17 ms·
The British are Googling what the E.U. is, hours after voting to leave it
- Analemma_ 10y agoHere's a Leave fellow who says he just did it as a protest vote thinking it wouldn't actually pass. https://twitter.com/AdamWSweeney/status/746269140915208193 https://twitter.com/AdamWSweeney/status/746269140915208193 I don't know whether to laugh or cry. The most important international agreement in the UK's history torn up because people thought this was a Buzzfeed poll.
- mikeash 10y agoThat reminds me of certain American voters saying they support Trump just because they want to tear the system down. I don't think they realize what tearing the system down would actually mean.
- avs733 10y agoI can say with confidence that it might mean the government stays out of their medicare /s
- fomojola 10y agoNot sure if you're being facetious, but Medicare IS the government, you do realize this? Medicare isn't some magical, mythical creature that existed from the dawn of time and has always been there: it is explicitly a creation of the government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States))
- mikeash 10y agoThey're mocking people who protested with signs like "Keep government out of my medicare!" during the debate over Obamacare.
- avs733 10y agonote the /s
- mikestew 10y agoNot sure if you're being facetious, but Medicare IS the government And parent even used the sarcasm tag. :-) Parent doesn't need it explained, but some American citizens apparently do: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/prescriptions/2009/08/the_medicareisntgovernment_meme.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/prescription...
- ars 10y agoI get the joke, but after having dealt with them, I would personally love it if the government got out of medicare. Just give everyone a voucher and let them buy their own health insurance using it. The amount of paperwork, and details to keep track of and calculate was absolutely unreal. I have BOXES full of paper from medicare, there was so much I could barely keep up. The worst was the arcane and utterly confusing rules on eligibility: if this, or if that, or you live here, or there, for these dates, and that deadline. I felt like I needed an AI just to figure it all out (and in hindsight my understanding was completely wrong, and I chose the wrong option).
- brewdad 10y agoSounds a lot like private insurance. Handing out "free" money has worked so well for higher education. How will vouchers solve the problem of skyrocketing health care costs?
- njloof 10y agoBy contrast, the paperwork I do (as a client) under Canadian single payer Medicare is nil, and my supplementary insurance (vision/dental) can be filled out online in minutes. Sounds like you need a better system in the US. Maybe not so many different stakeholders in the system?
- ars 10y agoThat's how it works for commercial plans. Very easy, simple paperwork. They have to compete with each other, if they were confusing no one would sign up. > Sounds like you need a better system in the US. It does work for most people, it's the edge cases that fail. > Maybe not so many different stakeholders in the system? Making medicare normal would require much higher taxes (medicare/medicaid hospital payments are below costs and are subsidized by commercial plans). People would then save money on commercial plans. Net dollars would not change, or maybe go down, but the distribution would change, some winners, some losers.
- stephenr 10y agoAmericans always seem to just assume that because their unique way of doing <thing> doesn't work, <thing> is unworkable and should be abandoned, usually in a "let the corporations fix it" kind of way. - Banking regulations - government backed healthcare - gun control - education system
- lgas 10y agoActually as long as you include that "it might" part in there, you can say anything with confidence.
- rayiner 10y agoWhat would it mean?
- eumoria 10y ago...joining the EU?
- mikeash 10y agoDeath, destruction, anarchy, civil war. Not that I think Trump will bring that. The office of President is not that important. But I'm talking about what a certain set of voters says they want, not what will actually happen if they vote that way.
- raisedbyninjas 10y agoAfter dismantling the last superpower, a whole spectrum of things could happen. The assumption is that whatever rises from the ashes just by chance is better than the system that has been refined and mostly thrived for two centuries. Of course there is no assurance that we won't be left with a mix of anarchy and warlords.
- LanceH 10y agoYea, only the other side has idiots voting for them.
- mikeash 10y agoNever said it was only that side. I consider myself an independent and while I view the Democrats more favorably, I'm not positively inclined towards either party nor either voter base. Don't read things that aren't there.
- burkaman 10y ago"Certain american voters", not the whole "other side". I'm sure most Trump voters actually want him to be president, but I've heard a few people say "oh I'm sure he'll get impeached within a year or two, I just want to shake up the establishment".
- mikeash 10y agoI originally posted the comment without "certain" and then immediately went back and added it, because I was afraid someone would think I was referring to all Trump supporters without it. Apparently it didn't work anyway.
- LanceH 10y agoI didn't think you or anyone else thinks it's all. But so much of news coverage (and forum arguments) are about the fringe elements which are basically nothing more than strawmen. Saying that there are some people ignorant of what they are voting for is not news. Stating that one side has ignorant voters carries implications that the other side is correct and right thinking.
- mikeash 10y agoThis whole story is about people who are ignorant of what they are voting for. "Stating that one side has ignorant voters carries implications that the other side is correct and right thinking." No it doesn't. Why would you say that? I can't even.
- maxaf 10y agoThere's no harm in tearing down something that doesn't benefit the majority of voters in this country. I say let 'er burn.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- mikeash 10y agoYes, perfect illustration of my point. The government benefits the people enormously. Yes, it has a lot of problems, but we're way better off with it than without it. I can totally understand a desire for reform, but simply tearing it down is insane.
- jazzyk 10y agoThe only way to force the government to reform is to vote out the party that screwed up. Unfortunately, in the US, both parties colluded to work for their corporate sponsors, not the people who vote for them, so they both need to be disrupted somehow. Most voters understand it, and that explains the anti-establishment voting in this election (Sanders/Trump)
- mikeash 10y agoThere's a big difference between "reform" and "tear down." I'm specifically referring to people who say they want the second. I can understand, if not agree with, people who want to elect Trump so he can reform the system. I think people who want to elect Trump to tear the system down don't understand what that means.
- jeli 10y agoAhh yes, there's no benefit to being under the American government; we might as well all pack up and move to North Korea, because any change is good change!
