BREXIT - more good than bad or more bad than good?

[bhobba]

An election based on who can tell the most attractive lies and get away with it is not a shining example of democracy in action, and the UK isn't alone in experiencing that.

Often true in many elections, possibly even most.

Personally I think a lot of people get worked up about things that really, when you get down to it, are like a Star Trek episode where they made fun of our epoch being so concerned about political systems. Out here in Australia we had a government sacked and new elections called. That really caused, at the time, a huge amount of, shall we say heated debate. But now many people say, not all - there are some who still are very worked up about it taking one side or the other - but many, is it really that bad we held an election - after all that's what democracy is about. I think in 20 years time Brexit will evoke the same reaction - why were we so worked up about it, one way or the other. After all it's just a way of grouping countries for trade, currency etc etc. If people would prefer not to it is it really that bad? Personally though I had a sigh of exasperation when I saw a documentary on the European Parliament and how many members were basically asleep during sessions and it looked like a huge rort to me. Things like that do not endear themselves to the average voter.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Orodruin]

After all it's just a way of grouping countries for trade, currency etc etc. If people would prefer not to it is it really that bad?

You can make anything sound less severe by putting ”just” in front of it. The issue here is that people may not realize how important trade is for their economy - both the national and personal economy. Much of the UK’s economy relies on having frictionless free access to the single market. Take that away and many companies will suffer, leading to a chain of a priori undesirable outcomes including higher prices and higher unemployment. Of course, the UK could try to arrange a trade deal that includes fully free trade, but the EU will never accept such a deal without the UK submitting to EU rules and regulations, which they now really would have no say in. Even Boris would have a hard time selling that to his voters.

Personally though I had a sigh of exasperation when I saw a documentary on the European Parliament and how many members were basically asleep during sessions and it looked like a huge rort to me. Things like that do not endear themselves to the average voter.

I do not think this is particular to the European parliament. Take any parliament in the world and most of the work is going to be done in committees and many actual sessions of parliament are going to be visited only by a minority of MPs. If you look at the MEPs of the Brexit party they were doing worse than the average MEP in terms of attending their committees. The main example being Nigel Farage who allegedly rarely showed up to represent the UK’s interest in the fisheries committee.

There are also going to be a bunch of nasty surprises for the UK government down the road from the fact that the EU is always going to side with their member states in disputes, such as the dispute with Spain over Gibraltar. Now that the UK has left, they no longer need to have the gentle gloves on in negotiations.

 

[WWGD]

Often true in many elections, possibly even most.

Personally I think a lot of people get worked up about things that really, when you get down to it, are like a Star Trek episode where they made fun of our epoch being so concerned about political systems. Out here in Australia we had a government sacked and new elections called. That really caused, at the time, a huge amount of, shall we say heated debate. But now many people say, not all - there are some who still are very worked up about it taking one side or the other - but many, is it really that bad we held an election - after all that's what democracy is about. I think in 20 years time Brexit will evoke the same reaction - why were we so worked up about it, one way or the other. After all it's just a way of grouping countries for trade, currency etc etc. If people would prefer not to it is it really that bad? Personally though I had a sigh of exasperation when I saw a documentary on the European Parliament and how many members were basically asleep during sessions and it looked like a huge rort to me. Things like that do not endear themselves to the average voter.

Thanks
Bill

I see the issue of being about the UK being able to negotiate trade and other deals individually vs as part of a much larger block. A market of some 500 million people totaling more than $20T gdp can ask and expect to receive much better deals than a single country with some 70 million people; small when compared with other blocks. Going it alone does not seem wise.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

There are innumerable ways in which everyday life in the UK has been based on the long-term assumption that the UK is an integral part of an EU community with no internal borders, including of course the Northern Ireland border, where there are for example about 270 public roads which currently cross the border (some of them multiple times) and quite a few properties which cross the border, as in this story from two years ago:
https://news.sky.com/story/homes-and-businesses-divided-by-irish-border-11150875

For over 40 years, the UK has also gained the benefits of routinely sharing Europe-wide resources including trade negotiating teams, joint standards organisations and so on. Now they have suddenly realized that they need to train up UK people for these roles as the BBC reported last July:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-48943551

The BBC itself has been heavily criticised for being "anti-Brexit" in their coverage, by repeatedly calling attention to the potential problems, and even for the fact that panel shows rarely include any pro-Brexit people!
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...a-difficult-balancing-act-in-polarised-nation
This is obviously because the problems are real and the majority of better-educated people are indeed anti-Brexit, but this is not considered an acceptable excuse by Brexit supporters.

