4 ms·

Who’s “they” in this scenario? I know it’s easy to pretend that Brexit got a massive majority but really it didn’t. It was just 52-48%. A large number of us d

by Lio 8y ago

Who’s “they” in this scenario? I know it’s easy to pretend that Brexit got a massive majority but really it didn’t. It was just 52-48%. A large number of us didn’t vote for it and still don’t want Brrexit.

raverbashing 8y ago
The leavers, who think untangling a web of commercial, legal and financial connections (which a lot of them depend on - I can't wait to see the face of the farmers when their EU subsidies stop coming) is as easy as unplugging their kettle.
- BozeWolf 8y ago
  Do not be so so harsh on the people who wanted the brexit. They have made a mistake, probably. Some of them realize that. As a pro eu person from nl(if that even exists) i would prefer not to give uk a hard time to come back on their decision. And even íf they really quit: we still have to work together. It is in interest of all of us to have the uk with us. It is just impossible to negotiate for brexit and cherry pick all the good parts of the eu, while not doing something in return. They will end up with a eu type of deal, with a few minor things stripped off. Or a hard brexit, which may not even happen. It is a shitty situation, which starts to affect my life as well. I have some stocks on a company “degiro” which has its license in the uk. This is a problem because i am unsure what is going to happen. I moved my investments to a broker with dutch bank accounts and licenses.
  - raverbashing 8y ago
    Fair enough > They will end up with a eu, with a few minor things stripped off. Maybe. They had that already
  - matthewmacleod 8y ago
    That's the ideal outcome. The problem is that rhetoric in the UK has shifted away from "Leave the EU in a structured manner with most of the bits intact" to "full-scale immediate departure with no planning for the future". That's going to be a medium-term disaster. Honestly the problem isn't Brexit itself. I don't agree with that policy, but it's possible to see how it could be executed in a constructive and honest fashion. If we were able to accept that there are benefits to EU membership, but that we were willing to give those up in exchange for theoretically greater sovereignty, the situation would be better. If we were working towards a scenario that was minimally damaging, while importantly being honest about the tradeoffs, then the country would make some progress. Instead we have an absolute catastrophe of untruth circulating. Large parts of the party of government appear to be aiming for a no-deal, cliff-edge event, claiming that everything will be fine. A huge share of the population seem to think that "no deal" means "status quo" instead of "immediate large-scale problems". I don't know how we deal with that. We're genuinely in the time of post-facts, post-truth politics, and I don't know that we currently have the tools to fix that.
- mercer 8y ago
  Putting aside the 'leavers' who were basically misled, and at worst can be judged ignorant, there's a huge number of 'stayers' who are extremely worried about what's coming. Enjoying the reality strikes me as extremely unproductive and extremely lacking in empathy. Surely there are better things to be gleeful about?
claydavisss 8y ago
And the Exit people will say they voted against EU policies all along yet have been compelled to go along... The rules for winning were known before the votes were cast, just like in 2016 in the USA. Do the do-overs stop as soon as you get the result you want?
- vidarh 8y ago
  In a democracy the do-overs never stop. That is the most critical aspect of a democracy: You never stop having the right to fight to change a decision.
  - frabbit 8y ago
    I would agree that is true in a democracy: but the UK is not a democracy. In fact, apart from Lichtenstein¹ I cannot think of any democracies. How open are you to the idea of a third, fourth and subsequent referenda on Brexit should a second one happen? Or would you declare the second one as "final" if it achieves whatever result you desire? That is certainly what happened in Ireland: Nice 1 was rejected in 2001, a year later after an intensive, one-sided government propaganda fest Nice2 was passed. Similarly in Denmark, Maastricht Treaty 1 and 2 were held in subsequent years (1992,3) I think there are other examples. A glaring one is the Greek Bailout referendum where people voted to tell the EU to stuff off, but again, their government knew better. For me, this argues that governments, whether national or supra-national will ignore the popular vote and there should be more referenda. Obviously there needs to be some sort of pre-referendum polling to indicate whether exists a reasonable proportion of the population that is interested in the Question of What to Name Brian`s Cat. And there should probably be some safe majority (5%? 10%) of turnout required. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_zOkljLqS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_zOkljLqS4
    - vidarh 8y ago
      > I would agree that is true in a democracy: but the UK is not a democracy. In fact, apart from Lichtenstein¹ I cannot think of any democracies. This is a meaningless argument. To the extent it is not, the way to bring it closer is to enable to people to have more say. > How open are you to the idea of a third, fourth and subsequent referenda on Brexit should a second one happen? Or would you declare the second one as "final" if it achieves whatever result you desire? The key part of my argument is that no decision is ever final in a democracy, so I will accept whatever number of referendums there is support for. If there is a push for an ongoing series of referendums it is a sign that the flaw is the questions being asked: Nobody bothers to seek compromises. It should have been clear from the beginning, for example that given a narrow "Leave" result in the Brexit referendum, given that most Remain voters would likely (but it's a shame this was not asked) prefer the softest possible Brexit if Leave were to win, and that some Leave voters would also prefer a soft Brexit, in the case of a Leave result, the most democratic outcome almost certainly would be one of the softest possible alternatives. If politicians can't come up with referendum questions that make people stop wanting to change the outcome, then it is evidence they're not doing their jobs. > I think there are other examples. A glaring one is the Greek Bailout referendum where people voted to tell the EU to stuff off, but again, their government knew better. I think your examples are fundamentally flawed. The Danish Maastricht vote, for example, let to substantial guaranteed opt-outs before the second vote. That Denmark were able to secure those opt-outs was a direct result of putting the treaty to a referendum, and the swing in the subsequent referendum was big enough to make it clear to opponents a second one would not be viable for some time. Similarly Nice was rejected on a crazy low turnout and with concerns over security policy being a major factor. The latter issue was resolved through guarantees before the second referendum. Again I'd argue that this reflected a genuine change, and that a major concern of those voting no the first time was addressed. But as you say, there should probably be more, rather than less. Part of the problem is the lack of a defined process for instigating one.
jimnotgym 8y ago
670,000 of those who don't want it marched through London yesterday. That is a huge number for the UK btw.

