No, you're a fascist.

How so?

Can someone hurry up and invent Soma already? Or make a virtual 'Great Britain' on Oculus that's idealistic enough for leave types.

I'm obviously defending some of the benefits of remaining a member of the European Union. Grow some serious criticism! (Emotional nationalist cries, loaded language, and ad hominems don't count).

And that goes for you too, @WhiskeyWhiskers. Calling @Michael a fascist? Really?

The hypocrisy of using democracy only when it favours your side is literally a necessary condition of fascism.

The hypocrisy of using democracy only when it favours your side is literally a necessary condition of fascism. — WhiskeyWhiskers

But what are you basing this on? Are you taking something that Michael has said as an example? From my point of view, it just looks like hyperbole.

Check the previous page. I see no reason why he wasn't being serious. I even asked if he was joking because I couldn't really believe what I was reading. What he calls "pragmatism" is nothing other than doing whatever he thinks is right; benevolent dictatorship - at least benevolent in his mind; 50% of the country would disagree. 95% could disagree with him and he would disregard the weight of common wisdom so long as he thought he was being "pragmatic". Democracy is reduced to a formality that can be ignored if the result doesn't suit him (as per the EU's attitude to Irelands referendums) and 'gentlemans agreements', for lack of a better term, are not honoured (following through on the result of a referendum even though it isn't legally binding, which Cameron has stated he will). I'll make it clear now that I won't be investing a lot of time arguing against Michaels 'pragmatism', because I don't think he's really thought it through and, already, it's quite absurd on the face of it.

Is it facist to favour the right decision over the popular decision? If the democratic vote favoured slavery, patriarchy, and homophobia, am I a fascist for hoping that those in charge ignore the vote and instead push for equality?

I'll make it clear now that I won't be investing a lot of time arguing against Michaels 'pragmatism', because I don't think he's really thought it through and, already, it's quite absurd on the face of it.

I have thought it through. What's absurd about it?

Indeed.

The accusation of fascism is rhetorically useful for emphasizing just how bad such an anti-democratic position is. It's definitely hyperbole though. The EU itself behaves in just the kind of way that Michael favours, and it's definitely not fascist. Unknowingly arguing from certain mainstream prejudices and ideologies, Michael thinks politics is, or should be, merely the expert technical management of a given state of affairs; his politics, as far as he has any, seems to consist mostly of appeals to authority, so he won't see it as a matter of enforcing his own personal opinions.

I doubt he thinks politics is merely the vehicle to realize a belligerent reactionary corporatist totalitarian state.

It's likely that attitudes such as his enable the growth of various anti-democratic -isms, but it's a bit unfair to label someone who is basically apolitical as a fascist. Don't get me wrong though: I think his attitude to politics is appalling.

I thought that that's what you were referring to. I think that I must have misinterpreted Michael's comments initially. Now I understand where you're coming from. As a pragmatic point, it's worth noting that that ain't gonna happen anyway. There's no way that the government would overturn the results of the referendum and risk the inevitable massive backlash. But, as an idealistic point, even if they did, I would condemn it on principle.

Is it facist to favour the right decision over the popular decision? If the democratic vote favoured slavery, patriarchy, and homophobia, am I a fascist for hoping that those in charge ignore the vote and instead push for equality? — Michael

You might want to check out the contemporary expert consensus regarding the economic consequences of the abolition of slavery.

I don't see how that answers the question.

It shows that experts are often wrong--that there are more important things at stake.

The problem with that analogy being the massive difference in degree. Leaving the EU isn't comparable to slavery, patriarchy, etc.

I know experts might be wrong. What I'm questioning the assertion that if if I don't give carte blanche to a democratic decision then I'm a fascist.

The point is that wanting to ignore a particular democratic decision doesn't make me a fascist.

It's not as black-and-white and you're trying to make it appear, though. Being in favor of overturning the results of this referendum is not justifiable in the same way that it would be if this were a referendum on slavery, and the results were to legalise it. Even if it is assumed that staying is the right decision, and the referendum result is to leave, the result should be honoured, since the consequences would not be severe enough to warrant otherwise, as it would in the case of slavery. It's not simply a matter of doing what is (presumably) right, irrespective of democracy.

So what you're saying is that if most people want to leave then I ought to want the government to make it happen, even though I want to leave? I don't accept that. I want what I want. Sometimes what I want is not what most other people want. But I still want what I want, not what most other people want.

My desire to stay in the EU is greater than my desire for the government to accept a democratic vote in favour of leaving. It's a simple fact that doesn't need justification.

Well...

... I'm not in the UK or in the USA. I'm in Europe.

All I can say is that the EU has cut the UK a deal that no other member nation in the EU has, so honestly I'm a bit fed up with the constant bitching. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/502291/54284_EU_Series_No1_Web_Accessible.pdf

