6 ms·

"In this Brexit vote, the poor turned on an elite who ignored them" Not in any rational sense. They voted for the even more elite: an ex-stockbroker (Farage) a

"In this Brexit vote, the poor turned on an elite who ignored them" Not in any rational sense. They voted for the even more elite: an ex-stockbroker (Farage) and an old Etonian (Johnson). If anything I'd say the leave camp is entirely composed of the elite who want to take even more away from the working class. They didn't like being told what to do by the EU because they didn't like its left-of-centre policies.

mc32 10y ago
This kind of interpretation is the one which leads to these kinds of results. It's not Boris nor Farage. It was the system they voted against.
- tremon 10y ago
  And Johnson and Farage are amongst those who could possibly gain the most from this result. So how is it not in the interest of the elite to reinforce this distrust? I'd say that kind of interpretation is valid to explore.
  - maratd 10y ago
    You can explore it as much as you want. There will always be those who are well-to-do found in every cause. They voted for self-governance and sovereignty. Many had their own reasons and desires for that sovereignty, but that's what they voted for. Why should any people have a desire to be a part of a political organization over which they have zero control, but must pay taxes to? That is antithetical to democracy and good governance.
    - tremon 10y ago
      Why should any people have a desire to be a part of a political organization over which they have zero control, but must pay taxes to? For one, because the political organization benefits them? Control is not the only desirable property of an organization. Furthermore, the UK did not have zero control over the EU. It had one commissioner (the same amount as any other member state), and 10% of the seats in parliament (second only in representation to Germany) -- So your question misrepresents the situation. If you do not like to be called out for that strawman argument, please inform yourself or be more articulate next time. Ironically, the situation "zero control, with tax obligations" (i.e. the Norway solution) is now the most likely option for the UK.
      - maratd 10y ago
        > It had one commissioner And when did the people of the UK have a chance to vote him in? I must have missed that election. > and 10% of the seats in parliament (second only in representation to Germany) I must have missed this election as well! > If you do not like to be called out for that strawman argument, please inform yourself or be more articulate next time. I was quite articulate, thank you. The problem really is that when people such as yourself are incapable of making a coherent argument in turn, they resort to passive/aggressive nonsense like you're displaying here. > Ironically, the situation "zero control, with tax obligations" (i.e. the Norway solution) is now the most likely option for the UK. Care to expand on this?
        adwf 10y ago
        The commissioner is appointed by the PM, so you vote for him every general election. The idea that the EU is undemocratic is absurd. It's doubly absurd considering we still have a House of Lords... The reason people feel they don't have a say in the EU is because they keep voting for UKIP, whose entire mandate was to make the EU look bad by racking up expenses and not doing anything. The gall of Farage when he was campaigning for the fishermen during the referendum was astounding. He attended 1, ONE, out of 42 fisheries council meetings while he was an MEP and he was on the committee. Then he turns around and says that it was the EU that screwed our fishing industry. No, he betrayed the fishing industry just to make the EU look bad.
        arrrg 10y ago
        Do the people vote for ministers in member states? Commissioners are appointed and they are appointed because the governments they appoint them are so horny for power, they want to exactly pick the person they want. I want Commisiooners that are appointed by a president that is elected by the parliament (that's just how the German government works) or a similar system, but such a system would take too much power away from the governments of the member states (and give too much power to democratically elected EU institutions like the parliament) and as such was, while discussed, always disliked by members like the UK. The EU is structured the way it is because the (elected) member state governments want to preserve their power and influence. They don't want some other democratically elected EU institution taking away their power. Commissioners are basically member state government surrogates. And this doesn't even yet touch upon the fact that hardly anything in the EU gets done without member states' governments direct involvement, either the Head's or the ministers (all democratically legitimated, by the way). You are lacking a very basic level of understanding of how the EU works and why it is structured the way it is. Member state governments typically actually have a problem with democratically electing more people in the EU. They would much rather just send someone they appoint or go themselves (for obvious reasons). You are calling for something the UK has always blocked. Also, you don't seem to know that there is an European Parliament? Democratically elected? Seats assigned proportionally? The last election was in 2014. Norway: they are not a member of the EU but a part of the common market. That gives them the option to opt out of some things (but not even most things and especially not central ones like freedom of movement of labour), but they still have to pay membership fees and get no say when the rules are decided on.
