6 ms·

I'm not a Brit and the politics of this are not my concern. However the information dissemination and internet aspect of the story is quite fascinating. I have

I'm not a Brit and the politics of this are not my concern. However the information dissemination and internet aspect of the story is quite fascinating. I have no idea what's going on. I tried to ignore it, but my friends who care deeply about it can get quite upset so I've been pulled into several private conversations. Because of that, on several occasions I've looked around the web in an effort to easily understand what's going on. No luck. Two things come to mind. First, complexity can be used as a wonderful shield against openness and accountability. You can be as open and accountable as anybody would like, but as long as most people find the situation impenetrable and you do not, it doesn't matter. It's the same thing as not being open at all. Second, I don't see how any reasonable public discussion happens at all in an information environment like this. It's a fail. If they wanted no public discussion, they should have made that choice. This is probably the worst situation a democracy can find itself in: lots of upset people arguing about things which they have no idea the true status of. You might as well watch a puppet show. There's no nuanced conversation possible. It is contrast turned as high as possible. It's not the decision as much as the uncertainty. I can't help but think the net failed us here -- but I don't know how it could have done better. The betting markets at least will give you an up/down version of the likely outcomes. Oddly enough that might be the best source of information.

rusk 8y ago
I don't think the net failed us ... I think the 'net is maybe the only thing that's slowed this disaster down. Yes yes whatever about the disinformation campaign that allegedly influenced the vote, but misinformation has always been a tool in the political toolkit. What's different this time around is that the net provides the means to route around the official narrative and dig into what's going on. Yes, you might dig the wrong way and come up with bullshit but anyone that can evaluate information can figure this out, and once the honest and educated manage to get to grips with the non-official details then the net provides a means to mobilise. If anything it's politics has broken the 'net, not the other way round. But the net provides a means to save politics.
- DanielBMarkham 8y ago
  Interesting. If I understand each of us correctly, my position is that the internet has provided a ton of information and drama, just nothing of use to the general public. Your position is because of the vast amount of information, we can identify these problems and route around them. I can certainly see where you might be correct. I think the key question is this: does the emotional impact of all the noise outweigh the nuggets of useful information a person may find here or there? (And I use the term "noise" generously. A cynic would consider this a form camouflage) In a way, this is the discussion the net is having all over, right? Do you get more social control by creating these made-for-internet dramas that hide the actual important stuff? Or does the fact that the information can exist much easier now and be published instantaneously to millions easily overcome that? I'm with the "people decide based on emotion, then use reason to justify their decisions" group of folks, but that's only because I come at this from a sales/startup angle. It very well may be different in the political realm.
  - rusk 8y ago
    I think anybody that's educated can filter out the noise usually and get at some element of the truth. This is an option that would have been mostly unavailable beforehand. Anybody that's easily swept up by rumours and bullshit was always just getting sucked in by the tabloids and the mainstream press anyway so their situation remains unchanged. What is particularly interesting in the case of Brexit, and perhaps tangential is how the Brexiteers keep getting caught out speaking out both sides of their mouths time after time. They make a deal in Brussels and then fly home and speak to factory workers in Grimsby contradicting that deal. It's reported immediately online and goes straight back to Brussels where they're "like really?".
    - DanielBMarkham 8y ago
      I'm going to disengage because I believe this is getting too far into local politics for me. However I want to make sure you understand my point. "...I think anybody that's educated can filter out the noise usually and get at some element of the truth...Anybody that's easily swept up by rumours and bullshit..." You understand that's not the way it works, right? This isn't an intelligence test. My point was about how humans make decisions, not how stupid people gossip and believe things they shouldn't. That's a great topic, but not my point. You don't educate or smart your way about of being human. It doesn't work like that. I used to love to discuss politics with folks, mainly because it was the one area in which really smart people believed really stupid things. It was -- and remains -- an excellent place to observe clanning and how the human mind works. (I stopped bringing it up, though, because as it turns out, text conversations have a completely different dynamic than in-person conversations.) Thanks for the chat!
dak1 8y ago
The original referendum itself was the real heart of the disorder. The government is now tying itself into knots trying to put into action a perceived desired action, even though the general concept of "Brexit" has a tremendous number of vastly different interpretations, and nothing close to a majority actually exists for any of those options. There never should have been a referendum to begin with, and the idea that a simple majority vote could have such dramatic consequences was frankly actually undemocratic. Based on how entrenched certain positions are (see the DUP, for example), the (rightly) strong opposition to a No Deal, and the fact that ANY deal is going to make a majority of people unhappy, it would seem there is no majority in Parliament willing to be connected with the actual outcome. Therefore, it seems the most likely scenario by far is simply an extension. That will probably lead to a General Election or a Second Referendum, where the "choice" can be said to be given to voters, which would also give MPs cover for any decision made. The EU will not decide against an extension either, as their preferred outcome is the UK remaining in the EU. The longer this drags on, and the more impractical Brexit options are shown to be, the more the likelihood the UK decides to remain increases. The only way I see the UK actually leaving the EU is if hard Brexiteers decide to back May's deal; however, that would be considerably more politically risky for them than simply continuing to take a hardline position — even if the end result is remain.
- dingaling 8y ago
  > was frankly actually undemocratic The referendum was infinitely more democratic than the decision to join the EU, which was taken by PM John Major and his colleagues when they signed the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. No-one asked the people.
  - dTal 8y ago
    >>could have such dramatic consequences was frankly actually undemocratic The consequences of joining were far less dramatic than the consequences of suddenly leaving.
    - infiniteseeker 8y ago
      >> The consequences of joining were far less dramatic than the consequences of suddenly leaving. I have no dog in this fight (not British or European) but this statement sounds like false equivalence to me.
Al-Khwarizmi 8y ago
Honestly I don't find that hard to understand what's going on. Basically, May negotiated a deal with the EU but the UK Parliament does not want it, mainly due to the so-called backstop. The backstop emerges because May has a red line that the UK must leave the single market and the customs union, and this is difficult (if not impossible) to reconcile with the Good Friday Agreement, which forbids a physical frontier at the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. The fact is that, as Northern Ireland is part of the UK, it is simply impossible to make the (whole) UK exit the single market and customs union while honoring that agreement. If you place a border in Ireland, you violate the agreement. If you don't place a border in Ireland, then obviously goods and people can circulate freely, so Northern Ireland is effectively part of the EU for customs union and free movement purposes. This is the very simple (not complex at all) reality that the UK government and parliament have been voluntarily ignoring all the time. To try to reconcile the contradiction, Theresa May proposed the so-called backstop: basically, Northern Ireland stays in the customs union until a technological solution is found that allows to have a non-physical border (yes, I know, bollocks. It won't happen. But Brexit proponents are like that). The EU signed this because May insisted and because why not, if no such miracle solution is found then Northern Ireland remains in the union so it's no problem for the EU. But the hardline Brexiteers in the Tory party (rightfully) pointed out... well, exactly that: that the backstop would imply that Northern Ireland would stay in the customs union forever. Hence, the process is stalled because May's deal has no consensus in parliament, but there is no consensus either for Brexit without a deal or for cancelling Brexit (all of this has been voted this week, with the result of "no" to everything). If parliament keeps voting no to everything, then the default result is no-deal brexit. Honestly I don't think there is that much complexity. It's just a very simple problem: that you cannot have Brexit including an exit from the customs union that involves Northern Ireland and the Good Friday agreement at the same time. That's pretty much all there is to it. If it seems complex, it's because the UK politicians don't want to admit it and just keep running in circles.
- dTal 8y ago
  That particular problem is indeed 1) very straightforward and 2) unsolvable. It's a major driver of the chaos. But that's just it - the situation is chaotic. There are many sideshows and complexities, and the upshot is that nobody really has any idea how it's going to play out. As shown by the elaborate diagram linked at the top of the page.