- tamana 10y agoEven though one of Trump's most legitimate points in favor was that he mocks how the USG tore down the system in Iraq and Syria, distorting the country.
- chongli 10y agoWhen you're in an abusive relationship it's always harder to pack up and leave than it is to stay. You've gotta do it though, because the long term consequences of living with your abuser are unacceptable.
- simplyluke 10y agoOf course, we're talking about one of the largest/most functional nations in the history of the world not domestic abuse.
- cool_penguins 10y agoMost people in the US don't know how good they have it and what it means to be under a true abusive and police state.
- mikeash 10y agoI think a big chunk of Americans almost want it to be a police state, so they have something to fight against. It makes me think of Sam Altman's recent article about Trump. He said he was taking some risk by writing that, and some commenters here praised his bravery in taking a public stand on this. It's ridiculous. Bravery would be a prominent techie taking a stand for Trump. He's not going to suffer any consequences for publishing that. Nobody's going to knock on his door and haul him off at 3AM, or deny him entrance into any organizations, or even shoot him dirty looks on the street.
- meric 10y agoI got some really bad looks in my office building when some people overheard me telling a colleague I rather Clinton lose than Trump lose, due to her preference for fighting wars. One person looked at me like if they could kill me, he would, like I was some enemy. A lot of anti-Trump people accuse Trump supporters of bigotry and exclusion, but I think that's projection on their part. No, I don't feel comfortable writing this comment. For the record, I don't like Clinton or Trump. But it's better for the rest of the world for Clinton to lose.
- saynsedit 10y agoDo you know anyone personally who has said this?
- 4ad 10y agoI'm not the OP, but I know a few such people.
- mikeash 10y agoI don't even know anyone personally who has expressed any favorable view of Trump. Yet clearly they exist in fairly large numbers, so I don't think that should prevent me from acknowledging them.
- saynsedit 10y agoThe support of Trump has data behind it. Second-hand anecdotes of people claiming they'll vote for Trump just to see the system come down is not data. Without data, it may be such a minority of people that it's not worth significant consideration in a discussion. I'm apt to believe it's an extreme minority given it's an extreme view.
- mikeash 10y agoMaybe so, and maybe people who voted in the EU referendum without understanding the EU are likewise an extreme minority. If you want to stick with easily quantifiable facts then I don't think this is the right discussion for you.
- saynsedit 10y agoFalse equivalence, I wouldn't call uninformed voting (as they are painting it) extreme. I would call malicious voting extreme though. In any case you're probably right. Most people who voted to exit the EU probably weren't uninformed. Google data only represents correlation. General buzz about brexit is a more likely explanation for the search trends. Occam's razor dominates.
- _9MOTHER9HORSE 10y agoOn the contrary, the fact the EU had enormous power over British people, yet barely anyone knew what it was, what it did, or why it was important, was a compelling reason for the UK to leave.
- a-priori 10y agoOr, perhaps, it's a compelling reason why things like this shouldn't be decided by referendum.
- TearsInTheRain 10y agohow should they be decided then?
- a-priori 10y agoWe elect politicians whose full-time jobs it is to understand big and complicated issues, and to decide on our behalf how to deal with them. That includes the right to make and break treaties with other world powers. Why should something like this be any different?
- dragonwriter 10y ago> We elect politicians whose full-time jobs it is to understand big and complicated issues, and to decide on our behalf how to deal with them. But, on Brexit specifically, the British people elected a government that made a campaign promise to hold exactly such a referendum, and to abide by its results.
- makomk 10y agoOne very plausible theory I've seen doing the rounds is that the government never actually expected to have to follow through on that campaign promise. Strategically speaking it was a terrible idea and Cameron was always pretty pro-EU, but he needed the support of the anti-EU faction of his party, so he promised the vote as a sop to them. The theory goes that he didn't expect to get an absolute majority in Parliament and hoped the other parties would "force" him to to not follow through.
- _nalply 10y agoWelcome to direct democracy. The Swiss also had protest votes which actually passed.
- tamana 10y agoA non binding referendum is not direct democracy.
- _nalply 10y agoRight. Formally you are correct. However effectively the Brexit vote is an expression of sovereignty of the populace. It's about power. Why? Because some parliament members are afraid to oppose the outcome. Of course some things are different from the Swiss direct democracy. First the votes aren't ordained by politicians as a gamble but are set in motion by predefined rules in constitution and law. Second, the federal minister (Bundesrat) who has «lost» a vote doesn't retire like Mr. Cameron. Quite the opposite: everybody expects that he obeys the people and takes over to try to find the best way. Like a child who has to obey its parents and can't retire if he disagrees.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- pricechild 10y agoI don't think your description is accurate. He says "I'm a bit shocked to be honest.. <Presenter: What about?> I'm shocked about both... I'm shocked that we have actually voted to leave. I didn't think that was going to happen. My vote, I didn't think was going to matter too much because I just thought we were going to remain." Maybe this short clip is missing context... maybe he says later on in the conversation that it was a protest vote... but all this clip shows is that he's surprised they won? It's common to vote for something you believe in, knowing the opposition will win anyway. That doesn't imply it's a protest vote, that you don't really want what you're voting for.
- Dr_tldr 10y agoIt might worth remembering that anecdote !== data. Drawing conclusions about the motivations of a larger group from one member of that group is logically indistinguishable from all the discriminatory -isms.
- nzp 10y agoSo you're characterizing everyone who voted to leave based on a distorted statement of one person the BBC pulled out. He in fact did not say that, quoted no less, sentence at all! Find the clip, the full clip, and watch it. He said he was shocked that they won, AND didn't expect Cameron to resign, and so is worried about that. It's quite understandable to be worried about big changes regardless of wanting them or not. He has neither said it was a protest vote or anything like that, nor that he regrets it.
