9 ms·
Why it's time to accept the fact that Brexit may never actually happen
- dudul 10y agoSure, what a better move from an organization that is more and more compared to the USSR than completely ignore the result of a direct consultation of the citizens. Especially when anti-EU parties are gaining traction is a lot of other countries. If the UK does not leave the EU despite the will of the people, it will be the clearest message ever sent to everybody in Europe that they have basically lost the right to decide for themselves. That would probably not be without consequences.
- jboydyhacker 10y agoDemocracy is not a right, it's a responsibility. That means if you want to decide for yourself you have to actually educate yourself on the ramifications of the decisions. Nobody on the Brexit camp even had a plan on how to leave. That's not democracy that's just a tantrum.
- falsestprophet 10y ago>Democracy is not a right, it's a responsibility. In the United Kingdom parliament is dissolved every five years or sooner and elections are called to elect a new parliament. Representative democracy is manifestly a right of the British people.
- cortesoft 10y agoRight, but a direct vote on brexit is not 'representative democracy'. British citizens voted for their MPs, and if those MPs drag their feet on brexit, it is still a representation of the will of the people.
- dudul 10y agoSome countries favor direct democracy and think representative democracy is not democratic enough. Are they wrong? Please american overlord, show us the way, we so want to be right.
- cortesoft 10y agoPersonally, I think they are wrong for very clear and real reasons. I think protecting the minority is important. I don't think something magically happens at 50.01% that makes that idea suddenly better than at 49.99%. The majority does NOT have the right to abuse the minority.
- fao_ 10y agoExcept we don't have that, we have First Past the Post :)
- kadabra9 10y agoAh yes, the classic "My side lost, so the other side must be uneducated" argument. Democracy is great up until the point people dont vote the way you want them to vote.
- lotyrin 10y agoCan the majority not be wrong? It seems like they are in a number of states, on a number of issues, should we not desire a correct government over a popular one? Whether it's a majority that is wrong, or a representative class that is wrong, or a despot that is wrong, should we not have a voice to point out what we see as errors?
- dudul 10y agoWho is to decide what a correct government is then? How do you define "wrong"? You are obviously free to point out what you see as errors, but if you can't convince the majority, then what else is there to do?
- lotyrin 10y agoYou probably don't actually believe that popular opinion constitutes truth, it's just convenient pretense for your argument. If you really do, pick up a history book or some modern polls. When the majority decides that a minority should be mistreated, is that justice? If the majority is misinformed by a powerful minority, will they not act against even their own best interests? When the majority is short sighted, is disgracing the future the proper thing to do? An ideal government is one that uses the truth to optimize according to some anthropic value system in the short and long terms. These do not arise from popular opinion, just as they don't form under the force of authority. Unfortunately, they are probably impossible to form at all. People are selfish, stupid, and short-sighted and that doesn't go away once you reach any particular number or proportion of them making the decisions. Democracy can (arguably) produce morally just decisions, but that isn't the same as producing factually correct ones.
- 10y ago
- Rylinks 10y agoHere is a plan: 1. Invoke article 50 2. Wait two years This might not be a good plan, but that's for the voters to decide.
- dudul 10y agoI see, so when people don't vote "the right way" it's because they are stupid, or throwing a tantrum. Good, that makes for good debates. The media and the "elite" in the UK tried that for a year and we saw the outcome. There is an article in the constitution to allow a country to leave the union, so it is a right the people have.
- knowaveragejoe 10y agoThe question is whether it's a right they should exercise on so little information.
- dudul 10y agoWell, then we should maybe change the rules of elections. Maybe before people are allowed to vote they should take a test to make sure they know what they are doing. Or we can simplify and say that you need a master's degree to be allowed to vote, organizing the test may be too involved. Also, maybe old people should not be allowed to vote since they're gonna die soon anyway, what do they care? Also, maybe only land owners should be allowed to vote, after all, if you don't own land maybe you're not really part of the destiny of the country. Also, maybe you should have been a citizen for at least 10 years to be allowed to vote, to make sure you've had time to integrate the values of your new country. How about we stop assuming that just because things didn't play out the way the elites wanted them to it must mean that people are stupid, racist, uneducated? I can only imagine the reactions if the "remain" had won, and we were now talking about the UK leaving anyway.