Overall, the EU requires that there is a border between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, which would either need to be in the Irish Sea or at the Northern Irish border. For purposes of obtaining a Brexit agreement, Boris said the border is effectively in the Irish Sea, but he now keeps saying there will also be no border checks at the Irish sea (although his own ministers and EU negotiators have contradicted him):
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...cks-needed-on-irish-sea-trade-after-brexit-eu

[It's well-known that people tend to select evidence that supports what they would like to be true and ignore evidence against it, but this seems an extreme case. I don't understand exactly what's gone wrong here (and in the US) and this thread is not the place to discuss it, but perhaps it may be related to the rise of social media, where authority and influence is now based on popularity within the general population, instead of being based on approval within a community of similarly authoritative peers.]

 

[fresh_42]

I don't understand exactly what's gone wrong here (and in the US) and this thread is not the place to discuss it, but perhaps it may be related to the rise of social media, where authority and influence is now based on popularity within the general population, instead of being based on approval within a community of similarly authoritative peers.]

The system to rely on propaganda instead of facts is at least as old as the Nazis in Germany and Goebbels' methods are. Hence we cannot blame social media. This "fake news" discussion, which we have here, too, is actually a product of the Nazis, who used it to spread their own lies. Zuckerberg isn't too blame. The fact that we constantly ignore our own history is.
„Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” - George Santayana (1863-1952)

 

[epenguin]

, but he now keeps saying there will also be no border checks at the Irish sea (although his own ministers and EU negotiators have contradicted him):
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...cks-needed-on-irish-sea-trade-after-brexit-eu

[It's well-known that people tend to select evidence that supports what they would like to be true and ignore evidence against it, but this seems an extreme case. I don't understand exactly what's gone wrong here (and in the US) and this thread is not the place to discuss it, but perhaps it may be related to the rise of social media, where authority and influence is now based on popularity within the general population, instead of being based on approval within a community of similarly authoritative peers.]

The phrase has been around (if I am not mistaken only since about last year - though the phenomenon longer) post-truth. Or the 'post-truth society'.

I found the case of the kippers striking. I don't know if Jonathan perceived the same as I did. That when Boris said it, nobody was much concerned either way about whether it was true or not. For anti-Boris people it was just something Boris said, discounted, no urgency to look into whether it contaiNed by way of exception some grain of truth, just it was typical Boris that's all. Pro Boris people liked it, they were in no way bothered to back it up or defend it. When the truth came out it made no impression either way. Nobody was scandalised that it was plain invention. Not even part of some dark plot of deception. Not a big lie to sneak past us a big thing. Nobody demanded the PM of the country be held to account for outright lying. Just normal that you said anything whatever that suited you on the spur of the moment.

(Old fashioned scientists grew up among phrases like "the search for the truth". But I gather that to modern ones a kipper can be at the same time wrapped W and unwrapped, not W. However I thought that when you interacted with it it became one or the other, If you unwrapped it it became unwrapped.But now I remember in a universe nearby though without possibility of communication it would be the opposite.

All very confusing really.)

 

[Jonathan Scott]

I guess I'm not made for the post-truth society. I grew up believing truth was essential in life, as it is in science and engineering; one false assumption can bring down a whole edifice. Lying goes along with cheating and stealing as unacceptable. I personally find it very difficult to tell lies, even "white lies" or lies to protect someone vulnerable, and can usually only get past the block by saying something which is not technically a lie but is probably somewhat misleading. I also find it difficult to give or receive the usual insincere social pleasantries; if I ask someone how they are, that means I'm really interested to know! (Perhaps I'm not made for society at all!)

 

[epenguin]

I guess I'm not made for the post-truth society. I grew up believing truth was essential in life, as it is in science and engineering; one false assumption can bring down a whole edifice. Lying goes along with cheating and stealing as unacceptable. I personally find it very difficult to tell lies, even "white lies" or lies to protect someone vulnerable, and can usually only get past the block by saying something which is not technically a lie but is probably somewhat misleading. I also find it difficult to give or receive the usual insincere social pleasantries; if I ask someone how they are, that means I'm really interested to know! (Perhaps I'm not made for society at all!)

We are looking like an evolutionary irrelevance, but maybe over a longer period some of our genes and memes...

 

[bhobba]

Nobody was scandalised that it was plain invention. Not even part of some dark plot of deception. Not a big lie to sneak past us a big thing. Nobody demanded the PM of the country be held to account for outright lying. Just normal that you said anything whatever that suited you on the spur of the moment.

