15 ms·

This should be a lesson for all voters across the world - think for a minute before voting. At least try to understand what you're voting on. We can blame all w

This should be a lesson for all voters across the world - think for a minute before voting. At least try to understand what you're voting on. We can blame all we want on the media, politicians etc etc, but in the end, we can't deny Brexit is the result of a properly, democratically conducted election - voters need to take at least some responsibility. No amount of "voters' remorse" is going to help now.

microcolonel 8y ago
This form of condescension is a major part of why remainers have utterly failed to make their case. Remainers clearly believe they are better than brexiters, but do not address the issues which matter (lack of control on political matters which affect the lives of average people: trade, standards, communications, intellectual property, immigration) to the people they are ostensibly trying to convince. The Brexit referendum had among the highest turnouts of all British votes in history, there was a considerable amount of media produced to explain each side (and many more remain arguments and endorsements were aired on radio, television, and through social media advertising campaigns), and the opinion was nonetheless trending further toward Brexit on the eve of the vote. It is just about as democratic as it could possibly be. I honestly don't know where this theme of regret is coming from, because among the people I know who supported Brexit, none of them have expressed anything other than ongoing support, and a desire to see the original intent of the referendum respected by the parliament (as it clearly wasn't respected by the Prime Minister).
- dTal 8y ago
  The original intent? What original intent was that? Brexit was always light on detail, and that is coming home to roost. When pressed, most Brexit supporters I've spoken to show absolutely no interest in the dismal nitty gritty of politics, preferring to spout shallow platitudes like "why can't they just get on with it". The silence from chief Brexiteers Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson has been profoundly deafening.
  - madaxe_again 8y ago
    People were promised a pogrom against immigrants and Muslims, and are getting antsy that they haven’t been allowed to start deporting and disappearing people yet. That’s what they want to get on with - it seems to be the sole unifying factor between pro-brexit factions.
  - patates 8y ago
    I'm not at all knowledgeable about the situation in the UK so I searched for Nigel Farage and this came up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIhPlyG96zk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIhPlyG96zk It felt like he was trying to avoid the consequences of the actions of "Brexiteers" like himself. But he is definitely not silent. There's that.
  - TheGrumpyBrit 8y ago
    There was no need for detail, because the WTO already provides a framework for trade agreements. That was the assumed state people voted on - talk of a deal came afterwards, and was considered by many to be an attempt to do "Brexit in name only", causing a situation where we're still obligated to the EU but no longer have any MEPs.
    - gambiting 8y ago
      >>That was the assumed state people voted on I can't believe anyone would make such an assumption. I know some people who 1) voted leave 2) are perfectly aware that under WTO rules their businesses would literally have to close because they trade with EU and their European partners won't accept a ~20% hike on the price of British products due to non-EU custom duties. They all wanted out of EU because they don't like the immigrants, because they think Brussels has too much power, but they all wanted easy trade with the EU. WTO trade is not what they voted for.
      - robertony 8y ago
        The "leavers" you talk to are pretty different from the leavers I talk to.
- justaguyhere 8y ago
  This form of condescension Absolutely not trying to be condescending, apologies if I came across that way. Personally, I am just pained that voters who live in countries where democracy still works, do not take it seriously - that includes not spending time and effort to educate themselves with at least the basics of the issues they are voting on. Imagine living in countries like Russia, Zimbabwe, Turkey etc - where elections are a farce. Now compare it with UK - British people had a real chance to vote to stay in the EU, they just threw that chance away. I am not being snarky or condescending - I am just frustrated that voters don't spend a bit of effort to educate themselves before voting. Democracy only works if the voters make it work.
  - kodablah 8y ago
    > I am not being snarky or condescending - I am just frustrated that voters don't spend a bit of effort to educate themselves before voting. Maybe many do and you're just wrong about whether they educated themselves? Maybe many of them are more educated about the issue than you are yet don't feel as required to shout how dumb the other side is from the rooftops. That you assume ignorance of those you don't understand and then say they should educate themselves as though there is an objective right answer is both snarky and condescending.
    - chillwaves 8y ago
      Folks are falling for well confirmed lies. When people fall for blatant, untrue propaganda, they are dupes. Democratically empowered dupes, but dupes none the less.
      - kodablah 8y ago
