Ares Land wrote: ↑Thu Nov 12, 2020 9:15 am
MacAnDàil wrote: ↑Thu Nov 12, 2020 7:56 am
I can see how you might see it in terms of personal freedom, and there is that argument, but the consequences on the health and the environment should be taken into consideration as well. While it is certainly important to have rights (and I am among the first to say we should fight to keep them), rights are far from the only way of conceiving issues, even including those issues for which a rights-based interpretation is easily available. There are also responsibilities, to other members of society and to the planet we need to survive. Obviously the ideal solution, if there is one, would take into account all the arguments and positions.
I have no disagreements here. I'd just add two things:
- If some people wish for something to be banned, the burden of proof should be on those proposing a ban. If weed is in some way dangerous to society, sure, by all means, let's ban it, but those in favor of a ban should offer a coherent argument on why it should be banned. (I haven't heard much of a convincing argument on that side).
- Measures taken should be appropriate. Banning alcohol altogether, for instance, is an incredibly restrictive measure. Some people can't drink responsibly: why should responsible drinkers be, in effect, punished for them?
(I don't object to more moderate measures of course. Though I believe that we're going to far these days. We
know alcohol should be drunk in moderation, that tobacco kills you and that the human body can't survive on an exclusive diet of butter and chocolate; we don't need to be reminded of that at each commercial break. There is a point where individual responsability has to take over...)
I understand your comments about the burden of proof and not punishing responsible drinkers. However, for commercials, as far as I can tell, for every commercial against fatty and sugary foods, there is another for it. I remember seeing the other day one massive billboard against alcoholism and another right next to it, a promotional offer for alcohol at a supermarket. Health campaigns would be more effective and less necessary if unscrupulous corporations weren’t looking for prey all the time. Which brings us on to Switzerland, where mass advertising has been banned. (cite?)
Ares Land wrote: ↑Thu Nov 12, 2020 9:15 am
I have heard these oppositions to referenda before, most notably saying 'Switzerland banned minarets after a referendum therefore we shouldn't have referenda' but I think it is about as appropriate as saying the same thing after any decision taken in a more representative or authoritarian way:
It's really more of a trend. A look at the latest popular initiatives is particularly enlightening, with such gems as 'Deportation of criminal foreigners', the rejection of a proposal on gun control, 'An end to mass immigration' (wasn't aware there was any in Switzerland, but whatever). At the canton level, it's hardly better. The canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden granted women the right to vote in
1991 at the order of the Swiss Federal Court.
There's also the matter of nationality, granted at the communal level if I'm not mistaken. Suppose you've lived in Switzerland for 50 years, paid taxes, learned Swiss German but you live in the wrong kind of place and the neighbors are racist shits that don't like your face... well, tough luck.
Let's face it, Switzerland is basically a far-right fantasyland, where foreigners know their place and everyone has a gun. And it's all right, really. The Swiss can certainly live in the way they chose.
But I'm
very suspicious of following the model of a far-right fantasyland, especially these days...
Or, to put it another way, what has Switzerland to show for its direct democracy? I mean, sure, putting the right-wing populists in the driving seat is one solution to the current crisis of democracy...
OK so it does not boil down to one example, but far-right fantasy land is a bit of a stretch. ‘Mass immigration’ is of course no greater in Switzerland than elsewhere in Western Europe, but fairly significant compared to what people might be aware of (24% foreign nationals).
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/07/ ... explained/
Also, the Swiss model of direct democracy has been around for centuries before the far-right took over a liberal party and rose in Swiss politics. The rise came at the same time as the rise in other far-right movements, in the 1990s under Christoph Blocher. Earlier far-right parties in the country, like Freedom Party of Switzerland and Swiss Democrats never got more than 4% of the vote each or 8% combined. So the problem is not with the referenda, but with the far-right itself and the even more general trend of the rise in the far-right across Europe, and elsewhere.
We ought to distinguish clearly between mode of expression and what is being expressed.
we could have referenda subject to constitutional restraints, whereby referenda not in accord with constitutional values can not be put to a vote
That wouldn't work: how do you decide on the constitutional values in the first place? [/quote] It has worked with the creation of constitutions since the French and Americans adopted them at the end of the 18th century. The idea of striking down laws or referenda is not novel. Constitutional Councils and Supreme Courts have been at it for centuries or decades. One example is a referendum that a miscellaneous right wing mayor running a French commune wanted to put in place (banning immigrants). That was struck down by the justice system.
https://www.la-croix.com/France/Politiq ... 1200793105 So basically I would find it an improvement for referenda to be easier and more frequent like in Switzerland, but with the constitutional principles like in France.
There were specific problems involved in the Brexit referendum
The thing is, all of the dubious stuff around Brexit were facilitated by the referendum format.
Basically a referendum reduces a complex issue to a simple question with a 'yes' and 'no' answer.[/quote]Is that any more of a reduction than a second round of a presidential election?
With only two candidates left, Macron and Le Pen, people voted at roughly 2/3rds majority for Macron, expressing most likely their preference for centrism over the far-right. In the end, Macron moved further to the right, when sticking with centrism, or even moving further left, would have better corresponded to what people expressed at the polls. So this potential problem of offering a one-or-another option is not specific to referenda.
Also, we can see that some of the most dubious stuff has also been used in the American presidential election, which is less democratic than a simple popular vote, rather than more democratic, which is the case with referenda.
That's 90% of a propagandist's work right there! It's hardly surprising it was so easy to spread disinformation.
And, of course, since the issues are complex, once you get your 'yes' or your 'no' it's really easy to interpret it as you like.
As with the intervention, the disinformation tactics resemble the 2016 US presidential election and is therefore not specific to referenda.
In any case, it’s certainly a lot easier when there is a clear and detailed plan of what would happen under the proposed change before the referendum takes place. And this is what happened under the first Scottish independence referendum in 2014, with a hundred-odd page document detailing how Scotland would be run as an independent country.
In France, for instance, the 'no' to the 2005 referendum on the European constitution was interpreted in different ways. Sarkozy took it to mean that we said 'no' to that specific treaty, but that a slightly different wording was OK.
Ah so that was his excuse! I have never met anyone who discussed that without feeling distrust and betrayal, that the vote had been discarded.
Nobody, as far as I can tell, says “we reject your first draft, so tweak it a little and we’ll accept without questioning your second draft”. Even if that was the idea, a second referendum on the modified treaty would have been in order.
The FN took it to mean that the French clearly rejected the EU and everything to do with it.
Their position on the EU is inconsistent, sometimes even in the same interview or debate.
There is finally, the matter of what opinion polls tells us of what the results might turn out to be.
For instance, in France, 52% are in favor of the death penalty. Should we bring out the guillotine?
The percentages have varied, even in recent years.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peine_de_ ... 'abolition The majority for one side or another is not assured.