rusk 8y ago

I don't think the net failed us ... I think the 'net is maybe the only thing that's slowed this disaster down. Yes yes whatever about the disinformation campaign that allegedly influenced the vote, but misinformation has always been a tool in the political toolkit. What's different this time around is that the net provides the means to route around the official narrative and dig into what's going on. Yes, you might dig the wrong way and come up with bullshit but anyone that can evaluate information can figure this out, and once the honest and educated manage to get to grips with the non-official details then the net provides a means to mobilise. If anything it's politics has broken the 'net, not the other way round. But the net provides a means to save politics.

DanielBMarkham 8y ago
Interesting. If I understand each of us correctly, my position is that the internet has provided a ton of information and drama, just nothing of use to the general public. Your position is because of the vast amount of information, we can identify these problems and route around them. I can certainly see where you might be correct. I think the key question is this: does the emotional impact of all the noise outweigh the nuggets of useful information a person may find here or there? (And I use the term "noise" generously. A cynic would consider this a form camouflage) In a way, this is the discussion the net is having all over, right? Do you get more social control by creating these made-for-internet dramas that hide the actual important stuff? Or does the fact that the information can exist much easier now and be published instantaneously to millions easily overcome that? I'm with the "people decide based on emotion, then use reason to justify their decisions" group of folks, but that's only because I come at this from a sales/startup angle. It very well may be different in the political realm.
- rusk 8y ago
  I think anybody that's educated can filter out the noise usually and get at some element of the truth. This is an option that would have been mostly unavailable beforehand. Anybody that's easily swept up by rumours and bullshit was always just getting sucked in by the tabloids and the mainstream press anyway so their situation remains unchanged. What is particularly interesting in the case of Brexit, and perhaps tangential is how the Brexiteers keep getting caught out speaking out both sides of their mouths time after time. They make a deal in Brussels and then fly home and speak to factory workers in Grimsby contradicting that deal. It's reported immediately online and goes straight back to Brussels where they're "like really?".
  - DanielBMarkham 8y ago
    I'm going to disengage because I believe this is getting too far into local politics for me. However I want to make sure you understand my point. "...I think anybody that's educated can filter out the noise usually and get at some element of the truth...Anybody that's easily swept up by rumours and bullshit..." You understand that's not the way it works, right? This isn't an intelligence test. My point was about how humans make decisions, not how stupid people gossip and believe things they shouldn't. That's a great topic, but not my point. You don't educate or smart your way about of being human. It doesn't work like that. I used to love to discuss politics with folks, mainly because it was the one area in which really smart people believed really stupid things. It was -- and remains -- an excellent place to observe clanning and how the human mind works. (I stopped bringing it up, though, because as it turns out, text conversations have a completely different dynamic than in-person conversations.) Thanks for the chat!