by Lio 8y ago

raverbashing 8y ago

The leavers, who think untangling a web of commercial, legal and financial connections (which a lot of them depend on - I can't wait to see the face of the farmers when their EU subsidies stop coming) is as easy as unplugging their kettle.

BozeWolf 8y ago
Do not be so so harsh on the people who wanted the brexit. They have made a mistake, probably. Some of them realize that. As a pro eu person from nl(if that even exists) i would prefer not to give uk a hard time to come back on their decision. And even íf they really quit: we still have to work together. It is in interest of all of us to have the uk with us. It is just impossible to negotiate for brexit and cherry pick all the good parts of the eu, while not doing something in return. They will end up with a eu type of deal, with a few minor things stripped off. Or a hard brexit, which may not even happen. It is a shitty situation, which starts to affect my life as well. I have some stocks on a company “degiro” which has its license in the uk. This is a problem because i am unsure what is going to happen. I moved my investments to a broker with dutch bank accounts and licenses.
- raverbashing 8y ago
  Fair enough > They will end up with a eu, with a few minor things stripped off. Maybe. They had that already
- matthewmacleod 8y ago
  That's the ideal outcome. The problem is that rhetoric in the UK has shifted away from "Leave the EU in a structured manner with most of the bits intact" to "full-scale immediate departure with no planning for the future". That's going to be a medium-term disaster. Honestly the problem isn't Brexit itself. I don't agree with that policy, but it's possible to see how it could be executed in a constructive and honest fashion. If we were able to accept that there are benefits to EU membership, but that we were willing to give those up in exchange for theoretically greater sovereignty, the situation would be better. If we were working towards a scenario that was minimally damaging, while importantly being honest about the tradeoffs, then the country would make some progress. Instead we have an absolute catastrophe of untruth circulating. Large parts of the party of government appear to be aiming for a no-deal, cliff-edge event, claiming that everything will be fine. A huge share of the population seem to think that "no deal" means "status quo" instead of "immediate large-scale problems". I don't know how we deal with that. We're genuinely in the time of post-facts, post-truth politics, and I don't know that we currently have the tools to fix that.
mercer 8y ago
Putting aside the 'leavers' who were basically misled, and at worst can be judged ignorant, there's a huge number of 'stayers' who are extremely worried about what's coming. Enjoying the reality strikes me as extremely unproductive and extremely lacking in empathy. Surely there are better things to be gleeful about?

