disagreeing with someone else being described as "far right" or "extreme left" *

* erase depending on your personal opinion.

Everyone is free to hold an opinion and vote as they please without fear of censorship. What you're saying is your opinion that what you deem protest votes have "dreadful side effects" which you don't provide any evidence for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, asperity said:

A protest vote is one that goes against someone's opinion apparently. Similar to someone disagreeing with someone else being described as "far right" or "extreme left" *

* erase depending on your personal opinion.

Everyone is free to hold an opinion and vote as they please without fear of censorship. What you're saying is your opinion that what you deem protest votes have "dreadful side effects" which you don't provide any evidence for.

Well I think I have seen on this forum that at least one other member has said that the referendum result was a protest vote against being ignored. I deem the instability caused by the Brexit process as well as the inevitable difficulties we will have and costs that will flow from Brexit to be pretty dreadful consequences. I am certainly not the only one who would have preferred there not to have been a referendum. It has meant that the Scots continue to press for a second referendum and all manner of mayhem. Do explain why those are not dreadful side effects if you feel that is wrong.

Also see https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/brexit-referendum-protest-london-politicians-reality/

For the avoidance of doubt I don't treat Far Left and right as being relative to my views and I am less sure that they are useful in todays politics that they have ever been.

I also did not say that a protest vote is just against someone's opinion, especially not mine. Wikipedia has a definition close to the one I was using.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is fair to say we had a referendum because Cameron expected a resounding endorsement of his feeble negotiations  over EU membership. The calamity of May's general election came about because the people who voted to leave the EU had different axes to grind on the domestic front. May was naive to accept the poor advice to call the snap general election which backfired badly.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It backfired badly Dave, because the Tories introduced nonsense such as a care tax, when they didn't have to. All they needed was a mandate for a hard Brexit, which they would have got imo;  the alternative of a Labour Gov being a joke and still is. We're now clearly a global laughing stock and I'm sure any weak kneed snowflake would say - -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Confused52 said:

Well I think I have seen on this forum that at least one other member has said that the referendum result was a protest vote against being ignored. I deem the instability caused by the Brexit process as well as the inevitable difficulties we will have and costs that will flow from Brexit to be pretty dreadful consequences. I am certainly not the only one who would have preferred there not to have been a referendum. It has meant that the Scots continue to press for a second referendum and all manner of mayhem. Do explain why those are not dreadful side effects if you feel that is wrong.

Also see https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/brexit-referendum-protest-london-politicians-reality/

For the avoidance of doubt I don't treat Far Left and right as being relative to my views and I am less sure that they are useful in todays politics that they have ever been.

I also did not say that a protest vote is just against someone's opinion, especially not mine. Wikipedia has a definition close to the one I was using.

So at least one other member of this forum saying "the referendum result was a protest vote against being ignored" validates you saying that protest votes should be ignored? Get your story straight Confused please. Nobody can say why any single person in the whole country voted the way they did unless they actually ask that individual. To try and say that whole cohorts of people voted the way they did because of this or that reason is blind stupidity.  People voted the way they did for many and varied reasons. The instability has been caused by the politicians who do not accept the will of the majority, and the people who didn't vote with the majority but couldn't accept the democratic result (hereinafter denominated "sore losers").  We don't know what the consequences of us leaving the EU will be and won't know until it happens, but it could well be for the future benefit of the UK to be free from the shackles of the Franco/German alliance who want to run the EU as their "baby" and to hell with the rest of you. The Scots can have their referendum and, if as most of the English hope, they succeed in breaking the Union, best of luck to them in the big wide world of EU serfdom. All manner of mayhem? Easy to say but do try to give examples within the realms of reality. The media and establishment have been scaremongering for two and a half years now and yet all we get are "despite Brexit"stories.

Wiki doesn't support your idea of protest votes, although again Wiki is, in reality, just some peoples' opinions. You do know that right?