        > Folks are falling for well confirmed lies. Sure, probably on both sides. But to assume that everyone on one side of an issue, or even most, are dupes is a very dangerous assumption. Not every election outcome has to be rationalized, but in the attempt to do so people build excuses out of easy-to-find-when-digging election issues prevalent in all elections. Then they blindly say that must be the reason or that it only affects one side or that voters are dupes or whatever makes them feel better instead of considering that there is reasonable disagreement. It happens with most election results these days that don't favor the boisterous.
- bertil 8y ago
  The argument about lack of control is not true: Uk has had very significant influence over a lot of the decision process in the EU. They have democratically elected representatives and career civil servants, like for local and national institutions in the UK. A British voter doesn’t control EU any less than they control the UK.
  - nicky0 8y ago
    Not so. The UK parliament is at the root of democratic authority in the UK. The European Parliament is a largely powerless rubber-stamping body.
    - pmyteh 8y ago
      Thirty years ago, maybe. It's now got extensive co-decision powers and is a serious body in its own right. In fact, there's an argument that the in-built government majority in the Commons makes that far more of a powerless rubber-stamping body in normal times (recent events notwithstanding!)
      - orbifold 8y ago
        A serious body that is inhabited by Front National, AFD, Die Partei (they switch their parliamentary representative every 3 month, so that 4 people get a salary of ~30000 a year) and other reprehensible or joke parties.
        pjc50 8y ago
        I don't think this is actually a bug; I think small fringe parties deserve representation, and it's an inescapable consequence of being serious about proportional representation. Arguably Farage has been a "shadow" party leader in the UK for years. I wonder how differently things would have gone under a PR system where there were a few UKIP MPs off in one corner. As it was, they had no influence right up to the point where they "flipped" a large section of the Tory party into being pro-Brexit. I also think that Farage shows that having a safe seat in the media is far more important than in Parliament for small parties; the national media have consistently given him far more coverage than comparable small or regional parties, because he's "good entertainment".
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  Whichever way one voted, we were sold a pup. Both sides lied. Which makes the case and result, either way, rather academic. Farage admitted the morning after the result that the £350m a week to the NHS was a lie. A promise that undoubtedly had considerable impact with the current austerity NHS funding crisis.
  - anarchitect 8y ago
    > Farage admitted the morning after the result that the £350m a week to the NHS was a lie The bus was part of the official Vote Leave campaign not Farage’s Leave.EU, so that particular lie is not for Farage to defend. Many others are though.
  - collyw 8y ago
    What lies did the remain side give? We know exactly what we were getting there, the same as what we have.
    - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
      We knew what we were getting, but that is not what the campaign sold. Both sides ran overwhelmingly negative campaigns. Ironic that remain was labelled Project Fear as the most direct lies were on the leave side - the £350m that is nowhere near and never has been, and the claims of mass Turkish immigration when Turkey isn't even in the EU stand out as easily memorable. Remain were less blatant, but gave numerous predictions and estimates of the consequence of leaving. Some were reasonable, from good sources. Others appear to have been back of an envelope escalating wildness like that house prices would fall 10%, then 20, then 25% and more. Often very poor credibility sources but still repeated as though just as credible as the Treasury or BoE etc. Which just gave easy ammunition for the Mail etc.
      - collyw 8y ago
        We haven't left yet so the results are still to be seen.
  - TheGrumpyBrit 8y ago
- madaxe_again 8y ago
  Actually, all of these things have been discussed in very concrete terms ad infinitum, and not only does your precious brexit not address them, but it generally worsens them. You’re now going to say “I have yet to see a single argument...” and demand citations, to which you’ll then respond with breitbart links and comparisons between eu figures and Nazis. It has become a really boring pattern, and pardon me if I’m bored of trying to educate the wilfully uneducable. Also, for the love of god, stop pretending that anything in that list matters to you other than immigration. You put it last to try to make it seem less prominent, yet it is the lynchpin of the leave movement and the driving factor behind a majority of leave voters. Me, I’m leaving the country, as I’m sick of the xenophobia and uncertainty. Can’t run a business in this mess.
dTal 8y ago
I can deny it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_Brexit_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Russian_interference_i... Of particular interest is where the massive pile of cash that funded the Leave campaign actually came from.
- mirimir 8y ago