-------------------------------------------------


Chapter 3 – wider protections
and opt-outs

3.1 The agreement reached at the February European Council creates a new
settlement for the UK in the EU. It builds on a number of wider protections and optouts
that the UK had already secured and which are established in the EU Treaties and
in domestic legislation. This gives the UK a special status in the EU unmatched by any
other EU Member State or third country arrangement.
Safeguards in Europe
• The euro: the UK is under no obligation to join the euro.
• Schengen: the UK has the right to maintain its own border controls, and to stay
outside the Schengen border-free area, without preventing the British people from
moving freely within the EU.
• Justice and Home Affairs: the UK can choose whether or not we participate in
new EU Justice and Home Affairs measures. This means we can participate in vital
aspects of co-operation against cross-border crime without putting our unique
justice systems at risk.
3.2 Our new settlement builds on these opt-outs with even stronger protections for the
UK’s position in the future:
• the UK’s sovereignty will be permanently protected from the threat of becoming part
of an ever closer union;
• the UK Parliament will have the power to work together with its counterparts in
Europe to block EU legislation;
• transparent and stable arrangements will be in place to secure the UK’s economic
position outside the Eurozone; and
• we have secured a commitment to important changes which will help protect the
UK from the threat of crime being committed by individuals moving around the EU,
tackle the abuse of freedom of movement, and limit access to our welfare system for
nationals from other EU countries.
3.3 Being at the table in the EU has also allowed us to secure safeguards in legislation to
help protect the interests of the UK. For example, in negotiations concerning Working Time,
the UK was able to ensure that there is an opt-out for individual workers from the maximum
48 hour working week.
38 The best of both worlds: the United Kingdom’s special status in a reformed European Union
3.4 When new countries are admitted to the EU in future, the UK will insist that our controls
on free movement cannot be lifted until their economies have converged much more closely
with existing Member States’, using indicators such as their GDP per capita, employment rate
and distribution of wealth. And we would seek to reimpose these controls if there is either a
serious disturbance in our labour market or adverse social or public policy impacts in the UK
as a result of migration from this new Member State. Any enlargement requires unanimity of
the existing Members and, in the UK, an Act of Parliament, so the UK can ensure that these
requirements are respected in any discussion of enlargement of the EU.
Safeguards at home
3.5 At home, we have built into UK law some strong protections against sovereignty
moving to the EU. The European Union Referendum Act 2015 requires a referendum on
our membership of the EU; the Government will propose that this should be held on 23
June 2016. And the European Union Act 2011 ensures that no further area of power or
competence can be transferred to the EU or national veto given up without the express
approval of our Parliament and the consent of the British people in a fresh referendum.
3.6 In particular, a further referendum would be needed to approve:
• amending the EU Treaties to transfer power from the UK to the EU;
• replacing the EU Treaties;
• removing any existing UK powers to veto EU action;
• a UK decision to take part in a European Public Prosecutor’s Office; and
• a UK decision to join the euro.
3.7 In short, the European Union Act 2011 puts power in the hands of the UK Parliament
and the British people. Unanimity is required at the EU level to change the Treaties, the UK
Parliament must agree to the change, and the British people would need to approve it in a
referendum – a triple democratic lock over any future steps towards integration with the EU.

---------------------------------------------

Honestly, my take is that the EU brings and gives more to the UK than the UK gives or brings to the EU. A part of me feels like saying "don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out".

Meow!

GREG

It's not about what you ought to want or not want. The question is if you're willing to accept a democratic decision you don't like and go on to support democratic campaigns to change that policy in the future; or if you'd prefer to disallow or over-rule democratic processes on an issue you're certain about.

It's exactly about what I want. That's the only thing I've been discussing. I said that I'd hope the government chose to stay even if most people want to leave. I then said that I wouldn't be keen if the government chose to leave even if most people want to stay. I was then called a fascist.

So I'm questioning the claim that I'm a fascist for wanting what I consider to be the right decision even if it's not the decision that favours most other people's desires.

No, it's not about what you should want, it's about what you ought to accept, regardless of what you want. You ought to accept the results, and not favour the possibility of overturning them. Jamalrob thinks that you have a thing for authorities, so perhaps it'll help if you just think of the results as authoritative. The people will have spoken, and there is insufficient grounds to defy them.

Is it facist to favour the right decision over the popular decision? If the democratic vote favoured slavery, patriarchy, and homophobia, am I a fascist for hoping that those in charge ignore the vote and instead push for equality?

I have thought it through. What's absurd about it? — Michael

The point is that it is very much up for debate which decision is the right one. You alone do not get to decide that; the country as a whole does. Over-ruling the majority decision if it does not agree with you, when the decision belonged to all the people, is anti-democratic. Your pragmatism assumes an astounding level of arrogance that you have the right answers, and people far more learned (from both leave and the uncertain) on this subject must all be wrong. A referendum is a question, we've had the debate, so let the chips fall as they may and respect the process. What's absurd about your position is it's logical conclusion; benevolent dictatorship. Do whatever you want to do because you think it's right. Your view leaves no room for national debate, dissenting opinion, democracy, common wisdom, tradition, or even basic humility.

What does it mean to "accept" a result anyway? To be in favour of it? Why would I be in favour of leaving simply because most other people want to leave? It doesn't matter how many people are in favour of leaving; I'm in favour of staying.

I took too long to reply, and you beat me to the punch. :-|

I don't like stepping on toes, but I couldn't help myself.

This all seems to be a red herring. Look back at what was actually said. I'll repeat my post to jamalrob:

I said that I'd hope the government chose to stay even if most people want to leave. I then said that I wouldn't be keen if the government chose to leave even if most people want to stay. I was then called a fascist.

So I'm questioning the claim that I'm a fascist for wanting what I consider to be the right decision even if it's not the decision that favours most other people's desires.

It means accepting it as binding and authoritative, rather than a meaningless pretence which can easily be overturned. That's effectively what it's going to be in any case, so why not? You know they won't dare overturn it. And it has nothing to do with however many other people want to leave. I'm clearly not pushing you to agree with them or to change sides. I'm in favour of staying as well, but that doesn't overide the results of a referendum, nor should it - even if we view it as unfavourable.

I can't accept that it's binding and authoritative because it isn't. That's a legal fact. So given that the government is not legally required to listen to the referendum, why am I a fascist for wanting them to choose to stay even if we vote to leave?

I said that it effectively will be. Meaning that it will be treated as such by the government. Do you disagree? I thought you were a pragmatist, yet you're arguing over an unrealistic hypothetical based on a legal loophole. (And I've not called you a fascist).