- delboy88 10y ago>Here's a Leave fellow who says he just did it as a protest vote thinking it wouldn't actually pass. So? >The most important international agreement in the UK's history torn up The Act of Union 1707 was torn up because of this? >because people thought this was a Buzzfeed poll. It's really pathetic that sore losers like yourself are making nonsense claims like this.
- mc32 10y agoIsn't that expected? People who voted for the establishment status quo want to know what might happen in the years to come now that the vote has gone against them. Voting to stay meant no change, therefore they knew more or less the outcome, but now that the outcome is opposite their votes, they want to look into the repercussions --this informs that it's likely they stay vote didn't investigate the alternative before voting and likely voted out of custom to stay. But way to go WaPo and imply naïveté on the Brexiters.
- capote 10y agoWanting to know and in many cases regretting it. It seems obvious many had no idea what they were doing, and many were just "mucking about".
- Slaul 10y agoHow do you know that they regret it "in many cases"?
- capote 10y agoGut feeling after reading the article I suppose? Would you really be surprised if many voters didn't know what they were voting for? Especially if the outcome is one agreed upon by most intellectuals to be the worse outcome.
- twoquestions 10y ago"People of $MY_IDENTITY believe a thing, so I'll vote for it no matter what $OTHERS say!" I thought before reading that story that the above was a bad caricature, but holy shit. How can you not know what the EU is if you're in a member country and can read? It's like an American not knowing what Congress is!
- fwn 10y agoWhile this is what the headline suggests, it's not following from their observation. Classic policy piece.
- DiabloD3 10y agoAmerica DOESN'T know what Congress is. Or wait, was that the joke? My bad.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- jdimov10 10y agoGosh, you'd be amazed about that Congress thing... Americans are like super good at not knowing shit :)
- dmoy 10y agoPretty sure like 30%+ of Americans don't know what our three branches of government are.
- whistlecrackers 10y agoMaster, release, and develop?
- mpnordland 10y agoIf only. That actually sounds like a plausible, perhaps even advantageous structure. Imagine that, a testing environment for government. Dang, I actually like that.
- alexcason 10y ago"Even though I voted to leave, this morning I woke up and I just — the reality did actually hit me," one woman told the news channel ITV News. "If I'd had the opportunity to vote again, it would be to stay."
- arethuza 10y ago#WhatHaveWeDone seems popular on Twitter, as is #notmyvote
- chki 10y agoWhich might be posted by those who voted "remain" as well, because people feel that they belong together although they voted differently.
- the_common_man 10y agoSo? It is just one woman.
- rohit89 10y agoCould just be fear of change.
- Maydowf 10y agoIf this is for real... It is really sad. I understood that xenophobia was the main reason Great Britain wanted to get out of EU, which is also sad.
- TearsInTheRain 10y agoIt's absolutely dishonest and dismissive to say that xenophobia is the main reason they want to leave, and that attitude is what pushed people to vote leave
- ohitsdom 10y ago> that attitude is what pushed people to vote leave People thinking that the Leave camp was xenophobic pushed Britains to vote Leave?
- UK-AL 10y agoEstablishment people assuming this was the reason.
- Zenst 10y agoCorrect, after all had too much from the so called left wing just dismissing the people's concerns via just labeling and dismissing the people and ignoring the concerns. After all when has picking out the few individuals and projecting that upon the many ever worked out well? As that is discrimination and too what agenda. To project the migrational bias for Europeans at the expense of allowing people from other countries to come to the UK. That if anything is more xenophobic and discriminatory in nature than the leave side and sadly seems more common with those who wanted to remain. But been way to much name calling by pro-EU groups and indeed the EU leaders themselves over the years and to what effect. Highlighting they are not only out of touch with the people but happily ignore them. how else can one explain why as a European I have yet to find one person in favour of TTIP and that alone indicates the EU listerns to corporations and ignores the people more than anything and that needs to change, to reform and improve. The EU now has an opportunity to improve itself for the betterment of the people or it can carry on with its model of alienating the people it supposedly serves.
- api 10y agoPundits need to stop it with this "mock the unsophisticated yokels" click-baiting and trolling. Of course people are Googling about the EU after a major upset referendum about the EU. One reason "insane" anti-establishment positions like this are winning (even when they are insane) is because pundits stubbornly refuse to actually listen to peoples' reasons for supporting them. Instead they mock them as backwater idiots and insult their intelligence. I don't know UK politics well enough to say for certain, but I know in the USA Trump is largely a FU vote against an establishment that's allowing vast swaths of the country to collapse into permanent depression while ignoring the problem and horribly distorting the economy to keep Wall St. pumped up at the expense of things like housing affordability. I can't stand him myself but I know where the support is coming from, and if nobody listens to these issues we're going to have President Trump in November.
- coldcode 10y ago48% voted to stay, now they are Googling what happens next to them. It's a stupid article.
- rimantas 10y agoThe thing is—backwater idiots have a right to vote too.
- Styx- 10y agoI find that just such a sentiment prevails on HN alarmingly often now. Can you recommend any alternative news sources with a better signal to noise ratio?
- tamana 10y agoAs usual, WaPo is shitposting. Why are they not banned here? Yes, people are deeply curious about the full effect of this huge proposed change, especially the half of the entire population who voted for Stay because they weren't too worried about the UK/EU boundary when they were happy enough with the status quo total package.
- sergiotapia 10y agoHN users in general lean heavily left (at least publicly).
- fdsaaf 10y agoYou have to express leftist sentiment, at least in public, because expressing other views is very bad for your career. And you'd be surprised how big the "public" space is for people who'd like to ruin you for thinking the wrong way.
- sergiotapia 10y agoThat's true but just don't say bad things and you'll be fine - right?
- fdsaaf 10y agoWhere the set of "bad things" gets bigger and bigger, and increasingly detached from reality, every year.