  In seeking to destabilize opponents, a key strategy is sowing domestic discontent. Everyone does it, to the best of their abilities. And in particular, it was a key part of the Cold War. So the US managed to destabilize the Soviet Union. Threats from NATO and strategic nuclear weapons forced the Soviets to spend so much on defense that the civilian economy was destroyed. And yes, corruption and incompetence also played a huge role. Add saturation with VoA messages about the US consumer economy, and the Soviet Union collapsed. And more recently, they messed with Georgia, and finally engineered Ukraine independence. Not to mention Syria. Russia has also sought to destabilize Western Europe and the US. For a long time, it was mainly messages about the communist paradise. And in the 60s, promoting protest against the Vietnam war, and pushing isolationism. But then, in the late 80s, the message shifted to distrusting government, conspiracy theories, etc. I mean, look at RT! And more recently, basically the alt-right, with its overt racist overtones. I don't know the UK situation well, but it's pretty clear that Russia promoted Brexit to destabilize the EU, and so NATO.
  - roenxi 8y ago
    What if, instead of foreign influences, you just swap in poor economic management? I mean, China has moved from a position considerably weaker than Russia in its heyday to one that is probably stronger. So whatever mischief you think the US tried, obviously the Chinese have figured out how to deal with it. It seems to have involved a dose of freeish-markets. > And in the 60s, promoting protest against the Vietnam war This really takes the biscuit. Opposition to war is not evidence of a Russian plot, it is evidence of common sense. Without even considering if the Vietnam war made a lick of sense, any healthy democracy should at a minimum have some protests when it engages in a war of aggression. > But then, in the late 80s, the message shifted to distrusting government, conspiracy theories, etc. I don't think this affects your main point, but irony here is that "Russian Influence" is clearly a conspiracy theory. It might turn out true, as a number of conspiracy theories do, but still. Maybe the Russians have got to you :P
smileypete 8y ago
>This should be a lesson for all voters across the world - think for a minute before voting. At least try to understand what you're voting on. We can blame all we want on the media, politicians etc etc, but in the end, we can't deny Brexit is the result of a properly, democratically conducted election It's a shitshow for sure, but at least it's a democratic shitshow. Democracy isn't always a bed of roses, sometimes it's chaos, but it is what it is. The EU council could have offered some reasonable concessions in order to remain, both before and after the referendum, but nada. What really helped the leave vote was not so much shadowy influences but the attitude of the EU council. You can't ignore the elephant in the room.
- justaguyhere 8y ago
  What really helped the leave vote was not so much shadowy influences but the attitude of the EU. 1. Can you explain the "attitude of the EU" part? 2. If the EU is that bad, why aren't other countries holding referendums and leaving the EU? Why is only the UK making so much noise? I am not European, so my knowledge on this matter is pretty small. Honestly curious, not being snarky etc.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    In 2016, a Pew poll showed that more French had a negative impression of the EU (61%) than British (48%). A large fraction of French polled (33%) want to leave.
  - smileypete 8y ago
    >1. Can you explain the "attitude of the EU" part? They want to centralise power more and more, and seem completely oblivious to their own mistakes. Just an odd example - make fuel from a food crop grown in tropical jungle areas, to save CO2? No surprises how that turned out...
  - burfog 8y ago
    The situation is certainly different for any country that uses the Euro. The UK could leave with far less trouble than Poland or Ireland could.
nraynaud 8y ago
This is not the voter’s fault. In a functioning democracy, there is a system to approve a text by popular vote instead of the usual parlement. So the question at such a vote should always be: “do you approve the proposed text?”, then the text becomes law. By organizing an abstract opinion poll, the government just prepared a shit show, there no way to make any significant chunk of the population happy, everybody had a different view of brexit.
- ajuc 8y ago
  > This is not the voter’s fault. Yes it is. Asked "do you want to fundamentally change status quo in some random yet to be decided way that most experts warn you will result in chaos" population should have voted "no". Population would have voted "no" if just a few more young people cared enough to get their asses to the voting booths. The lessons from Brexit are the same as the lessons from Trump in USA, Kaczyński in Poland, Orban in Hungary: 1. vote 2. don't vote populists. 3. don't disregard warnings of experts. 4. don't buy conspiracy theories. 5. don't engage in witch hunts against minorities and don't vote people who do so. It's not a lot to expect of people. It's the bare minimum if democracy is to work at all. Cameron is at fault too, of course. Shouldn't have played with the fire. But some politicians will play with fire if there's a profit to be made and power to get. It's the voters who have to stop them, not the other way.
  - gdgegeg 8y ago
    While generally in agreement, the "youth didn't vote" scapegoating is incorrect - their turnout numbers were roughly the same as other demographics. I really don't rate the Guardian for all of its content, this particular article explains well and is reasonably sourced https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/young-people-referendum-turnout-brexit-twice-as-high https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/young-peopl...
    - benj111 8y ago