claydavisss 8y ago

And the Exit people will say they voted against EU policies all along yet have been compelled to go along... The rules for winning were known before the votes were cast, just like in 2016 in the USA. Do the do-overs stop as soon as you get the result you want?

vidarh 8y ago
In a democracy the do-overs never stop. That is the most critical aspect of a democracy: You never stop having the right to fight to change a decision.
- frabbit 8y ago
  I would agree that is true in a democracy: but the UK is not a democracy. In fact, apart from Lichtenstein¹ I cannot think of any democracies. How open are you to the idea of a third, fourth and subsequent referenda on Brexit should a second one happen? Or would you declare the second one as "final" if it achieves whatever result you desire? That is certainly what happened in Ireland: Nice 1 was rejected in 2001, a year later after an intensive, one-sided government propaganda fest Nice2 was passed. Similarly in Denmark, Maastricht Treaty 1 and 2 were held in subsequent years (1992,3) I think there are other examples. A glaring one is the Greek Bailout referendum where people voted to tell the EU to stuff off, but again, their government knew better. For me, this argues that governments, whether national or supra-national will ignore the popular vote and there should be more referenda. Obviously there needs to be some sort of pre-referendum polling to indicate whether exists a reasonable proportion of the population that is interested in the Question of What to Name Brian`s Cat. And there should probably be some safe majority (5%? 10%) of turnout required. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_zOkljLqS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_zOkljLqS4
  - vidarh 8y ago
    > I would agree that is true in a democracy: but the UK is not a democracy. In fact, apart from Lichtenstein¹ I cannot think of any democracies. This is a meaningless argument. To the extent it is not, the way to bring it closer is to enable to people to have more say. > How open are you to the idea of a third, fourth and subsequent referenda on Brexit should a second one happen? Or would you declare the second one as "final" if it achieves whatever result you desire? The key part of my argument is that no decision is ever final in a democracy, so I will accept whatever number of referendums there is support for. If there is a push for an ongoing series of referendums it is a sign that the flaw is the questions being asked: Nobody bothers to seek compromises. It should have been clear from the beginning, for example that given a narrow "Leave" result in the Brexit referendum, given that most Remain voters would likely (but it's a shame this was not asked) prefer the softest possible Brexit if Leave were to win, and that some Leave voters would also prefer a soft Brexit, in the case of a Leave result, the most democratic outcome almost certainly would be one of the softest possible alternatives. If politicians can't come up with referendum questions that make people stop wanting to change the outcome, then it is evidence they're not doing their jobs. > I think there are other examples. A glaring one is the Greek Bailout referendum where people voted to tell the EU to stuff off, but again, their government knew better. I think your examples are fundamentally flawed. The Danish Maastricht vote, for example, let to substantial guaranteed opt-outs before the second vote. That Denmark were able to secure those opt-outs was a direct result of putting the treaty to a referendum, and the swing in the subsequent referendum was big enough to make it clear to opponents a second one would not be viable for some time. Similarly Nice was rejected on a crazy low turnout and with concerns over security policy being a major factor. The latter issue was resolved through guarantees before the second referendum. Again I'd argue that this reflected a genuine change, and that a major concern of those voting no the first time was addressed. But as you say, there should probably be more, rather than less. Part of the problem is the lack of a defined process for instigating one.

jimnotgym 8y ago

670,000 of those who don't want it marched through London yesterday. That is a huge number for the UK btw.