- sergiotapia 10y agoPreaching to the choir here.
- saynsedit 10y agoActually I think HN leans center. HN has no particularly inspiring agenda, it's mostly conformity to the status quo. There are extreme left and right on HN but they are usually down voted.
- carsongross 10y agoThis sort of distain-for-plebes arrogance on the part of the elites is why they will continue to be surprised by events for the foreseeable future.
- rimantas 10y agoWhy not to have referendum on taxes? Care to guess the outcome?
- lgieron 10y agoThe Swiss held a referendum on universal basic income, and it was overthrown by a large margin.
- nickik 10y agoIn addition to the other voter, Switzerland population also restricted the government into tight budgets and debt reduction. If you give people the options they will make okish choices. enough okish choices for a long time yield a great democracy. Switzerland is also not in the EU for the same reason, we voted against joining after the political classes singed us up for it. Now if you suggest joining the EU most of the Swiss population would laugh at you. Why would anybody join such a horrible shit show of an institution.
- sergiotapia 10y agoPeople who voted remain want to see what it's all about now.
- marcoperaza 10y agoThe left wing establishment once again shows their utter contempt for the common people. Of course there's a lot of people searching about the EU today. It's pretty disingenuous to suggest it's a sign that they're ignorant. But hey, anything to defend the narrative, right?
- hathym 10y agohistory will tell if they did the right choice. right now no body really knows.
- Iandall 10y agoJust great... Lets find out AFTER we voted what EU is all about.
- katpas 10y agoOne of the original suggested referendum questions was "Do you think that the United Kingdom should be a member of the European Union?" It was rejected in favour of "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of European Union" because "some participants in our research did not know that the United Kingdom is currently a member of the European Union."* If that wasn't evidence the referendum was a bad idea... *http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/192075/EU-referendum-question-assessment-report.pdf http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file...
- delboy88 10y agoYou seem to be implying that people who did not know the UK was in the EU would vote to leave rather than to stay. If that's what you're implying, where's the evidence to support that?
- ozborn 10y agoThat's not evidence in my book. If you check the history of the European Union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_European_Union) it is history of various agreements between an ever-changing set of member states. Eventually (1992) there is the Maastricht Treaty that creates called the European Union, but that has been amended various times. To complicate things there is also the European Economic Community (renamed to European Community) and member states are in/out of various important provisions of European governance such as the Euro or the Schengen Agreement (like the UK and Ireland). The Schengen Agreement I believe includes even some non-EU members. So people googling for "What is the EU" isn't proof of stupidity in my book. They may haven been familiar with critical elements of the EU (which were the deciding factors for their vote) but want to understand the full implications of this historic vote.
- hacker42 10y agoSo, can they rejoin? Or will the entire country collapse due to the awkwardness of reversing the earlier decision?
- cm3 10y agoThey didn't leave yet and may not. I feel like this has been used as a vehicle for Boris Johnson to increase his chances to be prime minister and others' to provoke changes. It seems to me that Britain didn't seriously consider the repercussions of an exit that doesn't involve cherry-picking.
- keithpeter 10y agoThe referendum is advisory and not binding. I think this particular Golem has too much momentum now to simply decline the advice of the electorate, however it did occur to me that Cameron's 3 month delay in applying Section 50 would allow the attention of the public to be distracted to some extent.
- dragonwriter 10y ago> The referendum is advisory and not binding. OTOH, the referendum did kill the Britain-EU agreement on new terms -- as that was expressly conditioned on a "Remain" vote -- so while it doesn't legally obligate the government to withdraw from the EU, in addition to creating a strong public expectation (both in the UK and in the rest of the EU) of withdrawal, it also makes the conditions for staying in the EU worse for the UK than they were before the referendum.
- jacquesm 10y agoBut not worse than leaving and coming back cap-in-hand 5 or 10 years down the road. And as England, not as the UK.
- keithpeter 10y ago
- googletazer 10y agoPatronizing attitude towards British voters from newspapers and the elites. Democracy happened, British people wanted to regain sovereignty over their affairs, and they did it. Good for them.
- netcan 10y agoI'm strangely moved by this whole thing. It's a pretty decent status check on where we are with democracy ATM. I'm not against democracy, but I do think we need to pay attention to what it can & can't do. On one hand, this has been a model of democracy. A primary election agenda and referendum. The phrasing of the question was simple, clear and unbiased. The "will of the people" won over the will of the ruling structure. Most politicians and the main parties (especially before the opportunists jumped in) were against leaving. So was the financial sector and most big businesses. OTOH, some of the problems inherent in democracy were also on display. A "right to my opinion" emotional public moved by very emotional arguments. Lies, untruths and misleading truths were the most prominent arguments on either side. A majority of the discussion was stupid. We haven't figured this shit out yet. Kings anyone? How about the best wrestler gets to be in charge? ideas?
- oldmanjay 10y agoBeing "the best wrestler" is basically Trump's campaign strategy so that concept may well be tested soon
- bobjordan 10y agoThis will no doubt give Trump some twitter scale ammo, given his bickering with the UK, who discussed banning him.
- fixermark 10y agoHe's already spent some of it hilariously on completely misinterpreting the results vis-a-vis Scotland.
- methehack 10y agoNot sure, but I think that may have been a reference to "Idiocracy", the film: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy The president of the future is a professional wrestler, iirc.
- taylorwc 10y ago"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- DonaldFisk 10y agoHe also said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." "Perhaps the late Lord Attlee was right," she [Mrs Thatcher] observed, "when he said that the referendum was a device of dictators and demagogues."
- pessimizer 10y agoObligatory horrific Churchill quote: "I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."
- thinkt4nk 10y agoI've only seen percentages, not figures. I'm not sure you can even say that these searches are being issued by people who turned out to vote.
- alexc05 10y agoQuite possibly not the sames ones who voted?