      Thanks for this, it's something I hadn't heard before. Wouldn't exit polls record the ages of voters though? Seems strange that there's so little data on this.
TheGrumpyBrit 8y ago
The thing is, there was no talk of a deal before the referendum. The vote was simply Stay or Go, with the assumption being that we would simply fall back to WTO rules. All this talk of negotiating a deal came after the vote. In that sense, a No Deal Brexit is closer to what the people voted for than any deal. Contrary to "voters remorse", I know plenty of Brexit supporters who are celebrating the defeat of what they see as the governments attempt to undermine the terms of Brexit.
- boudin 8y ago
  I've never seen anything in the Brexit campaign saying that the goal was to fall back to WTO rules between UK and EU.
  - Wildgoose 8y ago
    That's because it's the default position after leaving the EU trading block.
    - XJOKOLAT 8y ago
      Bollocks. Is what I would have said.
    - tsukikage 8y ago
      Just like the Geneva Convention is the default position when there is no peace treaty. Nonetheless, having that be the only thing governing one state's relationships with another is so rare and unpleasant that unless that state of affairs is explicitly requested with a declaration of war it is natural to assume something else is intended.
- benj111 8y ago
  There was no talk of falling back to WTO rules. There was talk of 'hard' and 'soft' Brexits. Mainly there was talk of how we could stay in the single market, and maintain all the good things about EU membership without having to pay any of the costs.
- 8y ago
Juliate 8y ago
It's also a major lesson for governments around the world (that their military already know though): information intoxication works.
DanBC 8y ago
> is the result of a properly, democratically conducted election Hang on, one side was found to have lied and was fined for that.
- Wildgoose 8y ago
  BOTH sides lied. Both sides have been fined.
  - robin_reala 8y ago
    Sorry, I don’t remember the remain campaign being taken to court over lies, or being fined for such. Could you link to those occurrences?
    - Wildgoose 8y ago
      There are plenty of examples if you bother to search, e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41649995 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41649995 and https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42411144 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42411144
      - robin_reala 8y ago
        Thanks! I did look but couldn’t find anything, probably because I was looking for fines for lying to voters rather than campaign finance problems, but yeah that’s not great.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
random_moonwalk 8y ago
If you broke apart what brexit might actually mean for the country into its constituent parts, I think most people would feel out of their depth voting on these potential amendments individually. It's interesting that when you package all the details up into a single ill-defined 'brexit' people feel happy to project their own vague meaning onto the term and confidently cast their vote.
talltimtom 8y ago
You can’t blame the voters for trump or for brexit. They voted their hearts as they should. It was the job of Hillary and the remain campaign to push their message and educate the people on what their choices could lead to. They failed. That’s not the fault of the voters. I doubt a single sole intentionally voted with malicious intent, and you can’t fault someone for voting what they honestly believe is best, even if they are misinformed.
- josefresco 8y ago
  You're giving US conservative republican voters and politicians too much credit. They didn't "vote their heart" they voted their hatred and wallet.
  - adventured 8y ago
    Conservatives didn't elect Trump. They tried to elect everybody else but Trump, he was maybe their sixth choice out of the original group. Independents and particularly white women elected Trump. They were the most important swing vote that determined the critical states that gave Trump the electoral college edge over Hillary's massive $2 billion political campaign. Hillary's failure to resonate with independent white women and minorities, particularly black voters, sank her campaign.
    - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
      "failure to resonate" being "Fake facebook memes knocking Hillary posted from a partisan meme factory" made her demographic stay home from the polls (they didn't vote for T either)
    - josefresco 8y ago
      "he was maybe their sixth choice out of the original group" As soon as he won the nomination, they all fell in line. So clearly he was the "conservative peoples" choice, but not the "conservative establishment" choice. Once he was elected, republicans (even the establishment) further fell into line by continuing to support, condone and cover for his (and the GOP leadership's) corruption. "Independents and particularly white women elected Trump" Independents sure but white ... republican women voted for him too. Being a "white woman' does not automatically make you a liberal democrat. "Hillary's massive $2 billion political campaign" Cute. All presidential campaigns are massive on the $ scale. "Hillary's failure to resonate with independent white women and minorities, particularly black voters, sank her campaign." Lots of factors contributed to Hillary's loss, it was not just "white women and minorities" who failed her. Anecdotally, the people who have admitted to me (they feel shame BTW) voting for Trump did so out of their own self-interest. They thought they were "shaking up the system".