Ever noticed how governments love to announce sometimes extremely important things just before a long weekend as we call it in Australia? Once you notice the pattern it is almost comical if it wasn't for the fact its sometimes about a very important issue. In the unlikely event they are caught out about it, well its we must have an inquiry into whatever issue it was about - an inquiry that when finished everyone has forgotten what it was about anyway. Only if that fails, and it seems to work most of the time, which is why they do it, does actual action happen. Even then that action is often just an expensive cover up. Take the financial industries Royal Commission here in Australia - it exposed some horrendous findings such as charging fees for no service, the selling of useless insurance, board meetings where customers issues were never discussed just the board members multi-million remuneration packages etc etc. Heads were going to roll. The financial industry would never be the same again. Guess what - a year on - a few directors resigned - but, basically, nothing really happened. I have to admit though there are still images left in my mind of the heads of these financial institutions being humbled by this young baby faced QC (Queens Council - often also called Senior Council if they wish - its up to them which they choose - they are like senior lawyers with at least 10 years experience in the US system, except its officially recognized), called the baby faced assassin. The executives would start out on the stand all cocky as if they had had the power, and soon found out who had the real power in the court room - one executive was even carried out on a stretcher presumably from a panic attack.

But as I said a year on - nothing has really happened. Amazing - or maybe not that amazing.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Vanadium 50]

The tenor of this thread has changed. Early on, it acknowledged that there would be winners and losers and there was an attempt to understand - and yes, argue one's positions - on whether there would be more winners or losers and whether this is a net gain or not. (These are different things - it is possible for there to be a net loss and more winners, and vice versa)

Now the position seems to be that this is bad for everyone, and the only reason a greengrocer in Lincolnshire would vote Leave is because he has been lied to and is to stupid to see it. (With the implication that he shouldn't be voting at all if he is that stupid)

While I am not an expert in these matters, it seems to me unlikely that this is the first political decision in the history of mankind that did not have winners and losers - only losers.

I would also suggest that while maybe having a referendum was a bad idea, once it was conducted and the votes counted, an attempt to overturn it because "the people got the wrong answer" would be viewed by those people as profoundly undemocratic.

As the Guardian - hardly a bastion of right-wingnuttery said: At the heart of it [the call for a second referendum] is an epistemic claim: people did not understand what was at stake and now that they do, we should give them a chance to vote differently. Instead of basing our political system on two fundamental principles – equal political rights (for those over 18) and majority rule – this claim introduces a new element, knowledge. It presumes that people who voted leave first time around were ignorant or misguided, or both. It also suggests that one’s right to act politically rests in part upon one’s ability to be informed about the issues in question.

 

[fresh_42]

As the Guardian - hardly a bastion of right-wingnuttery said: At the heart of it [the call for a second referendum] is an epistemic claim: people did not understand what was at stake and now that they do, we should give them a chance to vote differently.

Well, there is one aspect which contradicts this position in part: The Scottish. They were cheated, since as they voted for their independence, being part of the EU was the major argument of the English establishment. Only to find out some time later, that this was a lie. So there are indeed people who where misguided.

And here is a personal quote an English lady once said to me: "What do you expect? I'm English. We lie." Sorry, but she actually said this.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, there is one aspect which contradicts this position in part: The Scottish. They were cheated, since as they voted for their independence, being part of the EU was the major argument of the English establishment. Only to find out some time later, that this was a lie. So there are indeed people who where misguided.

And here is a personal quote an English lady once said to me: "What do you expect? I'm English. We lie." Sorry, but she actually said this.

Truth does not have a time machine.

 

[fresh_42]

Truth does not have a time machine.

No, but it demonstrates the means politicians have chosen to convince people. Truth wasn't the preferred one.

 

[russ_watters]

No, but it demonstrates the means politicians have chosen to convince people. Truth wasn't the preferred one.

I know I'm not real plugged into the issue, but my recollection is that the Brexit vote was not a slam dunk. Am I wrong? And if so, how would an obvious and vast majority vote constitute a form of deception?

 

[fresh_42]

And if so, how would an obvious and vast majority vote constitute a form of deception?

Because people are stupid and even worse: uniformed. I've seen interviews on the British countryside where the majority voted LEAVE, only to recognize later on, that the EU paid them millions of money on projects to develop their countryside. Now they will lose this money, and already regret their choice. Sure, it is an example. I cannot ask all pro Brexiteers. However, it shows the mechanisms which were at work. Follow the money is an easy way to see the truth - one of my preferred ones. Money doesn't lie. Now look at who has profited by how much money from the Brexit? You bet it wasn't the people on the countryside.

Here is the answer to your question, at 1:16.

 

[russ_watters]

Because people are stupid and even worse: uniformed.