- tomp 10y agoWhat do you mean, little information?! There's plenty of information on how bad EU is (occupation of Greece, austerity, one country deciding to invite millions of migrants then forcing others to help them, wasting money supporting 2 parliaments, "unelected" leaders, the failure that is Euro, ...).
- Daishiman 10y agoYou're not really proving that these, or worse, things wouldn't happen without a EU. Structural economic issues that span a whole continent happen regardless of whether it's in a single coordinated economic bloc or not.
- dingaling 10y ago> Nobody on the Brexit camp even had a plan on how to leave. That's not my job - that's what civil servants and politicians are paid considerable amounts of money to determine. Just like a marketing director doesn't expect to have to present the dev team with the architecture of the latest web app; he or she states the requirements, we execute it.
- Daishiman 10y agoWell, executing according to the plan will lead to political suicide because the Leave voters couldn't be bothered to understand the economic ramifications, so they're going to be out of a vote anyway. If a customer asks for you to build a building that will collapse, do you go for it or do you steadfastedly refuse your customer's idiocy.
- sbmassey 10y agoIf they want a building that will collapse, you should build it, of course. Doing otherwise would be negligent, and assuming your customers are stupid for wanting such a thing is unprofessional at best.
- Kurtz79 10y ago"Sure, what a better move from an organization that is more and more compared to the USSR" By whom, exactly ? Geniuses like Farage ? By The Sun and the Daily Mail?
- polotics 10y agocount me in. You know what too-low interest rates did to southern europe's economies starting from the late 90's
- Kurtz79 10y agoNo. I know what endemic corruption, tax evasion, abuses to the social state, refusal of investing in economies beyond tourism and construction, have done to Southern Europe's economies, which have the same low interest rates than the healthy economies in the EU.
- timrichard 10y agoI believe the poster is referring to Mikhail Gorbachev, who said “The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe.” But who knows; perhaps Mikhail read something in the Daily Mail.
- cortesoft 10y agoI think most people accept that it isn't the best idea to allow a simple majority to have unlimited power. Just because you can get 50.01% of the people to vote for something doesn't mean it is 'undemocratic' to not do it. In the United States, for example, we have a constitution that explicitly sets out rules for what a majority can't do. I don't think setting limits on what the majority can do means that people have 'lost the right to decide for themselves'. If the British Parliament decides to drag their feet on brexit, that doesn't mean they are preventing people from deciding for themselves; the people decided to vote those MPs into office!
- Oletros 10y ago> Sure, what a better move from an organization that is more and more compared to the USSR than completely ignore the result of a direct consultation of the citizens Are you talking about UK?
- paublyrne 10y agoIt's certainly not a given. May is not very remain though. It would take political bravery to go against the referendum result. It would be easier for a new non Conservative party government to avoid Brexit as remaining can be part of the manifesto, which somewhat explains the urgency with which Labour MPs are trying to eject Corbyn, who can not be relied on to make remain a manifesto pledge. Interesting times.
- tanderson92 10y agoLabour MPs are trying to eject Corbyn because they were never happy he was elected leader of the party in the first place. They wish they could take a page from the Conservatives and select a new leader without the people's voice.
- cmrdporcupine 10y agoCan somebody in the UK explain to me what happened to the Liberal Democrats? Did they implode after tying their hitch to the Cameron wagon in the last parliament? Because it seems to me like a bulk of these supposed Blair-ite 'Labour' supporters who want Corbyn out so they don't have to be sullied with ugly old words like "socialism" and "wealth redistribution" more properly belong in a party closer to Canada's Liberal Party, and it is Corbyn who is inheriting the mantle of the more traditional Labour constituency? Why have the Liberal Democrats not done better out of the cataclysm in British party politics over the last few months?
