But your position isn't actually pragmatic or right. It'd be pragmatic to recognise that regardless of what you think is right, the referendum results are going to be what ultimately matter. The pragmatic mindset would actually be: "Let's work with what we've got, whatever the result may be". Your view would make sense if this were in fact a fascist state, and the state didn't have to worry about a public backlash. North Korea doesn't have to worry about that sort of thing, because they keep the public tightly oppressed. But here in Great Britain, the consequences of overturning the result would make doing so massively counterproductive. Surely it's pragmatic to avoid large-scale disruption. — Sapientia
I think you're twisting the meaning there (or at least what I intended to mean). All I'm saying is that if the country would be better off in the EU then I would prefer for the government to ignore a leave vote than to accept an advisory referendum. I'd call that a case of pragmatism over principles. — Michael
Of course, if the consequences of ignoring a leave vote outweigh the consequences of leaving then I'd be in favour of leaving. — Michael
But then the problem you'd have isn't with my anti-democratic pragmatism (as it has seemed up until now), but rather with my belief about what actually is the most practical decision. — Michael
I do not condone your take on overruling democratic decisions, except in the most exceptional circumstances. — Sapientia
You don't have to change which side you favour at the drop of a hat. I can't relate to that mindset.
It might seem that way, but looking at the bigger picture, it isn't pragmatism over principles at all; it's your principle of the state doing what you think is right - despite the consequences vs. practical considerations - which of course include taking the consequences into consideration. And for all intents and purposes, this is not an advisory referendum; it's the real deal.
On what grounds? Is there some moral obligation to want the most popular decision implemented? This seems to be the unspoken premise that's driving the criticism against me. — Michael
The point is that I'm not going to support the popular opinion simply because I'm committed to the principle of democracy. Instead I'm going to support whatever decision is going to give the country, and so by extension me, the better standard of living. — Michael
For the Nth time, no, you don't have to want it to be implemented, but you ought to respect the results, since this is obviously a democratic decision, despite the redundant technicality that you keep pushing about it being merely advisory and nonbinding. And expressing your desire that the results be overturned is not to respect the results or the democratic process behind the results.
...
You've repeatedly shown that you don't understand the criticism being made here. No one has said that you have to support the popular opinion. The point is about respecting the democratic process behind the referendum, which you do not, because you have no problem undermining it by taking advantage of a loophole, which has no chance of actually happening anyway, so is not even an option. — Sapientia
You've repeatedly shown that you don't understand the criticism being made here
I accept, as does the Prime Minister and the general public, that the decision is ours and not the government's.
The point is about respecting the democratic process behind the referendum
I don't understand what you mean by "respecting" the decision. If "you should respect the decision" doesn't mean "you ought to want the decision to be upheld", then how has anything I've said implied that I don't "respect" the decision (whatever that means)? — Michael
You're right; I don't. It's been hopelessly unclear. You're criticising the fact that I want the government to choose to stay even if the vote favours that we leave but then saying that you're not telling me that I ought to want the government to choose to leave if the vote favours such a thing. — Michael
That is basically what it means. — Sapientia
I'm saying that your decision that it's better to remain in the EU shouldn't change based on the results, but that you should respect the results of the referendum. The government is just the middleman on this issue; merely a mouthpiece of the people. It wouldn't make sense to want the government to choose to leave if you think it's better to remain - this is my point that you seem to be having trouble with. The word "want" is the wrong word to use. I want to remain, I don't want to leave, but I would accept the decision to leave as valid if that is what the people of our nation have voted for.
I'm not the only one to make this criticism. Jamalrob also criticised you for wording it in terms of what you want or should want. So that leads me to believe that the fault is not my lack of clarity, but rather your failure to take this criticism regarding the way in which you're phrasing this issue into account.
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. — jamalrob
But I'd still want the government to ignore such a vote. — Michael
What's not to understand? — Sapientia
That you'd want the government to ignore such a vote means that you do not really respect the result of the referendum or the democratic process.
If by "respect" you mean "admire", then no, I wouldn't admire the popular decision simply because it's the popular decision, and neither ought I.
If by "respect" you mean "take into consideration", then yes, I would take into consideration the popular decision. But taking into consideration the popular decision does not require that I agree with it – and nor does it require that I want it to be implemented. — Michael
You ought to accept the result as valid, as that is what both the government and the population intend it to be. But more than that, you ought not wish that it be undermined or overturned. — Sapientia
But more than that, you ought not wish that it be undermined or overturned.
I would want the country to leave, but not at the expense of our democracy. — WhiskeyWhiskers
Would you really be OK with a democratic decision that favoured slavery? — Michael
What you really mean by it being imperfect is that it doesn't agree with what you think should be done. Admit that much at least — WhiskeyWhiskers
You don't know any more than I do what the "right" decision is, but we make the best decision with the information we currently have that seems most credible to our own reasoning.
And we let the majority decide.
I would not be ok with a democratic decision that favoured slavery. Slavery is obviously a irredeemably immoral institution. The decision to leave or stay in the EU is not that clear either way. So the two are not even remotely equivalent, and you cannot argue they are.
Why? If I think that the democratic decision is wrong then I'm going to want it undermined. If we voted for slavery then I'm going to want it undermined. If we voted for a decision that would lead to a recession then I'm going to want it undermined. — Michael
I don't like referendums, and i don't respect them or regard them as democratic.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.