3 ms·

What an amazing comment. Did you listen to the media in the run up to the referendum? Remain was absolutely the establishment position with the BBC and almost a

by vixen99 10y ago

What an amazing comment. Did you listen to the media in the run up to the referendum? Remain was absolutely the establishment position with the BBC and almost all the universities cheering them on along with numerous NGO's funding campaigns intended to influence the vote towards remaining in the EU. In spite of that, people understood that Remain meant obeying laws made by unelected officials who they could remove, and MEPs who can't even propose new laws. They also understood something about democracy in Europe when EU boss, President Juncker commented: French Referendum: "If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue'." "There can be no democratic choice against the European treaties, one cannot exit the euro without leaving the EU". Greece's economic meltdown - 2011: "When it becomes serious, you have to lie." "I'm ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democratic, but I want to be serious ... I am for secret, dark debates" "We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back." Lisbon Treaty: "Colleagues in the European Council are listening exclusively to their national opinion. “And if you are listening to your national opinion, you are not developing what should be common European sense: a feeling for the need we have to put together our efforts."

andybak 10y ago
> Did you listen to the media in the run up to the referendum? Yes. I think the Remain campaign did a terrible job of arguing it's case - and the EU does a terrible job of communicating it's value. It's also worth bearing in mind that the Remain campaign was up against a legacy of several decades worth of bad reporting and misinformation. It's been a theme in the UK media for decades. I remember dozens of tabloid front pages screaming about another attempt by EEC/EU bureaucrats to meddle with our affairs. The "Great British Sausage" episode of Yes, Prime Minister springs to mind. I can't find a link now but there is a list of all the deceptive or downright made-up EU stories from the British press in the last decade or so. It's very, very long. This attitude has been scorched into the British psyche for several generations. And the counter-arguments? I don't remember much effort being made to communicate those until it became apparent there really was going to be a referendum. Most of the best remain arguments boil down to fairly subtle arguments about trade and economics. Fairly hard to fit into a soundbite. And 'Leave' had all the good emotive arguments on their side. Sovereignty, identity, nationhood and other powerful emotive concepts beloved of populists and nationalists down the ages. The EU is deeply flawed but we've lost our chance to change it now. A slender 'remain' victory and a big push from other nations to reform the beast would have been the best outcome. Now we're damned if the EU fails and we're damned alone if it succeeds. Luckily we can read ourselves bedtime stories about the Empire as a comfort at night.
- Boothroid 10y ago
  I think you err on the side of rhetoric and Chicken Little style rhetoric at that. I also think you seem to look down your nose a little at the average Brit. From what I've seen voters' reasoning for voting leave seemed pretty well informed and balanced - it seemed like there was an acceptance of the possibility of becoming slightly poorer in exchange for controlled migration and sovereignty over law making for the most part.
- presidente20 10y ago
  The Remain camp did a bad job of arguing the case because there really aren't that many good arguments for staying in. I think you'll find it was the Brexiteers that made the 'subtle points' about trade, constitution etc. Leave did have the advantage of some emotional pulls like sovereignty, but Remain had the advantage of all three main parties on its side (including a sitting government) and the very powerful emotional pull of 'fear of change'.
Boothroid 10y ago
The only part of this comment that is conjecture as opposed to verifiable fact is the following: 'people understood that'. Why the downvotes? Inconvenient truths perhaps?
- andybak 10y ago
  I didn't engage with that aspect of your argument. There's two aspects of it. I'll give you credit for not invoking the "they" side of this directly but I think it's a huge factor in all this so I want to address that first - whilst acknowledging that wasn't the point you yourself were making. I heard many variations on "they are making decisions for us" and find the words "they" and "us" in that sentence fascinating. We draw imaginary lines and boundaries all the time - what Kurt Vonnegut called "granfalloon". So the notion of "Britishness" kicks in when discussing Europe - and therefore the people making the decisions are "they" and if we withdraw then suddenly it's "us" making the decisions. But this is a psychological illusion. "Them" and "us" expands and contracts depending on the context and it's part of a very deep and ancient emotional response that is easily triggered. I high-fived someone at a party last week when I found out they were also a Python developer. Some part of my brain decided they were therefore "family" or "tribe". We do this all the time but we also equally spend emotional energy deciding who is outside that boundary. So - in a different context the same people who cheer British independence from Europe will find themselves bemoaning the faceless bureaucrats of Westminster, or "that lot" in the local Council. This isn't me being I snob - I do it myself. It's a universal human weakness. My point is that this primate pack instinct is so deeply ingrained that it takes a huge effort to resist it's pull. Now - on to the point you actually made (with apologies for using you as a straw man). How direct is the democracy in the EU? Well. It's less than the directness of democracy in the UK itself but not by much. All modern democracies are indirect to one degree or another - and this is a good thing. Constant direct democracy wouldn't necessarily result in a better outcome. Just look at the situation in some US states where legislation has allowed people to force issues to be voted on at the state level leading to some crazy decisions hoisted upon the state. And that's not even bringing in the problems caused by the elect-ability of DA's, Sheriffs etc. which is well documented. Democracy SHOULD be limited. It's a check against tyranny - not a continual opinion poll. The wise have always understood this - hence the electoral college and the incredibly convoluted system designed by Cleisthenes at the birth of democracy - trytties and demes were designed to break up traditional kinship based-allegiances which would have smothered the baby at birth. So - the question isn't whether the EU is more democratic than the UK - it's what the optimum level of democracy is and whether I'd rather have my laws made by a bunch of people in Westminster I'll never meet - or a bunch of people in Brussels I'll never meet. I don't have any particular reason to favour the strangers in Westminster. EDIT - my dinner is ready and I don't have time to proof read the above for even basic coherence and logic so please factor that in to some degree. I don't write well when I'm hungry.