microcolonel 8y ago

This form of condescension is a major part of why remainers have utterly failed to make their case. Remainers clearly believe they are better than brexiters, but do not address the issues which matter (lack of control on political matters which affect the lives of average people: trade, standards, communications, intellectual property, immigration) to the people they are ostensibly trying to convince. The Brexit referendum had among the highest turnouts of all British votes in history, there was a considerable amount of media produced to explain each side (and many more remain arguments and endorsements were aired on radio, television, and through social media advertising campaigns), and the opinion was nonetheless trending further toward Brexit on the eve of the vote. It is just about as democratic as it could possibly be. I honestly don't know where this theme of regret is coming from, because among the people I know who supported Brexit, none of them have expressed anything other than ongoing support, and a desire to see the original intent of the referendum respected by the parliament (as it clearly wasn't respected by the Prime Minister).

dTal 8y ago
The original intent? What original intent was that? Brexit was always light on detail, and that is coming home to roost. When pressed, most Brexit supporters I've spoken to show absolutely no interest in the dismal nitty gritty of politics, preferring to spout shallow platitudes like "why can't they just get on with it". The silence from chief Brexiteers Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson has been profoundly deafening.
- madaxe_again 8y ago
  People were promised a pogrom against immigrants and Muslims, and are getting antsy that they haven’t been allowed to start deporting and disappearing people yet. That’s what they want to get on with - it seems to be the sole unifying factor between pro-brexit factions.
- patates 8y ago
  I'm not at all knowledgeable about the situation in the UK so I searched for Nigel Farage and this came up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIhPlyG96zk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIhPlyG96zk It felt like he was trying to avoid the consequences of the actions of "Brexiteers" like himself. But he is definitely not silent. There's that.
- TheGrumpyBrit 8y ago
  There was no need for detail, because the WTO already provides a framework for trade agreements. That was the assumed state people voted on - talk of a deal came afterwards, and was considered by many to be an attempt to do "Brexit in name only", causing a situation where we're still obligated to the EU but no longer have any MEPs.
  - gambiting 8y ago
    >>That was the assumed state people voted on I can't believe anyone would make such an assumption. I know some people who 1) voted leave 2) are perfectly aware that under WTO rules their businesses would literally have to close because they trade with EU and their European partners won't accept a ~20% hike on the price of British products due to non-EU custom duties. They all wanted out of EU because they don't like the immigrants, because they think Brussels has too much power, but they all wanted easy trade with the EU. WTO trade is not what they voted for.
    - robertony 8y ago
      The "leavers" you talk to are pretty different from the leavers I talk to.
justaguyhere 8y ago
This form of condescension Absolutely not trying to be condescending, apologies if I came across that way. Personally, I am just pained that voters who live in countries where democracy still works, do not take it seriously - that includes not spending time and effort to educate themselves with at least the basics of the issues they are voting on. Imagine living in countries like Russia, Zimbabwe, Turkey etc - where elections are a farce. Now compare it with UK - British people had a real chance to vote to stay in the EU, they just threw that chance away. I am not being snarky or condescending - I am just frustrated that voters don't spend a bit of effort to educate themselves before voting. Democracy only works if the voters make it work.
- kodablah 8y ago
  > I am not being snarky or condescending - I am just frustrated that voters don't spend a bit of effort to educate themselves before voting. Maybe many do and you're just wrong about whether they educated themselves? Maybe many of them are more educated about the issue than you are yet don't feel as required to shout how dumb the other side is from the rooftops. That you assume ignorance of those you don't understand and then say they should educate themselves as though there is an objective right answer is both snarky and condescending.
  - chillwaves 8y ago
    Folks are falling for well confirmed lies. When people fall for blatant, untrue propaganda, they are dupes. Democratically empowered dupes, but dupes none the less.
    - kodablah 8y ago