- tomelliott 10y agoYes. They got burned badly for 'breaking their promises' after being elected into the coalition. What nobody seems to have realised is that they didn't have anything close to a majority, so of course they weren't able to completely prevent the Tories from doing everything. It's a shame IMO because what we clearly need right now is a Centralist party, especially with Labour going further and further to the Left under Corbyn.
- 10y ago
- sbmassey 10y agoIf Brexit gets brushed under the carpet, and the EU continues its legacy of greed, stupidity and incompetence in every area it involves itself in, then I imagine the next referendum will be a lot more bitter and painful, if not outright violent.
- tomp 10y agoI'm sad to see you downvoted, I completely agree with you.
- Oletros 10y ago> and the EU continues its legacy of greed, stupidity and incompetence in every area it involves itself i Citation needed
- sbmassey 10y agoI can't think of anything the EU has been involved in over the last couple of decades that isn't accurately described as such: the Euro? the Lisbon treaty debacle? the immigration catastrope? Greece? Unemployment? Agricultural policy? God forbid they ever get an army: they would probably attack their own citizenry, declare a great victory, and people like yourself would start cheering
- Oletros 10y agoSo, no citation and just a bunch of opinion. Thanks
- sbmassey 10y agoYou could disprove it by coting a single area where they are a widely acknowledge success, but that is of course impossible: even the Remain campaign was unable to come up with anything beyond vague threats of doom, which have now proven false
- huherto 10y agoNot leaving will create a moral danger. Wouldn't it? It will make it too easy for people to vote according with their guts knowing that they will be saved. It will also empower anti-EU parties in other countries in EU.
- ng12 10y ago> knowing that they will be saved I think this is a big reason why Brexit in the UK and Trump in the US have such large backing. Not saying I agree with either of them -- but people feel ignored, and the establishment's response is to call them ignorant. If we decide we need to "save the majority from themselves" is it still a democracy?
- dragonwriter 10y ago> Not leaving will create a moral danger. Wouldn't it? I'm not seeing it. > It will make it too easy for people to vote according with their guts knowing that they will be saved. Sure, it will make people take non-binding single-issue policy referenda issued as a sop to get people to vote for a party in a general election despite disagreement on an important point with the policies of that party far less seriously. OTOH, the main effect that has is making such non-binding referenda far less likely to actually be offered in the first place, forcing people to seek to consider the whole of their policy preferences in general elections, resulting in governments that better represent the public will including the way it balances priorities between preferences in different policy areas. > It will also empower anti-EU parties in other countries in EU. So far, I've heard people argue that: (1) Britain voting to stay in the EU, given the special deals it already had on top of the special deals that were negotiated condition on the Brexit vote failing would empower anti-EU parties in other countries in the EU, (2) Britain voting to leave the EU, independently of what happens later, would empower anti-EU parties in other countries in the EU, (3) Britain actually leaving the EU would empower anti-EU parties in other countries in the EU, (4) Britain not actually leaving the EU after voting for Brexit would empower anti-EU parties in other countries in the EU, (5) Britain getting favorable treatment in negotiations for post-EU status if it left the EU would empower anti-EU parties in other countries in the EU, (6) Britain getting unfavorable treatment in negotiations for post-EU status if it left the EU would empower anti-EU parties in other countries in the EU I tend to discount such claims when presented without a credible argument to how they would do so compared to alterantives...
- carsongross 10y agoThose who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- Nacraile 10y agoCan we stop claiming 52% is any sort of clear majority? 52% doesn't mean "most people want this", it means "the country is evenly split, so we flipped a coin, and it came up Leave". You need much more than 52% of the population behind you to have a revolution (of any sort). There's a reason that most functional democracies have a constitution can only by changed by meeting a higher bar than simple majority: it's too important, too sensitive, and too irreversible to be decided without something closer to consensus. I would argue that that logic applies here.