So, again: too dumb to be allowed to vote. Wow. We're in scary times indeed.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Someone who is a UK resident should correct me, but my understanding of the timeline was that in 2013, David Cameron promised a referendum should the Tories be elected, expecting that it would be overwhelmingly pro-Remain. In 2014 Scotland voted to remain in the EU. In 2016 the referendum happened, and I think it is fair to say that the result was as surprising as the US election of 2016. Polls broke both ways, but the "better polls" showed Remain up a few points.

I think there's no question that things turned out badly for Scotland, but I am at a loss to decide who exactly lied. Not Remain. Not Leave. The pollsters? Who knew the referendum would turn out the way that it did?

If one wants to argue that there shouldn't have been a referendum because of implicit promises to the Scots, that's a fair point. But once the referendum happened, I don't think anyone could make that point.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Here is the answer to your question, at 1:16.

Goodwin's Law?

 

[fresh_42]

So, again: too dumb to be allowed to vote. Wow. We're in scary times indeed.

No, we are not. But we should face the power of propaganda.

 

[fresh_42]

If one wants to argue that there shouldn't have been a referendum because of implicit promises to the Scots, that's a fair point. But once the referendum happened, I don't think anyone could make that point.

No, and again. It demonstrates the rules they had been playing to. And BJ and NF traveled in this bus:

and this was definitely a lie. Even though a big red one.

Btw big red one. 20-10 and 7:13 to go. I'm pis***

 

[russ_watters]

According to this poll from a few days ago, only 5% of voters feel they were lied to and 47% remain too dumb to be allowed to vote (though even much of the change may be due to voter turnout):
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...gainst-brexit-today-opinion-polls-suggest/amp

 

[fresh_42]

The solution is not "too dumb to vote". The solution has to be education and qualification. Unfortunately, this is not in the interest of certain political groups as can be seen these days.

 

[russ_watters]

The solution is not "too dumb to vote". The solution has to be education and qualification.

It would be a Goodwin's law violation for me to point out what's wrong with that.

[caveat: "qualification" is still "too dumb to vote"]

 

[fresh_42]

It would be a Goodwin's law violation for me to point out what's wrong with that.

[caveat: "qualification" is still "too dumb to vote"]

Choose another comparison though. What should be wrong to set people in a status where they actually can make qualified decisions? At least I have learned at school that this is a premise for democracies, or at least should be in theory.

 

[russ_watters]

Choose another comparison though. What should be wrong to set people in a status where they actually can make qualified decisions? At least I have learned at school that this is a premise for democracies, or at least should be in theory.

In the US, yes, qualifications for voting are anathema because by definition they require an authority's judgement. Historically they are used for discrimination/marginalization. And as we've seen in this thread, the authority can simply decide that anyone who disagrees with the authority is unqualified.

The Goodwin's Law thing was about the first part: people with wrong opinions require "re-education".

This issue has a nearly exactly 50/50 opinion split, which to me should mean "the other side" (whichever that is) should be respected as a real opinion. This isn't anti-vax or flat Earth!

 

[fresh_42]

Goodwin's Law?

It is the prototype (here) of an example in which a mass of people had been talked into a decision they would never have made if asked as a person. If you like, take this example from MIB:

Edwards: Why the big secret? People are smart. They can handle it.

Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.

 

[fresh_42]

And as we've seen in this thread, the authority can simply decide that anyone who disagrees with the authority is unqualified.

No, that is definitely not what I wanted to say. I only prefer a "facts on the desk" policy over a manipulative pseudo information. And yes, it requires a measure of truth. If this is impossible in your mind, that a fact cannot be verified as such, then the entire discussion is obsolete.

... wait a second 4th and long ...

 

[Orodruin]

According to this poll from a few days ago, only 5% of voters feel they were lied to and 47% remain too dumb to be allowed to vote

Has anybody else referenced "too dumb to vote" in this thread. There is a huge difference between misinformed and dumb. The problem is that, given the right channels to influence people, it is rather easy to do so - even to the point that you can get them to vote contrary to their own interests. Democracy is not infallible in any way or form, to quote Churchill:

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…

To me, the biggest problem with the Brexit referendum was not that people were stupid or dumb. The biggest problem was that there was no real option being offered, but rather a fluid notion sprinkled with a few promises of unicorns. The most reasonable argument for a confirmatory vote would have been that nobody knew what they were actually voting for in 2016, not because of being dumb but because it was completely unclear what Brexit would mean. "Brexit means Brexit" is the problem here, because there are many forms of Brexit and the lack of a definite one in the referendum meant that the Leave campaign could tailor their argument to any voter by changing the message regarding what form of Brexit was intended. The idea of a confirmatory vote was even proposed as possible step in the process by leading brexiters (until they won the referendum).