by vixen99 10y ago

andybak 10y ago

> Did you listen to the media in the run up to the referendum? Yes. I think the Remain campaign did a terrible job of arguing it's case - and the EU does a terrible job of communicating it's value. It's also worth bearing in mind that the Remain campaign was up against a legacy of several decades worth of bad reporting and misinformation. It's been a theme in the UK media for decades. I remember dozens of tabloid front pages screaming about another attempt by EEC/EU bureaucrats to meddle with our affairs. The "Great British Sausage" episode of Yes, Prime Minister springs to mind. I can't find a link now but there is a list of all the deceptive or downright made-up EU stories from the British press in the last decade or so. It's very, very long. This attitude has been scorched into the British psyche for several generations. And the counter-arguments? I don't remember much effort being made to communicate those until it became apparent there really was going to be a referendum. Most of the best remain arguments boil down to fairly subtle arguments about trade and economics. Fairly hard to fit into a soundbite. And 'Leave' had all the good emotive arguments on their side. Sovereignty, identity, nationhood and other powerful emotive concepts beloved of populists and nationalists down the ages. The EU is deeply flawed but we've lost our chance to change it now. A slender 'remain' victory and a big push from other nations to reform the beast would have been the best outcome. Now we're damned if the EU fails and we're damned alone if it succeeds. Luckily we can read ourselves bedtime stories about the Empire as a comfort at night.

Boothroid 10y ago
I think you err on the side of rhetoric and Chicken Little style rhetoric at that. I also think you seem to look down your nose a little at the average Brit. From what I've seen voters' reasoning for voting leave seemed pretty well informed and balanced - it seemed like there was an acceptance of the possibility of becoming slightly poorer in exchange for controlled migration and sovereignty over law making for the most part.
presidente20 10y ago
The Remain camp did a bad job of arguing the case because there really aren't that many good arguments for staying in. I think you'll find it was the Brexiteers that made the 'subtle points' about trade, constitution etc. Leave did have the advantage of some emotional pulls like sovereignty, but Remain had the advantage of all three main parties on its side (including a sitting government) and the very powerful emotional pull of 'fear of change'.

Boothroid 10y ago

The only part of this comment that is conjecture as opposed to verifiable fact is the following: 'people understood that'. Why the downvotes? Inconvenient truths perhaps?

andybak 10y ago
I didn't engage with that aspect of your argument. There's two aspects of it. I'll give you credit for not invoking the "they" side of this directly but I think it's a huge factor in all this so I want to address that first - whilst acknowledging that wasn't the point you yourself were making. I heard many variations on "they are making decisions for us" and find the words "they" and "us" in that sentence fascinating. We draw imaginary lines and boundaries all the time - what Kurt Vonnegut called "granfalloon". So the notion of "Britishness" kicks in when discussing Europe - and therefore the people making the decisions are "they" and if we withdraw then suddenly it's "us" making the decisions. But this is a psychological illusion. "Them" and "us" expands and contracts depending on the context and it's part of a very deep and ancient emotional response that is easily triggered. I high-fived someone at a party last week when I found out they were also a Python developer. Some part of my brain decided they were therefore "family" or "tribe". We do this all the time but we also equally spend emotional energy deciding who is outside that boundary. So - in a different context the same people who cheer British independence from Europe will find themselves bemoaning the faceless bureaucrats of Westminster, or "that lot" in the local Council. This isn't me being I snob - I do it myself. It's a universal human weakness. My point is that this primate pack instinct is so deeply ingrained that it takes a huge effort to resist it's pull. Now - on to the point you actually made (with apologies for using you as a straw man). How direct is the democracy in the EU? Well. It's less than the directness of democracy in the UK itself but not by much. All modern democracies are indirect to one degree or another - and this is a good thing. Constant direct democracy wouldn't necessarily result in a better outcome. Just look at the situation in some US states where legislation has allowed people to force issues to be voted on at the state level leading to some crazy decisions hoisted upon the state. And that's not even bringing in the problems caused by the elect-ability of DA's, Sheriffs etc. which is well documented. Democracy SHOULD be limited. It's a check against tyranny - not a continual opinion poll. The wise have always understood this - hence the electoral college and the incredibly convoluted system designed by Cleisthenes at the birth of democracy - trytties and demes were designed to break up traditional kinship based-allegiances which would have smothered the baby at birth. So - the question isn't whether the EU is more democratic than the UK - it's what the optimum level of democracy is and whether I'd rather have my laws made by a bunch of people in Westminster I'll never meet - or a bunch of people in Brussels I'll never meet. I don't have any particular reason to favour the strangers in Westminster. EDIT - my dinner is ready and I don't have time to proof read the above for even basic coherence and logic so please factor that in to some degree. I don't write well when I'm hungry.