    - scribu 10y ago
      > Why should any people have a desire to be a part of a political organization over which they have zero control, but must pay taxes to? That's called a strawman argument. Of course no one would want to be part of such an org, if that was all there was to it. But you conveniently left out all the benefits of being in that org (some of which were mentioned in this thread).
      - maratd 10y ago
        > That's called a strawman argument. Stop whining. > But you conveniently left out all the benefits of being in that org I don't believe I said there weren't any. There are many. It seems the voters value their liberty and self-determination more.
        madgar 10y ago
        I'm guessing you believe every US state should be calling to secede, because they "have zero control" and "have to pay taxes" to the federal government? Since US states, just like Britain in the EU, participate in the larger governing body through representatives?
        maratd 10y ago
        > Since US states, just like Britain in the EU, participate in the larger governing body through representatives? Not quite. For the US federal government, you get to vote for 2 senators, a number of congressmen, and the president. You get to vote for zero in the EU.
        arrrg 10y ago
        Members of parliament? Plus, commissioners are appointed by the member state governments, so indirectly you can vote for those, too. There are no kings or queens running the EU, nor do people just randomly show up and get power. Everyone who has power is either elected or was appointed by someone who was elected.
        10y ago
  - dba7dba 10y ago
    There's elite in every group of people. N Korea has elites. This vote wasn't against or for specific elite people. The Brexit vote won because more people believed the current system is bad for them. Btw, people keep saying half of UK want to stay in, which is not true. Roughly 1/3 of eligible voters voted for exit. 1/3 voted for staying. And 1/3 didn't care enough to vote. So in reality about 1/3 feel strong about staying. In a nation where 13% of the UK population is foreign born.
    - curried_haskell 10y ago
      You can't say this though, without also saying that in reality, only 1/3 feel strongly about leaving. 2/3 of the population did not vote to leave. It's not really relevant to make a comparison with the total population, and when 70% of the population polled, it is probably more than representative of the full picture anyway. If it's distributed randomly across the country, the remaining 30% would have voted in the same manner.
      - dba7dba 10y ago
        The referendum was about staying or leaving EU. Nothing else. And politicians are elected with elections, not polling for a reason.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- abainbridge 10y ago
  I do agree that the working class wanted to vote against the system and this was the only option they had.
- Tiktaalik 10y ago
  This is why referendums are so terrible. Whatever the question is, it will be hijacked to some degree as a tool to protest some other issue independent of whatever the referendum is actually supposed to be about. Usually people will protest against an unpopular system/government by voting contrary to whatever the system/government supports.
  - DominikR 10y ago
    So your argument is basically that governments should not allow democratic votes on issues because if there are enough citizens that are unhappy with their governments they might vote in protest of the current government? The problem is not the referendum or the people who vote in an undesired way, the problem is always the government.
    - Tiktaalik 10y ago
      The people have an opportunity to get rid of the government and that is during an election. Some random referendum about an issue that may have nothing to do with the government of the day is not the appropriate time to lash out at the government.
jdimov10 10y ago
The working class is _always_ ruled by the elite, by _definition_. So you're not really making any point (or sense).
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
Since when does the EU have left-of-center policies?
- abainbridge 10y ago
  Prevent exploitation of the working class: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Time_Directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Time_Directive Making big companies pay their taxes: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/07/eu-multinationals-tax-arrangements-us-google-amazon https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/07/eu-multination... Pumping money into impoverished areas: http://gov.wales/funding/eu-funds/?lang=en http://gov.wales/funding/eu-funds/?lang=en EDIT - I forgot the most important one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_R...
  - krrrh 10y ago
    Force robots to pay taxes: http://uk.pcmag.com/robotics-automation-products/82456/news/eu-robot-workers-are-electronic-persons http://uk.pcmag.com/robotics-automation-products/82456/news/...
    - sampo 10y ago
      I admit that topic practically begs for sensationalist headlines. But in reality, it is a draft from a committee, and has no changes of going forward.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

mc32 10y ago

This kind of interpretation is the one which leads to these kinds of results. It's not Boris nor Farage. It was the system they voted against.