- rfrank 10y agoIf the UK had voted to stay, and this headline was actually "Why it's time to accept the fact that Remain may never happen" would you be making the same argument?
- Daishiman 10y agoRemain is the status quo. They are not equally weighed options.
- rfrank 10y agoWhy does the status quo matter? Would a 51% remain vote be more valid than a 55% leave vote, simply based on whether or not it preserves the status quo?
- dragonwriter 10y agoStatus quo matters in this narrow context of discussing the validity of reversed headlines and responses to them because "Remain may never happen" would be nonsense with a reversed result; remain is what happens until some action by the government changes it, so if remain won, remain would immediately be happening, just as it was happening before the referendum.
- AnimalMuppet 10y agoMany people felt that the EU was too undemocratic. Too often it decided what to do, without letting people vote on it. And when people did vote against the EU's plan, the EU found ways to ignore or bypass the vote. This was a big part of the reason for the Brexit vote. If that vote gets ignored, there's going to be trouble. I don't know what form it will take, but there will be trouble.
- Panoramix 10y agoThat's how democracy works. You elect people so they decide things for the people. Sometimes they can in turn elect other people. It's impossible to put everything up for vote (and the results would be disastrous unless the majority of the population would be highly educated).
- AnimalMuppet 10y agoWell, that's how representative democracy works. It's not how democracy works. But even in a representative democracy, there's still this line out of history: "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". If the EU (or the US Congress) makes decisions that alienate too large a chunk of their citizens, then you wind up with a government in power that does not have the consent of the governed, and which therefore is viewed as illegitimate by a large chunk of the people. And then comes trouble, in one form or another.
- captainmuon 10y agoWhat most people are missing is the third option, how Britain can both avoid leaving the EU and staying in the EU: Namely that the EU in it's current form stops existing before the Brexit can be completed. There are compelling (or at least popular) arguments both from the left and the right against the EU in it's current form, but for some kind of international European organization. It's not too far fetched that (due to various crises like in Greece, the Brexit, etc.) the EU would break apart at some point. In that case, due to necessity and realpolitik, I don't believe it would leave a void, but would be replaced by a leaner organization, more individual multilateral treaties etc., and hopefully something more democratic. And as I said this idea is popular with the left and the right - I believe this restructuring could be positive and utopian, or regressive and apocalyptic (you choose which side is which).
- Daishiman 10y agoWhat you claim such a high risk and costly endeavour that it's ridiculous to contemplate it happening in the span of 10 years. Organizations collapse long before they have such large reforms, and we're talking about a union of a couple dozen countries that given the opportunity for reform, would pull a dozen different ways with no consensus.
- s_kilk 10y agoAs much as I'm opposed to Brexit, we can't simply un-ring this bell and pretend it never happened. The issues which lead to the Leave result aren't going to disappear, and ignoring the result will just add further to the (already scary) rise in far-right sentiment in the UK.
- jonknee 10y agoIt was a non-binding referendum so technically they can quite literally pretend it never happened.
- s_kilk 10y agoSure, if they want riots. Actual, people-dying-in-the-streets riots. Anything is possible, but not everything is politically tennable.
- jonknee 10y agoThey wouldn't just say no we're not doing that, they would have another vote. Probably on the really bad deal they'll get from Brussels. So instead of the really vague yes or no of the last election it would be a vote of the actual plan--agree to leave the EU, but still pay them a ton of money, allow immigration, etc etc.
- socialist_coder 10y agoI think it is already spawning change. It's waking up the complacent establishment who thinks they can keep shitting on the working class. The right wing is already capitalizing on this by blaming the problems on immigrants. Hopefully, the left wing wakes up too and brings forth some candidates who can address the real root causes instead of blaming it on immigration.