dak1 8y ago

The original referendum itself was the real heart of the disorder. The government is now tying itself into knots trying to put into action a perceived desired action, even though the general concept of "Brexit" has a tremendous number of vastly different interpretations, and nothing close to a majority actually exists for any of those options. There never should have been a referendum to begin with, and the idea that a simple majority vote could have such dramatic consequences was frankly actually undemocratic. Based on how entrenched certain positions are (see the DUP, for example), the (rightly) strong opposition to a No Deal, and the fact that ANY deal is going to make a majority of people unhappy, it would seem there is no majority in Parliament willing to be connected with the actual outcome. Therefore, it seems the most likely scenario by far is simply an extension. That will probably lead to a General Election or a Second Referendum, where the "choice" can be said to be given to voters, which would also give MPs cover for any decision made. The EU will not decide against an extension either, as their preferred outcome is the UK remaining in the EU. The longer this drags on, and the more impractical Brexit options are shown to be, the more the likelihood the UK decides to remain increases. The only way I see the UK actually leaving the EU is if hard Brexiteers decide to back May's deal; however, that would be considerably more politically risky for them than simply continuing to take a hardline position — even if the end result is remain.

dingaling 8y ago
> was frankly actually undemocratic The referendum was infinitely more democratic than the decision to join the EU, which was taken by PM John Major and his colleagues when they signed the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. No-one asked the people.
- dTal 8y ago
  >>could have such dramatic consequences was frankly actually undemocratic The consequences of joining were far less dramatic than the consequences of suddenly leaving.
  - infiniteseeker 8y ago
    >> The consequences of joining were far less dramatic than the consequences of suddenly leaving. I have no dog in this fight (not British or European) but this statement sounds like false equivalence to me.

Al-Khwarizmi 8y ago

Honestly I don't find that hard to understand what's going on. Basically, May negotiated a deal with the EU but the UK Parliament does not want it, mainly due to the so-called backstop. The backstop emerges because May has a red line that the UK must leave the single market and the customs union, and this is difficult (if not impossible) to reconcile with the Good Friday Agreement, which forbids a physical frontier at the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. The fact is that, as Northern Ireland is part of the UK, it is simply impossible to make the (whole) UK exit the single market and customs union while honoring that agreement. If you place a border in Ireland, you violate the agreement. If you don't place a border in Ireland, then obviously goods and people can circulate freely, so Northern Ireland is effectively part of the EU for customs union and free movement purposes. This is the very simple (not complex at all) reality that the UK government and parliament have been voluntarily ignoring all the time. To try to reconcile the contradiction, Theresa May proposed the so-called backstop: basically, Northern Ireland stays in the customs union until a technological solution is found that allows to have a non-physical border (yes, I know, bollocks. It won't happen. But Brexit proponents are like that). The EU signed this because May insisted and because why not, if no such miracle solution is found then Northern Ireland remains in the union so it's no problem for the EU. But the hardline Brexiteers in the Tory party (rightfully) pointed out... well, exactly that: that the backstop would imply that Northern Ireland would stay in the customs union forever. Hence, the process is stalled because May's deal has no consensus in parliament, but there is no consensus either for Brexit without a deal or for cancelling Brexit (all of this has been voted this week, with the result of "no" to everything). If parliament keeps voting no to everything, then the default result is no-deal brexit. Honestly I don't think there is that much complexity. It's just a very simple problem: that you cannot have Brexit including an exit from the customs union that involves Northern Ireland and the Good Friday agreement at the same time. That's pretty much all there is to it. If it seems complex, it's because the UK politicians don't want to admit it and just keep running in circles.

dTal 8y ago
That particular problem is indeed 1) very straightforward and 2) unsolvable. It's a major driver of the chaos. But that's just it - the situation is chaotic. There are many sideshows and complexities, and the upshot is that nobody really has any idea how it's going to play out. As shown by the elaborate diagram linked at the top of the page.