Your link is to some journalists "opinion". Not helpful, I can find other journalists with opposite opinions.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Evil Sid said:

Makes you wonder if that Hadrian fellow had the right idea after all.🚧🚧

but in reverse this time and I hope they do it,  I can apply for a Scottish Passport and still have all the advantages of the EU :D  Little Britain just gets littler 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, asperity said:

So at least one other member of this forum saying "the referendum result was a protest vote against being ignored" validates you saying that protest votes should be ignored? Get your story straight Confused please. Nobody can say why any single person in the whole country voted the way they did unless they actually ask that individual. To try and say that whole cohorts of people voted the way they did because of this or that reason is blind stupidity.  People voted the way they did for many and varied reasons. The instability has been caused by the politicians who do not accept the will of the majority, and the people who didn't vote with the majority but couldn't accept the democratic result (hereinafter denominated "sore losers").  We don't know what the consequences of us leaving the EU will be and won't know until it happens, but it could well be for the future benefit of the UK to be free from the shackles of the Franco/German alliance who want to run the EU as their "baby" and to hell with the rest of you. The Scots can have their referendum and, if as most of the English hope, they succeed in breaking the Union, best of luck to them in the big wide world of EU serfdom. All manner of mayhem? Easy to say but do try to give examples within the realms of reality. The media and establishment have been scaremongering for two and a half years now and yet all we get are "despite Brexit"stories.

Wiki doesn't support your idea of protest votes, although again Wiki is, in reality, just some peoples' opinions. You do know that right?

Your link is to some journalists "opinion". Not helpful, I can find other journalists with opposite opinions.

 

What I said was " I sometimes think that the vote should be restricted to those who have something to lose by making the wrong choice, protest votes should be discouraged. " It was you who incorrectly transposed that into "validates you saying that protest votes should be ignored". At the time I recall I was thinking of immature people but your reaction shows that my analysis was incorrect.

I told you "Wikipedia has a definition close to the one I was using" you said "Wiki doesn't support your idea of protest votes". I know what my idea was and I told you, it is not just my opinion that I know my own ideas better than you do.

I have no idea what you would take as evidence of harm because I fear that you will reject anything that does not validate your opinions. It is true that current instability is caused by the unwillingness of remainers to accept the result of the referendum. I voted remain but I do accept the result but I happen to also support the democratically elected government in its attempt to get a good deal and regard the people pushing for a no deal just as badly as those pushing for remaining.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Confused52 said:

What I said was " I sometimes think that the vote should be restricted to those who have something to lose by making the wrong choice, protest votes should be discouraged. "

 

 

And again we're back to who decides who should be allowed to vote and who decides what constitutes a "protest vote". So really we're left with the situation as it stands, if you're legally eligible to vote then you can vote for whomever or whatever you want. And nobody is entitled to "discourage protest votes".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think that someone disagreeing with you on a forum is "aggro" I feel for you 😥.

I'm not saying I want free speech banned, although you seem to want to at least didcourage it in the form of "discouraging" people from voting in the way they want. After all if someone wants to use their free vote as a means of protest why should they be discouraged from doing just that? A free vote is free speech, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, asperity said:

If you think that someone disagreeing with you on a forum is "aggro" I feel for you 😥.

I'm not saying I want free speech banned, although you seem to want to at least didcourage it in the form of "discouraging" people from voting in the way they want. After all if someone wants to use their free vote as a means of protest why should they be discouraged from doing just that? A free vote is free speech, no?

The one-sided proposition that every thing I say is opinion not worthy of consideration whilst any evidence I offer must meet the same standard as proof at the same time as being subject to misquotation and misunderstanding is aggro.