- s_kilk 10y ago> It's waking up the complacent establishment who thinks they can keep shitting on the working class. How so? Theresa May has just formed the most right-wing, anti-working-class Cabinet in living memory, while Labour are busy tearing themselves apart. It doesn't seem the establishment is waking up in any meaningful way.
- socialist_coder 10y agoThat is my assumption too. It will never happen. The UK cannot afford to not have free trade with the EU, and a stipulation of free trade is to allow open immigration and travel. The main reason that many people even voted for leaving was to stop the EU immigration! So, just based on this 1 thing, it doesn't seem like it has a chance of happening. Additionally, there is the whole thing about sending money to the NHS instead of the EU that turned out to be false. And, many Leave voters actually didn't even want it to pass, they were just doing it as a protest vote. So, half the stuff the Leave campaign said has turned out to be a lie and some portion (not really sure how big) of the voters didn't even want it to pass. Expecting the Brexit to happen just seems completely crazy.
- rogerdpack 10y agoI assume "free trade" is possible without allowing open immigration...
- socialist_coder 10y agoIt's not, the EU has said so multiple times. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/21/may-gets-hollande-ultimatum-free-trade-depends-on-free-movement http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/21/may-gets-hol... https://infacts.org/mythbusts/uk-wont-single-market-without-free-movement/ https://infacts.org/mythbusts/uk-wont-single-market-without-... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-warned-free-trade-brexit-deal-without-cutting-immigration-is-pie-in-the-sky-a7150351.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-wa... The EU does not allow member countries to negotiate trade deals privately. All trade deals must go through the EU, which means any trade deals applies to all EU countries. It's an all or nothing thing. So even though Poland might want to allow free trade with the UK, they simply cannot do it. It must go through the EU, and the EU has said very strongly that they will not allow it. Free trade means free movement. No exceptions. Once you understand that, the Brexit is just even stupid to consider.
- atemerev 10y agoNo, it isn't. At this point, the mass immigration is actually unstoppable. It could be managed when people got information about foreign countries from state-controlled (or aligned) media. Now, when everybody and his dog are on the Internet, they can see what life in other countries actually is. And want a piece of it. And unless you bring machine guns (and maybe even then), you can't stop hundreds of millions of migrants who just want better life for themselves and their children.
- atemerev 10y agoI am pro-Remain, but democracy is democracy; ignoring the popular vote would create much more dangerous precedent than any bad things that may happen from Brexit.
- cortesoft 10y agoBritain is a representational democracy; they vote for MPs who enact their will, not direct votes on single issues like Brexit.
- atemerev 10y agoOf course. And the message they would send with that is "screw you, the people, it's our way or highway". And _this_ would be the moment when everyone will go nuts and anti-establishment and vote for UKIP.
- Daishiman 10y agoPlease, like it hasn't happened a thousand times before. Remember Iraq?
- atemerev 10y agoIraq is a relatively minor issue that could be swept under the rug. This thing can't.
- cortesoft 10y agoIt isn't like a vast majority voted for Brexit; the vote was very close. The number of people who would be happy with parliament dragging their feet would be pretty close to the number of people upset with them. I don't think that will cause some massive shift in voting patterns.
- atemerev 10y agoLike somebody said elsewhere in this thread, this will cause actual riots in the streets, with people dying.
- egwynn 10y agoThere are legitimate ways to be critical of the UK’s EU membership as a long-term economic strategy. Reasoning through these criticisms carefully and cogently might be possible. And afterward, it’s not out of the question that someone could come up with a plan for how the UK could leave the EU in order to bring real growth and prosperity to the UK (and maybe the EU also?). But that’s not what happened, and it’s not what’s going to happen. The Brexit vote happened with no plan for how the follow-through would work. It’s as if my family were to vote against the current foundation of my house, and then start ripping it up without first voting for a new foundation.