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoYou decide to go on a trip, next you get out a map. This makes perfect sense, and in no way reflects poorly on the British people.
- thomasahle 10y agoIf you decide to jump over a cliff, you really should havr looked at the map first. Just to check how high the fall would be.
- vacri 10y agoWhen I travel through a new country, I look at a general map first. When I get to a new area in a country that's now in my direct personal experience, I look at a more detailed map.
- thomasahle 10y ago"What is the EU" isn't a detailed map. It's the most general for the purpose. "How many times a year does the chamber of ministers meet" would be a more detailed local map.
- spacehome 10y agoI might get out a map before I commit 100% to my travel plans.
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoRight. And they are far from 100% committed. They have 2 years to change their minds. This was just a first step -to determine if the British public had the will to proceed.
- oldmanjay 10y agoThe establishment viewpoint seems to be that snide recrimination coupled to rampant emotional predictions of doom is news. I don't get it.
- xirdstl 10y agoOr, you know, this could be an uptick from the percentage of people who did not bother to turn out to vote. Spin the narrative however you like.
- cwbrandsma 10y agoI'm googling "what the F' is the BREXIT about anyway".
- bllguo 10y agoI'm confident in the future this will be a case study on the failings of democracy. I absolutely do not believe all 52% of leave voters realized the economic repercussions.
- twinkletwinkle 10y agoMaybe they had an idea and don't care? http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c1adcce2-397e-11e6-9a05-82a9b15a8ee7.html#axzz4CWIHe58u http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c1adcce2-397e-11e6-9a05-82a9b15a8e... "the piles of ballot papers told their own story about those parts of Britain that felt comfortable in a modern, connected world, and those which felt cut off from the fruits of globalisation. Voters in London and Scotland, the two most prosperous parts of the UK, turned out in large numbers to deliver a clear message that they wanted to remain in the EU and its huge single market. But elsewhere — in the old industrial centres of the north, the small towns of the Midlands and the faded seaside resorts — the ballot papers were stacked high in favour of Leave, rejection of an establishment that had let them down."
- downandout 10y agoThis is the problem with popular votes on issues with far-reaching and complex consequences. There are certain matters that are better left to elected politicians. If one were to have a popular vote as to whether or not we should dissolve the IRS in the US, that measure would likely pass because "yay no taxes!" but would result in the collapse of the US government. I'm not sure that individual voters that have no conception of the myriad issues associated with this decision should have been allowed to vote on it.
- thesimpsons1022 10y agoit's taboo to say this but I've been reading a lot about Ancient Rome before Ceasar and yearn for that type of government. I know people have a disdain for aristocracy but people in charge were raised knowing they'd be powerful. As such, they'd be extensively educated both academically and in Roman culture. (Also sometimes moving to Greece to study at the best universities in the world). There was also no partisanship as each senator made the moves that benefitted them or their people the most.
- ecdavis 10y ago> There was also no partisanship as each senator made the moves that benefitted them or their people the most. How would you describe the populares and the optimates?
- thesimpsons1022 10y agothese weren't parties really. it's similiar to saying you are a populist. To me bernie sanders and trump are both populists yet have vastly different views and would never be considered the same party. edit: as it says on wikipedia, " ...the designation populares refers as much to political tactics as to any perceived policy."
- advertising 10y agoMy first impression of the result was shouldn't there be a requirement for a larger difference than 1 - 2% for something like this to pass? A majority of at least 65% for example? I don't know what I'm talking about really but that seems logical, what do you all think?
- 5040 10y agoIt makes a certain sort of sense, but what you are talking about is making things less democratic.
- thesimpsons1022 10y agoThe number is arbitrary though. Why not 60 or 63 etc..? I don't think it should even have been voted on. Direct democracy makes no sense when 99 pct of those voting don't understand the issue. We are dealing with extremely complex economic and political webs. When experts are ignored everyone fails.
- iumtuip2001 10y agoThe title is written such that they would have you believe it's the people who voted to leave the E.U. who are doing the Googling. How does WP know it's not the other way around? It could be it's all the people who voted to stay...
- at-fates-hands 10y agoSo when googling something is an indication of what people actually know?? This only tells you what people were looking for not what articles they read or what conclusions they drew from the actual articles they read. We have truly jumped the ship if people are drawing conclusions based solely on what people are searching for in Google. Here's your sign. . .
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- advertising 10y agoSome voter demographic info - http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36616028 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36616028 - Rural areas mostly voted to leave - Younger voters voted to stay, but turnout by younger voters was lower - Of 30 areas with the fewest graduates (I assume this means college? wasn't clear) 28 voted to leave
- Dr_tldr 10y agoAs someone with no dog in this fight, I have to say that many of the pro-stay comments here are dismissive, arrogant, and the epitome of hand-waving "we know best and everyone who disagrees with us is stupid or evil." It's an ugly and insular attitude that is itself usually a sign of ignorance of the other side's arguments and motivations. As a dev, I find it hard to believe that someone who can be so easily blinkered and so dismissive of others is going to be able to show flexibility and humility in their code and engineering decisions. And maybe you're just that good at compartmentalizing, but I wouldn't want to risk bringing someone like that onto my team. How can you work with people who you think are stupid and ignorant when they disagree with you, even when you won't explain your reasoning? And how will you ever be able to switch sides and admit you may have been wrong when you state your initial position in such absolutist terms?
- lichform 10y agoThe disdain and disgust impressed on the elderly in this issue in particular is distressing. Seeing people advocate for selective voting or implying that the younger persons' views are worth more because of their older countrymen's vicinity to expiration is personally upsetting as a self-loathing Millenial.
- mentalpiracy 10y agoAs another self-loathing millennial, it's also distressing to empirically see the detrimental effect of my elders making extremely poor choices that will fundamentally affect my life much more than theirs. Nobody really wants to disenfranchise certain voters. But it doesn't mean that we aren't frustrated with their poor choices either.