tremon 10y ago
And Johnson and Farage are amongst those who could possibly gain the most from this result. So how is it not in the interest of the elite to reinforce this distrust? I'd say that kind of interpretation is valid to explore.
- maratd 10y ago
  You can explore it as much as you want. There will always be those who are well-to-do found in every cause. They voted for self-governance and sovereignty. Many had their own reasons and desires for that sovereignty, but that's what they voted for. Why should any people have a desire to be a part of a political organization over which they have zero control, but must pay taxes to? That is antithetical to democracy and good governance.
  - tremon 10y ago
    Why should any people have a desire to be a part of a political organization over which they have zero control, but must pay taxes to? For one, because the political organization benefits them? Control is not the only desirable property of an organization. Furthermore, the UK did not have zero control over the EU. It had one commissioner (the same amount as any other member state), and 10% of the seats in parliament (second only in representation to Germany) -- So your question misrepresents the situation. If you do not like to be called out for that strawman argument, please inform yourself or be more articulate next time. Ironically, the situation "zero control, with tax obligations" (i.e. the Norway solution) is now the most likely option for the UK.
    - maratd 10y ago
      > It had one commissioner And when did the people of the UK have a chance to vote him in? I must have missed that election. > and 10% of the seats in parliament (second only in representation to Germany) I must have missed this election as well! > If you do not like to be called out for that strawman argument, please inform yourself or be more articulate next time. I was quite articulate, thank you. The problem really is that when people such as yourself are incapable of making a coherent argument in turn, they resort to passive/aggressive nonsense like you're displaying here. > Ironically, the situation "zero control, with tax obligations" (i.e. the Norway solution) is now the most likely option for the UK. Care to expand on this?
      - adwf 10y ago
        The commissioner is appointed by the PM, so you vote for him every general election. The idea that the EU is undemocratic is absurd. It's doubly absurd considering we still have a House of Lords... The reason people feel they don't have a say in the EU is because they keep voting for UKIP, whose entire mandate was to make the EU look bad by racking up expenses and not doing anything. The gall of Farage when he was campaigning for the fishermen during the referendum was astounding. He attended 1, ONE, out of 42 fisheries council meetings while he was an MEP and he was on the committee. Then he turns around and says that it was the EU that screwed our fishing industry. No, he betrayed the fishing industry just to make the EU look bad.
      - arrrg 10y ago
        Do the people vote for ministers in member states? Commissioners are appointed and they are appointed because the governments they appoint them are so horny for power, they want to exactly pick the person they want. I want Commisiooners that are appointed by a president that is elected by the parliament (that's just how the German government works) or a similar system, but such a system would take too much power away from the governments of the member states (and give too much power to democratically elected EU institutions like the parliament) and as such was, while discussed, always disliked by members like the UK. The EU is structured the way it is because the (elected) member state governments want to preserve their power and influence. They don't want some other democratically elected EU institution taking away their power. Commissioners are basically member state government surrogates. And this doesn't even yet touch upon the fact that hardly anything in the EU gets done without member states' governments direct involvement, either the Head's or the ministers (all democratically legitimated, by the way). You are lacking a very basic level of understanding of how the EU works and why it is structured the way it is. Member state governments typically actually have a problem with democratically electing more people in the EU. They would much rather just send someone they appoint or go themselves (for obvious reasons). You are calling for something the UK has always blocked. Also, you don't seem to know that there is an European Parliament? Democratically elected? Seats assigned proportionally? The last election was in 2014. Norway: they are not a member of the EU but a part of the common market. That gives them the option to opt out of some things (but not even most things and especially not central ones like freedom of movement of labour), but they still have to pay membership fees and get no say when the rules are decided on.
  - scribu 10y ago