      > Folks are falling for well confirmed lies. Sure, probably on both sides. But to assume that everyone on one side of an issue, or even most, are dupes is a very dangerous assumption. Not every election outcome has to be rationalized, but in the attempt to do so people build excuses out of easy-to-find-when-digging election issues prevalent in all elections. Then they blindly say that must be the reason or that it only affects one side or that voters are dupes or whatever makes them feel better instead of considering that there is reasonable disagreement. It happens with most election results these days that don't favor the boisterous.
bertil 8y ago
The argument about lack of control is not true: Uk has had very significant influence over a lot of the decision process in the EU. They have democratically elected representatives and career civil servants, like for local and national institutions in the UK. A British voter doesn’t control EU any less than they control the UK.
- nicky0 8y ago
  Not so. The UK parliament is at the root of democratic authority in the UK. The European Parliament is a largely powerless rubber-stamping body.
  - pmyteh 8y ago
    Thirty years ago, maybe. It's now got extensive co-decision powers and is a serious body in its own right. In fact, there's an argument that the in-built government majority in the Commons makes that far more of a powerless rubber-stamping body in normal times (recent events notwithstanding!)
    - orbifold 8y ago
      A serious body that is inhabited by Front National, AFD, Die Partei (they switch their parliamentary representative every 3 month, so that 4 people get a salary of ~30000 a year) and other reprehensible or joke parties.
      - pjc50 8y ago
        I don't think this is actually a bug; I think small fringe parties deserve representation, and it's an inescapable consequence of being serious about proportional representation. Arguably Farage has been a "shadow" party leader in the UK for years. I wonder how differently things would have gone under a PR system where there were a few UKIP MPs off in one corner. As it was, they had no influence right up to the point where they "flipped" a large section of the Tory party into being pro-Brexit. I also think that Farage shows that having a safe seat in the media is far more important than in Parliament for small parties; the national media have consistently given him far more coverage than comparable small or regional parties, because he's "good entertainment".
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Whichever way one voted, we were sold a pup. Both sides lied. Which makes the case and result, either way, rather academic. Farage admitted the morning after the result that the £350m a week to the NHS was a lie. A promise that undoubtedly had considerable impact with the current austerity NHS funding crisis.
- anarchitect 8y ago
  > Farage admitted the morning after the result that the £350m a week to the NHS was a lie The bus was part of the official Vote Leave campaign not Farage’s Leave.EU, so that particular lie is not for Farage to defend. Many others are though.
- collyw 8y ago
  What lies did the remain side give? We know exactly what we were getting there, the same as what we have.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    We knew what we were getting, but that is not what the campaign sold. Both sides ran overwhelmingly negative campaigns. Ironic that remain was labelled Project Fear as the most direct lies were on the leave side - the £350m that is nowhere near and never has been, and the claims of mass Turkish immigration when Turkey isn't even in the EU stand out as easily memorable. Remain were less blatant, but gave numerous predictions and estimates of the consequence of leaving. Some were reasonable, from good sources. Others appear to have been back of an envelope escalating wildness like that house prices would fall 10%, then 20, then 25% and more. Often very poor credibility sources but still repeated as though just as credible as the Treasury or BoE etc. Which just gave easy ammunition for the Mail etc.
    - collyw 8y ago
      We haven't left yet so the results are still to be seen.
- TheGrumpyBrit 8y ago
madaxe_again 8y ago
Actually, all of these things have been discussed in very concrete terms ad infinitum, and not only does your precious brexit not address them, but it generally worsens them. You’re now going to say “I have yet to see a single argument...” and demand citations, to which you’ll then respond with breitbart links and comparisons between eu figures and Nazis. It has become a really boring pattern, and pardon me if I’m bored of trying to educate the wilfully uneducable. Also, for the love of god, stop pretending that anything in that list matters to you other than immigration. You put it last to try to make it seem less prominent, yet it is the lynchpin of the leave movement and the driving factor behind a majority of leave voters. Me, I’m leaving the country, as I’m sick of the xenophobia and uncertainty. Can’t run a business in this mess.

dTal 8y ago

I can deny it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_Brexit_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Russian_interference_i... Of particular interest is where the massive pile of cash that funded the Leave campaign actually came from.