- cookiecaper 10y agoThis is a simple matter of disagreement. Your elders aren't "making extremely poor choices" in an objective sense. They're making the choice they believe is for the long-term interest of the country, just as you did. You should not assume idiocy or malice on the opposing side's part just because you lost. Informed, well-educated people can and do disagree. This must be valued and believed in a democratic society if it's not to tear itself apart. If it were up to me, minimum voting age would be bumped to 30 and votes would become more valuable as people aged. Personal experience and history is nothing to sneeze at. The open disrespect to just dismiss this by-definition-wiser voting block as making "extremely poor choices" is very distasteful and short-sighted.
- thesimpsons1022 10y agothe general public is too dumb to vote on matters like this. This is when democracy fails. Remember, Hitler was elected as well.
- nzp 10y agoNo, we don't remember. It might have to do with the fact Hitler wasn't ever elected for anything. Neither has NSDAP ever had a majority before they took power.
- thesimpsons1022 10y agomajority had nothing to do with this. You're just trying to deflect the issue. They had the plurality and hitler was their man
- nzp 10y agoI'm not deflecting. Their best result was something over 35 % (don't remember the exact number) of the votes, and that was in the elections before the ones they supposedly won. Democracy failed not because the "general public is too dumb to vote", it's exactly the opposite. It fails when the ruling class overrides the general public's vote, as they did in the March 1933 elections in Germany.
- dang 10y agoYou've been posting uncivil, unsubstantive comments to HN. We ban accounts that do this; please stop doing it. Instead, please (re)-read the site guidelines and post civil and substantive comments only from now on. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
- alayne 10y agoYep, this is just like Hitler and the holocaust.
- emsy 10y agoWhat I're read so far about pro-leavers: -They are stupid. -They are xenophobic racists (over 50% of the population!). -Trump welcomes the Brexit, so being pro-leave is stupid. -Old people vote "leave" since they don't have to face the consequences as long as the young people, and old people have no clue. -"Leave" votes come mainly from E.U. subsidized areas, thus they bite the hand that feeds them. -Pro-leave doesn't even know what the E.U. is. I have read a lot of insults regarding either position, but the attribution of stupidity comes almost always from the "Remain" camp. Which comes close to saying: there are no reasons to vote for leave, so they must be stupid. How stupid.
- maxerickson 10y agoLots of people didn't vote, so leave won even though only 37% of the population voted that way.
- Karunamon 10y agoAnd this is why statistics can be misleading - 72% of the population turned out for the vote. Almost a record. It's pointless at best, actively harmful at worst, to compare the voters vs the non voters in an attempt to make the result seem undemocratic. The non voters abandoned their ability to influence this issue; if they had wanted to participate, they had plenty of opportunity to do so.
- vacri 10y ago72% of voters, not 72% of the population. Kids don't vote, neither do transient workers and a few other demographics.
- flubert 10y agoHonest question, what percentage of the population voted to join the EU originally?
- T-A 10y ago67.23% of all votes cast. Turnout was 64.62%, so 43.2% of all registered voters [1]. As fraction of total population, it was 56.23 million in 1975 [2] and the total number of Yes votes was 17,378,581, so 30.91%. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum,_1975 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Commun... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingd...
- unit91 10y agoSanity check: Google searchers aren't necessarily voters. The UK had a massive (72.2%) turnout, which still leaves 13 million potential voters at home [1]. I think it's reasonable that those least-likely to vote on this issue also might be a large contingent of those who don't even know what the EU is. Moreover, Google searchers aren't necessarily in the electorate. They might be kids, etc. 1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/23/high-turnout-for-eu-referendum-vote-could-break-uk-records/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/23/high-turnout-for-...
- therealdrag0 10y agoExactly. A lot of people are reading way to much into this.
- bitL 10y ago"Hey, you voted against what we recommended to you, so now we will be telling you for the next 5 years that you are the stupid one that you don't even know what you voted against!" I don't get it - this is a prime example of democracy in action so why so much outrage? Do you rather want to live in technocracy/totality and allow voting "properly profiled" people only? "USSR is a great idea" anyone? Get over it, as much as shocking it can be to you. You can't always profit from every democratic decision, even if you feel it's the only correct one. Just accept other people desire something else and pick up your next fight properly so that you won't be as shocked as now and completely unprepared. And next time vote politicians into office that actually have brain and don't risk everything for their own personal agenda. It's just grotesque.
- saynsedit 10y agoYep. Also: a single day of consequence is apparently enough time for "I told you so." Maybe I should judge my entire life by what happens today.
- deciplex 10y ago"On balance democracy is a good thing" and "this electorate is utter shit" are not contradictory beliefs :-) On the face of it this seems like a terrible idea, and certainly the politicians promoting it are fucking cretins of the lowest order. But, maybe we're wrong! After all, the people who generally voted Leave are the same folks who have not shared all that much in the prosperity created by global capitalism. Come to think of it, so are most of the folks who voted Remain. It gets a bit tiring, for the listener and the speaker, when one constantly blames so many of society's ills on wealth inequality and plutocracy, but wealth inequality and plutocracy are responsible for a lot of society's ills. I do take some solace in the fact that the rich will suffer the consequences of this referendum the same as the poor - however they can withstand it better than the poor, too. I don't think the average Briton is going to be better off for leaving the EU, but if this convinces the ruling class that they should try fucking everyone else over a little bit less (I doubt it will), maybe it will end up having been worth it.
- 99_00 10y agoThe subtext of the article seems to be that British voters don't know what the EU is despite voting to leave it. But their evidence doesn't show that. Yes, there is a spike in people googling "what is BREXIT" and such things. But how many voters are doing that search? What percent of voters are uninformed? No one knows, so why write an article about it? This is low quality journalism.