    > Why should any people have a desire to be a part of a political organization over which they have zero control, but must pay taxes to? That's called a strawman argument. Of course no one would want to be part of such an org, if that was all there was to it. But you conveniently left out all the benefits of being in that org (some of which were mentioned in this thread).
    - maratd 10y ago
      > That's called a strawman argument. Stop whining. > But you conveniently left out all the benefits of being in that org I don't believe I said there weren't any. There are many. It seems the voters value their liberty and self-determination more.
      - madgar 10y ago
        I'm guessing you believe every US state should be calling to secede, because they "have zero control" and "have to pay taxes" to the federal government? Since US states, just like Britain in the EU, participate in the larger governing body through representatives?
        maratd 10y ago
        > Since US states, just like Britain in the EU, participate in the larger governing body through representatives? Not quite. For the US federal government, you get to vote for 2 senators, a number of congressmen, and the president. You get to vote for zero in the EU.
        arrrg 10y ago
        Members of parliament? Plus, commissioners are appointed by the member state governments, so indirectly you can vote for those, too. There are no kings or queens running the EU, nor do people just randomly show up and get power. Everyone who has power is either elected or was appointed by someone who was elected.
        10y ago
- dba7dba 10y ago
  There's elite in every group of people. N Korea has elites. This vote wasn't against or for specific elite people. The Brexit vote won because more people believed the current system is bad for them. Btw, people keep saying half of UK want to stay in, which is not true. Roughly 1/3 of eligible voters voted for exit. 1/3 voted for staying. And 1/3 didn't care enough to vote. So in reality about 1/3 feel strong about staying. In a nation where 13% of the UK population is foreign born.
  - curried_haskell 10y ago
    You can't say this though, without also saying that in reality, only 1/3 feel strongly about leaving. 2/3 of the population did not vote to leave. It's not really relevant to make a comparison with the total population, and when 70% of the population polled, it is probably more than representative of the full picture anyway. If it's distributed randomly across the country, the remaining 30% would have voted in the same manner.
    - dba7dba 10y ago
      The referendum was about staying or leaving EU. Nothing else. And politicians are elected with elections, not polling for a reason.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
abainbridge 10y ago
I do agree that the working class wanted to vote against the system and this was the only option they had.
Tiktaalik 10y ago
This is why referendums are so terrible. Whatever the question is, it will be hijacked to some degree as a tool to protest some other issue independent of whatever the referendum is actually supposed to be about. Usually people will protest against an unpopular system/government by voting contrary to whatever the system/government supports.
- DominikR 10y ago
  So your argument is basically that governments should not allow democratic votes on issues because if there are enough citizens that are unhappy with their governments they might vote in protest of the current government? The problem is not the referendum or the people who vote in an undesired way, the problem is always the government.
  - Tiktaalik 10y ago
    The people have an opportunity to get rid of the government and that is during an election. Some random referendum about an issue that may have nothing to do with the government of the day is not the appropriate time to lash out at the government.

jdimov10 10y ago

The working class is _always_ ruled by the elite, by _definition_. So you're not really making any point (or sense).

eli_gottlieb 10y ago

Since when does the EU have left-of-center policies?

abainbridge 10y ago
Prevent exploitation of the working class: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Time_Directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Time_Directive Making big companies pay their taxes: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/07/eu-multinationals-tax-arrangements-us-google-amazon https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/07/eu-multination... Pumping money into impoverished areas: http://gov.wales/funding/eu-funds/?lang=en http://gov.wales/funding/eu-funds/?lang=en EDIT - I forgot the most important one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_R...
- krrrh 10y ago
  Force robots to pay taxes: http://uk.pcmag.com/robotics-automation-products/82456/news/eu-robot-workers-are-electronic-persons http://uk.pcmag.com/robotics-automation-products/82456/news/...
  - sampo 10y ago
    I admit that topic practically begs for sensationalist headlines. But in reality, it is a draft from a committee, and has no changes of going forward.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]