mirimir 8y ago
In seeking to destabilize opponents, a key strategy is sowing domestic discontent. Everyone does it, to the best of their abilities. And in particular, it was a key part of the Cold War. So the US managed to destabilize the Soviet Union. Threats from NATO and strategic nuclear weapons forced the Soviets to spend so much on defense that the civilian economy was destroyed. And yes, corruption and incompetence also played a huge role. Add saturation with VoA messages about the US consumer economy, and the Soviet Union collapsed. And more recently, they messed with Georgia, and finally engineered Ukraine independence. Not to mention Syria. Russia has also sought to destabilize Western Europe and the US. For a long time, it was mainly messages about the communist paradise. And in the 60s, promoting protest against the Vietnam war, and pushing isolationism. But then, in the late 80s, the message shifted to distrusting government, conspiracy theories, etc. I mean, look at RT! And more recently, basically the alt-right, with its overt racist overtones. I don't know the UK situation well, but it's pretty clear that Russia promoted Brexit to destabilize the EU, and so NATO.
- roenxi 8y ago
  What if, instead of foreign influences, you just swap in poor economic management? I mean, China has moved from a position considerably weaker than Russia in its heyday to one that is probably stronger. So whatever mischief you think the US tried, obviously the Chinese have figured out how to deal with it. It seems to have involved a dose of freeish-markets. > And in the 60s, promoting protest against the Vietnam war This really takes the biscuit. Opposition to war is not evidence of a Russian plot, it is evidence of common sense. Without even considering if the Vietnam war made a lick of sense, any healthy democracy should at a minimum have some protests when it engages in a war of aggression. > But then, in the late 80s, the message shifted to distrusting government, conspiracy theories, etc. I don't think this affects your main point, but irony here is that "Russian Influence" is clearly a conspiracy theory. It might turn out true, as a number of conspiracy theories do, but still. Maybe the Russians have got to you :P

smileypete 8y ago

>This should be a lesson for all voters across the world - think for a minute before voting. At least try to understand what you're voting on. We can blame all we want on the media, politicians etc etc, but in the end, we can't deny Brexit is the result of a properly, democratically conducted election It's a shitshow for sure, but at least it's a democratic shitshow. Democracy isn't always a bed of roses, sometimes it's chaos, but it is what it is. The EU council could have offered some reasonable concessions in order to remain, both before and after the referendum, but nada. What really helped the leave vote was not so much shadowy influences but the attitude of the EU council. You can't ignore the elephant in the room.

justaguyhere 8y ago
What really helped the leave vote was not so much shadowy influences but the attitude of the EU. 1. Can you explain the "attitude of the EU" part? 2. If the EU is that bad, why aren't other countries holding referendums and leaving the EU? Why is only the UK making so much noise? I am not European, so my knowledge on this matter is pretty small. Honestly curious, not being snarky etc.
- rayiner 8y ago
  In 2016, a Pew poll showed that more French had a negative impression of the EU (61%) than British (48%). A large fraction of French polled (33%) want to leave.
- smileypete 8y ago
  >1. Can you explain the "attitude of the EU" part? They want to centralise power more and more, and seem completely oblivious to their own mistakes. Just an odd example - make fuel from a food crop grown in tropical jungle areas, to save CO2? No surprises how that turned out...
- burfog 8y ago
  The situation is certainly different for any country that uses the Euro. The UK could leave with far less trouble than Poland or Ireland could.

nraynaud 8y ago

This is not the voter’s fault. In a functioning democracy, there is a system to approve a text by popular vote instead of the usual parlement. So the question at such a vote should always be: “do you approve the proposed text?”, then the text becomes law. By organizing an abstract opinion poll, the government just prepared a shit show, there no way to make any significant chunk of the population happy, everybody had a different view of brexit.

ajuc 8y ago
> This is not the voter’s fault. Yes it is. Asked "do you want to fundamentally change status quo in some random yet to be decided way that most experts warn you will result in chaos" population should have voted "no". Population would have voted "no" if just a few more young people cared enough to get their asses to the voting booths. The lessons from Brexit are the same as the lessons from Trump in USA, Kaczyński in Poland, Orban in Hungary: 1. vote 2. don't vote populists. 3. don't disregard warnings of experts. 4. don't buy conspiracy theories. 5. don't engage in witch hunts against minorities and don't vote people who do so. It's not a lot to expect of people. It's the bare minimum if democracy is to work at all. Cameron is at fault too, of course. Shouldn't have played with the fire. But some politicians will play with fire if there's a profit to be made and power to get. It's the voters who have to stop them, not the other way.
- gdgegeg 8y ago
  While generally in agreement, the "youth didn't vote" scapegoating is incorrect - their turnout numbers were roughly the same as other demographics. I really don't rate the Guardian for all of its content, this particular article explains well and is reasonably sourced https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/young-people-referendum-turnout-brexit-twice-as-high https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/young-peopl...
  - benj111 8y ago
    Thanks for this, it's something I hadn't heard before. Wouldn't exit polls record the ages of voters though? Seems strange that there's so little data on this.