As regards your question the answer is probably no. The question was addressed in the US Supreme Court in 2011 see link https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/is-voting-speech/. This being a lowly blog you should perhaps look at paragraph 3 of Chapter 4 of Justice Scalia's opinion of the Court on Findlaw reached by using the link in the blog entry. We would normally call the opinion of the court the judgement I think. So not my opinion and not the UK either but somewhere that holds Free Speech to be rather important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Confused52 said:

The one-sided proposition that every thing I say is opinion not worthy of consideration whilst any evidence I offer must meet the same standard as proof at the same time as being subject to misquotation and misunderstanding is aggro.

 

You're starting to sound paranoid now. 😂😂. I've disagreed with your opinions not threatened you with violence for Pete's sake 🤔.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Confused52 said:

 

As regards your question the answer is probably no. The question was addressed in the US Supreme Court in 2011 see link https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/is-voting-speech/. This being a lowly blog you should perhaps look at paragraph 3 of Chapter 4 of Justice Scalia's opinion of the Court on Findlaw reached by using the link in the blog entry. We would normally call the opinion of the court the judgement I think. So not my opinion and not the UK either but somewhere that holds Free Speech to be rather important.

It may come as  surprise to you, but I'm not subject to any US Supreme Court judgements 😏. But alright I'll play along with your little game. So I've read the piece that you've linked to and believe the reason behind the opinion was to protect the US First Amendment from being used as a screen for the unscroupulous to hide behind:

There are of course motives behind a physical assault but to say that the assault is communicating those motives and is therefore speech is to risk allowing every action, however violent, to hide behind the First Amendment. And there are likewise motives behind every vote, but to say that a vote’s principal business is to communicate those motives is to risk allowing the First Amendment to override the protections that safeguard the integrity of the political process. The general conclusion is delivered crisply by Scalia: “[T]he fact that a nonsymbolic act is the product of deeply held personal belief — even if the actor would like it to convey his deeply held personal belief — does not transform action into First Amendment speech.”

We aren't covered by the US First Amendment in this country either.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, asperity said:

It may come as  surprise to you, but I'm not subject to any US Supreme Court judgements 😏. But alright I'll play along with your little game. So I've read the piece that you've linked to and believe the reason behind the opinion was to protect the US First Amendment from being used as a screen for the unscroupulous to hide behind:

There are of course motives behind a physical assault but to say that the assault is communicating those motives and is therefore speech is to risk allowing every action, however violent, to hide behind the First Amendment. And there are likewise motives behind every vote, but to say that a vote’s principal business is to communicate those motives is to risk allowing the First Amendment to override the protections that safeguard the integrity of the political process. The general conclusion is delivered crisply by Scalia: “[T]he fact that a nonsymbolic act is the product of deeply held personal belief — even if the actor would like it to convey his deeply held personal belief — does not transform action into First Amendment speech.”

We aren't covered by the US First Amendment in this country either.

 

Why do you think I want to argue with you about that when I was up front that it was a US court? The argument in the case appears to have been that having the right to vote had the protection of the first amendment , being free speech, such that a law which did not permit officers to vote should be struck down because it violated free speech. In summary, that the right to vote was a form of free speech. So analogous to your question. The answer in a common law jurisdiction similar, but different to ours in the existence of a written constitution that highlights free speech, was that casting a vote is not the same as free speech. The argument is as applicable here as there and the First Amendment is not the reason for the decision, rather it is human nature.

First Amendment speech is protected free speech which in your question is just Free Speech. A vote is not an act that anyone can read symbolism into because it is done in secret in your case whilst the court case would have been a public vote so read vote instead of nonsymbolic act. Rewrite the last sentence for yourself. 

You are now arguing with me about giving a researched and reasoned answer, with evidence, to a question that you asked me!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that Mrs May appears to be going over the heads of MPs to speak directly to the people, could it be she may try another referendum  - May's deal or No deal ?    However,  that may be constitutionally difficult as I think setting up a referendum requires 6 months.  On the other hand a Supreme Court ruling could make the 2016 referendum invalid (all those KGB agents in the polling booths !). Seems the establishment are determined to thwart the will of the people.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...