- ionised 10y agoWe need some form of modern Sortition; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
- jefreybulla 10y agoA little late to ask that question... is democracy ok when people don't know what they are voting for?
- MrZongle2 10y agoIs it democracy if they aren't given the opportunity to decide?
- davidf18 10y agoThe BrExit vote was caused by the same problem that enables Trump (and Sanders) to win so many votes. The British Elites, like the Republic Elites are ignoring the pain caused to the working class through trade agreements and (in the case of BrExit) immigration from poorer parts of Europe. In different ways the EU integration put an additional burden on the already struggling British working class. As a specific example, the immigrants, who came to the UK for jobs drove down wages for the working class with additional competition while at the same time putting a lot of pressure on budgets for the National Health System and social services. The British Elites ignored the complaints of the working class while not even increasing the budgets for social services and the National Health Service proportionate to the additional demand caused by immigration. It is this total lack of sensitivity of the British Elite to their fellow citizens that caused the BrExit. Similarly, the "rise of Trump" is because Paul Ryan, the billionaire Wall Street hedge fund owners, and other Republic Elites have totally ignored the feeling of the working class. They have created trade policies which have "exported" American factory jobs while at the same time wanting to cut the social services that workers need precisely because of policies of elites (Republic and Democratic) to export their working class jobs. For example, when Carrier air conditioners closed their Indiana factory and exported the jobs to Mexico, it was only Trump that complained repeatedly. Not Paul Ryan, Not billionaire Paul Singer, not Cruz, not Jeb Bush, not Rubio. The total cluelessness of the Republic Elite is why Trump won the nomination. The rise of Sanders is because the Democratic elite refused to listen to among others, the young, for whom the cost of education has increased significantly and who are unable to buy homes, etc, because of rising student debt. In the cases of the British Elites, the Republic and Democratic Elites, they all appear to care more for "The City" and Wall Street Bankers than they do working class citizens and the young who are attempting to start their lives as their parents had.
- cname 10y agoI'm confused. Are you saying that Trump is not part of what you're calling the "Republic Elite"? Or that he's not part of the billionaire class? That he's not highly connected? Are you saying he actually cares about the working class? I don't understand how average Americans can buy into this idea that Trump is some kind of outsider. He rubs shoulders with all kinds of rich, powerful, and connected people, including presidents. The idea that people are enamored with Trump because he represents their interests just doesn't add up. At the most, I can see how people might find his off-the-wall antics and constant flip-flopping somewhat entertaining, but surely that's not a good reason to put him office.
- swamp40 10y agoThey should now have a vote to rename England "Brity McBritface".
- MrZongle2 10y agoOdd, how in some close elections if the result is aligned what the media and the establishment want, "the people have spoken" and grandiose words are spoken about the power of democracy. And yet when the election is close but the result runs counter to what those in power want....suddenly we have hand-wringing over misleading campaigns, "uninformed voters", the perils of democracy, etc. etc. Like clockwork.
- super_id 10y agoDidn't realize Stalin was doing TED talks now.
- matthewmacleod 10y agoIt is ridiculously reductive to claim that improving income inequality is a Stalinist policy.
- mafribe 10y agoBut it's a policy Stalin and his ilk carried out, at near global level. With fairly disaterous results.
- vidarh 10y agoNo, they didn't. They claimed they did, and then they elevated the party elite to a new upper class and brutally murdered anyone who dared continue to criticise it, including their own party members.
- mafribe 10y agoThat's misleading. The party elite was not living in much greater luxury than the general Soviet population. The party leaders did not indulge in Saudi-Arabia style opulence. They did kill a lot of people, but that's orthogonal to the question of material equality. The Soviet Union and its satellites were one of the most egalitarian societies ever seen. What this shows is that equality and lack of socio-economic stratification is not necessarily a good thing. Of course already Marx/Engels were criticised along the lines of: any organisation strong enough to enforce equality will need to be so powerful, so brutal that it will not relinquish power after it has achieved economic equality, leading to all manner of negative consequences.
- scourge 10y agowhat did your parent comment say and why was it flagged?
- ash 10y agoFrom the video: > No country has ever left the European Union before and hasn't used article 50. I'm not sure about article 50, but Greenland left the EEC (EU predecessor) in 1985. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_the_European_Union#Greenland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_the_European_U...
- mladenkovacevic 10y agoIn my jumbled mess of thoughts this is a rough list of priorities that should be addressed at before democracy can work in a "more perfect way" and can't be misused by the power-hungry elites or the disgruntled masses led by dangerous clowns: 1) Wealth Inequality brought on by unfair access to opportunity (This one item needs its own list of priorities in order to be figured out... Basic income? Better social support in the form of jobs, education, health? Fair legal treatment?.. too long to list here) 2) An uninformed populace (Removal of "personalities" from politics. Maybe even a shift from voting for people but rather for issues. Engage people in political life often, not just when elections roll around. A more responsible media landscape - Less Kardashians and much less opinion or propaganda journalism.) 3) Get money out of politics or at least enforce mandatory transparency of financial influence in politics 4) Ability to delegate your voting power to someone you trust (it could be a group or an individual). If you're on social assistance and your priority is to survive, you might not have time to be informed about every single issue. You could however empower an individual, association, union or another entity that you feel represents your interests to vote on your behalf).
- DominikR 10y agoWhy can't these people just accept a democratic decision without painting those who voted in an undesired way as retards? Every major voting decision in the last 10 years was painted (in basically all media) as the smart and educated ones vs the retards, bigots, racists or even nazis. With this attitude we are one step away from abolishing democracy altogether. Obviously because we must protect the stupid ones from their own opinions. I originally came from a Communist country and I've got to say that over the years all mayor western publications have turned into something resembling the Soviet Pravda.