 

[PeroK]

In 2014 Scotland voted to remain in the EU.

In 2014 Scotland voted to remain in the UK (by 55%-45%). One major issue that the Independence movement faced was that Spain made it clear that they would veto an independent Scotland joining the EU(!). If Scotland had gone independent, it was very likely they would not have been allowed into the EU.

Ironically, the only way at that time for Scotland to stay in the EU was to stay united with England. But, then of course England voted to leave the EU anyway. Sometimes you can't win!

 

[Orodruin]

One major issue that the Independence movement faced was that Spain made it clear that they would veto an independent Scotland joining the EU(!). If Scotland had gone independent, it was very likely they would not have been allowed into the EU.

It should be mentioned that this was largely the result of the Spanish domestic independence movements, most notably in Catalonia. It was also a previous Spanish government (Spain has also had something like 4 general elections in as many years, much due to the emergence of new parties challenging the de facto two-party system). Scottish acceptance into the EU would surely not have been automatic, but it might have come around in time.

On the contrary, Donald Tusk (now unfettered as he has stepped down from being president of the European Council) recently said that the EU was likely to look favourably on an application for membership from Scotland if it were to become independent. Of course, it would still have to go through the regular application process, which in itself can take years if not decades.

 

[PeroK]

It should be mentioned that this was largely the result of the Spanish domestic independence movements, most notably in Catalonia. It was also a previous Spanish government (Spain has also had something like 4 general elections in as many years, much due to the emergence of new parties challenging the de facto two-party system). Scottish acceptance into the EU would surely not have been automatic, but it might have come around in time.

On the contrary, Donald Tusk (now unfettered as he has stepped down from being president of the European Council) recently said that the EU was likely to look favourably on an application for membership from Scotland if it were to become independent. Of course, it would still have to go through the regular application process, which in itself can take years if not decades.

It's too late now. The doubt over EU membership also left Scotland with no clear plan for a currency post-independence. In any case, Scottish independence needed certainty on the EU issue. I'm not saying the result would have been different, but without certainty on remaining part of Europe, Scottish independence was doomed.

 

[Vanadium 50]

n 2014 Scotland voted to remain in the UK (by 55%-45%)

Oops. I meant "UK".

 

[Vanadium 50]

The doubt over EU membership also left Scotland with no clear plan for a currency post-independence.

There is the Scottish Pound. It couldn't be any harder to spend one in London than it is now.

 

[Klystron]

On the subject of an informed citizenry, both @fresh_42 and @russ_watters, among other members, make valid points. Voters have a duty to educate themselves and each other to the best of their ability before casting votes. Voting remains a right and privilege of each citizen within a framework of reliable information.

For example, I have renewed digital subscriptions to the Washington Post and New York Times in addition to PBS and BBC news feeds anticipating the vital 2020 presidential election. I also read articles from The Guardian, San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Times, local and international news sources to stay informed. I plan to caucus with my neighbors later this month to help choose candidates for office.

Voting in the state I grew up in became quite difficult as more and more referendums saturated voter ballots. I remember studying over 25 pages of ballot information and dozens of public sources to decide a fresh water initiative among many where even the sponsors and principle opponents of the measure remained obscure.

While my current home state avoids much of that ballot expansion, we must vote for municipal judges and other local civil servants. Finding reliable information on these candidates remains very difficult, particularly when diverse candidates have similar names, leaving informed choice problematic.

Brexit, and Catalonia and Scottish independence movements remind me of historical attempts to separate California into smaller states, if only to improve representation at the state and federal levels and reform taxation.

[Edit 20200213: "The Guardian" should be "Reuters". While I read the some Guardian articles, Reuters appears in my news feed as a source for international news. Thanks.]

 

[fresh_42]

... to separate California into smaller states, if only to improve representation ...

The electoral college is a topic for its own ... Best thing I've ever heard was from TX. As I told a friend of mine that there are people in TX who want the state to leave the US, she replied: "Yes, but in that case, Austin will leave Texas."

It's currently not only the US and UK. National movements appeared in many other countries, too, and often won elections. As if nationalism had ever solved a single problem! However, it caused two world wars with countless deaths and further back in history, things don't look much better. People apparently have a strong desire for simplification, and nationalistic illusions are the simplest possible. I cannot believe that 8 billion people on only $150,000,000\, km^2$ land - of which great parts are inhabitable - allow simple or even local solutions anymore.