TheGrumpyBrit 8y ago

The thing is, there was no talk of a deal before the referendum. The vote was simply Stay or Go, with the assumption being that we would simply fall back to WTO rules. All this talk of negotiating a deal came after the vote. In that sense, a No Deal Brexit is closer to what the people voted for than any deal. Contrary to "voters remorse", I know plenty of Brexit supporters who are celebrating the defeat of what they see as the governments attempt to undermine the terms of Brexit.

boudin 8y ago
I've never seen anything in the Brexit campaign saying that the goal was to fall back to WTO rules between UK and EU.
- Wildgoose 8y ago
  That's because it's the default position after leaving the EU trading block.
  - XJOKOLAT 8y ago
    Bollocks. Is what I would have said.
  - tsukikage 8y ago
    Just like the Geneva Convention is the default position when there is no peace treaty. Nonetheless, having that be the only thing governing one state's relationships with another is so rare and unpleasant that unless that state of affairs is explicitly requested with a declaration of war it is natural to assume something else is intended.
benj111 8y ago
There was no talk of falling back to WTO rules. There was talk of 'hard' and 'soft' Brexits. Mainly there was talk of how we could stay in the single market, and maintain all the good things about EU membership without having to pay any of the costs.
8y ago

Juliate 8y ago

It's also a major lesson for governments around the world (that their military already know though): information intoxication works.

DanBC 8y ago

> is the result of a properly, democratically conducted election Hang on, one side was found to have lied and was fined for that.

Wildgoose 8y ago
BOTH sides lied. Both sides have been fined.
- robin_reala 8y ago
  Sorry, I don’t remember the remain campaign being taken to court over lies, or being fined for such. Could you link to those occurrences?
  - Wildgoose 8y ago
    There are plenty of examples if you bother to search, e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41649995 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41649995 and https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42411144 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42411144
    - robin_reala 8y ago
      Thanks! I did look but couldn’t find anything, probably because I was looking for fines for lying to voters rather than campaign finance problems, but yeah that’s not great.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

random_moonwalk 8y ago

If you broke apart what brexit might actually mean for the country into its constituent parts, I think most people would feel out of their depth voting on these potential amendments individually. It's interesting that when you package all the details up into a single ill-defined 'brexit' people feel happy to project their own vague meaning onto the term and confidently cast their vote.

talltimtom 8y ago

You can’t blame the voters for trump or for brexit. They voted their hearts as they should. It was the job of Hillary and the remain campaign to push their message and educate the people on what their choices could lead to. They failed. That’s not the fault of the voters. I doubt a single sole intentionally voted with malicious intent, and you can’t fault someone for voting what they honestly believe is best, even if they are misinformed.

josefresco 8y ago
You're giving US conservative republican voters and politicians too much credit. They didn't "vote their heart" they voted their hatred and wallet.
- adventured 8y ago
  Conservatives didn't elect Trump. They tried to elect everybody else but Trump, he was maybe their sixth choice out of the original group. Independents and particularly white women elected Trump. They were the most important swing vote that determined the critical states that gave Trump the electoral college edge over Hillary's massive $2 billion political campaign. Hillary's failure to resonate with independent white women and minorities, particularly black voters, sank her campaign.
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    "failure to resonate" being "Fake facebook memes knocking Hillary posted from a partisan meme factory" made her demographic stay home from the polls (they didn't vote for T either)
  - josefresco 8y ago
    "he was maybe their sixth choice out of the original group" As soon as he won the nomination, they all fell in line. So clearly he was the "conservative peoples" choice, but not the "conservative establishment" choice. Once he was elected, republicans (even the establishment) further fell into line by continuing to support, condone and cover for his (and the GOP leadership's) corruption. "Independents and particularly white women elected Trump" Independents sure but white ... republican women voted for him too. Being a "white woman' does not automatically make you a liberal democrat. "Hillary's massive $2 billion political campaign" Cute. All presidential campaigns are massive on the $ scale. "Hillary's failure to resonate with independent white women and minorities, particularly black voters, sank her campaign." Lots of factors contributed to Hillary's loss, it was not just "white women and minorities" who failed her. Anecdotally, the people who have admitted to me (they feel shame BTW) voting for Trump did so out of their own self-interest. They thought they were "shaking up the system".