- sbmassey 10y agoWestern culture as a whole pretty dumb these days - we used to have the Bible and the classics as common cultural touchstones, but nowadays the only shared culture is idiotic stuff like Star Wars, so most people get their fundamental ideas of how the world works from there, rather than anything that touches on the real world.
- MrZongle2 10y ago"Why can't these people just accept a democratic decision without painting those who voted in an undesired way as retards?" Because if your opposition isn't composed entirely of morons, there's a chance that your position might actually be wrong. And some people can't handle that possibility.
- eternalban 10y ago"some British voters are now saying" ... So says The Washington Post. What doesn't seem to get through to the global elite is that regardless of the decision, the people demand constitutional and auditable mechanisms to 'voice' their opinion.
- godgod 10y agoThis makes me both sad and mad. We have these same type of un-informed head-in-the-sand, "I don't care unless it effects me" type of people here in America. The citizens of England never got a say when the EU was created and they have no idea that a foreign legislative body full of corrupt grossly over paid bureaucrats are making their laws. The EU is the one world government pushed by the New World Order so I am so happy to see it crumble.
- Youk2016 10y agoThere are 25% who didn't vote, maybe because they didn't expect the Vote to Leave to win and just now they got worried. Instead of this trouble, they could probably go through with fixing the EU legislatures that they find problematic.
- anu_gupta 10y agoWow talk about someone not prepared to look at data but instead sneer and insult . Quelle surprise (that's French by the way)
- dang 10y agoWe've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines. We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11970636 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11970636 and marked it off-topic.
- mungoid 10y agoI have no real reason why I think it would work well, but I have always felt that voting on anything should only be allowed to the people that can show a half decent knowledge of that topic and not for people that just go with the first thing they hear. You might as well flip a coin at that point. If you want to vote, do your part as a citizen and learn about what it is you are voting on, how it will impact you and your country as a whole and if you don't want to do that, don't vote. Democratic countries gave power to the people, but we basically give it right back because "its too hard", or "i dont have time", etc. so we only vote from our gut feeling and follow the loudest voice. Gut feeling is fine in a fight or flight sense, but not for policies that impact the whole country. IMO I would think decisions like this and many others would benefit from something similar to the scientific method. Construct your proposal, share it with everyone, let them critique it, revise, share, etc. and then vote. Biggest thing is taking ego out of the equation.
- sinuspi 10y agoI'd actually modify most referenda and other public elections to include a brief quiz about the choice taken. For example, I VOTE: [_] LEAVE [_] REMAIN: My choice above means (choose one): (_) more welfare; (_) less welfare. Foreign trade will be (choose one): (_) simplified; (_) complicated. etc. If the quiz choices don't match the vote itself, the vote is INVALID. Thus the amount of uninformed votes would be reduced to zero. Of course the options would have to be agreed upon by both sides. "Oh, but someone could easily be taught to 'cheat', you could tell someone what answers to pick!" Well, sure. Good luck convincing an immigrant to tick the "(_) less jobs for immigrants" box.
- _audakel 10y agoGoing out on a tangent - Would California be more successful leaving the US as an independent country? As things stand, California is currently the eighth largest economy in the world on their own. 17 of the top 30 U.S. tech companies are in California, which should come as no surprise. Tourism, entertainment, biotech, and agriculture are multibillion dollar industries already. Aerospace and defense contracts still rake in around $25bn a year. And many state business leaders are increasingly showing a real commitment to renewable energy. Overall, while I believe there is definitely more potential for a social democratic style of government if California were its own country, the changes would not be that drastic. Barring a major collapse, California would, like Canada, still remain in the U.S.'s economic and cultural shadow. And who knows? Secession might be the best thing to happen to other states like Texas, New York, and Massachusetts. Who else would be capable of filling the void left in the energy, media, and technology industries? There is certainly upside in such a move but also a great deal of risk.
- superswordfish 10y agoI forget the exact amount (it's likely changed), but CA is one state that is subsidizing the rest of the country. It was somewhere in the ballpark of $0.20 received for every $1.00 given.
- vacri 10y agoThere is no legal path for a state to leave the union once it joins. Membership is permanent, so if you want to secede from the US, you have to do so against it's laws, which basically means armed uprising. There's no state which wants independence so much that enough of their people would actually go to war over it.
- gwbas1c 10y agoMaybe things would make more sense to if EU countries went to the olympics under a single flag? It's not like American athletes compete under the flag of their state.
- thrillgore 10y ago"What the hell did we just do guys?"
- coryfklein 10y ago> Awakening to a stock market plunge and a precipitous decline in the value of the pound that Britain hasn't seen in more than 30 years There's a tad bit of sensationalism here. Yes, this is a HUGE drop to happen in one day, but the British Pound is only ~1.5% lower than the low of 3 months ago (when compared against the US dollar). https://www.tradingview.com/chart/34OYpFIv/ https://www.tradingview.com/chart/34OYpFIv/ http://imgur.com/6IyjxnX http://imgur.com/6IyjxnX
- pessimizer 10y agoThe WaPo was always bad, but it's descending into linkbait shit, and every headline is a backhanded editorial. Leave won by 4 points with a 70% turnout. Plenty of the people doing the googling voted stay. I assume the stay voters knew less about the EU than the leave voters not because of the position they chose, but simply because it was the status quo, supported by the entire establishment, default. What's happening is that people who are facing what has been painted to be a major change in their circumstances are checking the internet for as much information as possible so they can figure out how to deal with it. Translated into WaPo: the idiots who voted against the EU didn't even know what it was.
- BRValentine 10y agoHaven't read all the comments here, but isn't it possible or even likely that it's Remain voters having an "oh shit what next" moment that are Googling the EU and the implications of leaving, as opposed to ignorant abstainers and Leave voters checking up on the consequences of their vote after the fact? The article doesn't actually take a position, but the tenor of the viral social media chatter seems to assume the latter case.