8 ms·

> it's pretty well understood that in majority we don't want to leave, the other half are mostly a combination of naive, manipulated and coerced based on false

> it's pretty well understood that in majority we don't want to leave, the other half are mostly a combination of naive, manipulated and coerced based on false claims and social media... What? There was a vote. A vote where everyone elligible had the chance to voice their opinion and the majority (albeit slim) said "we want out". As for the slur of being naieve and manipulated that's bullshit (from my standpoint anyway). You seem to be referring to people getting their news from social media... if that's their source then hell-mend them. Social media is an echo chamber. It's not designed for two-sided debates. WRT to the false claims: If anyone actually believes that a politician has their interests at heart then they're delusional. You seem to just be bitter that you (I assume) voted to stay in... I suppose you want another one until you get the result you would prefer!

philbarr 7y ago
Oh yeah, absolutely all of the people who voted leave were completely rational. Like my father-in-law who voted leave so we can send all them Indians back home.
- s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
  Ah yes, the common, people didn't vote my way, so they must be crazy/racist/stupid. People had their reasons for voting the way they did, and you show your ignorance and lack of perspective when you dismiss their views like that. Calling people racist doesn't make opposing views go away, especially when over half the people in the country have those views. edit: Keep up the downvotes, it doesn't change anything.
  - rsynnott 7y ago
    Someone who voted for brexit to ‘send the Indians home’ is clearly both racist (self-evident) and stupid (how would brexit do that?)
    - s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
      One person's anecdote (that we don't know happened) doesn't represent half of a country's population. What't the GPs are doing are dismissing valid views from the other side by shouting racism. There's no proof or any real evidence provided that the other side is racist, just anecdotes.
  - philbarr 7y ago
    Not all people who voted leave are racist, but all racists voted leave.
    - s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
      Source?
benj111 7y ago
"the majority (albeit slim) said "we want out"." The point is that isn't really actionable, it isn't a plan. Hard Brexit was discussed, soft Brexit was discussed, BRINO, Norway plus. Everyone voted for their own preferred Brexit, so now we're in the situation on which Brexit to implement, and no one can agree, so which Brexit to go for? And I would like to point out that no deal Brexit was never seriously discussed in the run up to the referendum, so there isn't a mandate for that. We were though promised that we would be able to leave the EU, keep access to the common market, and save ourselves £350 million a week, in what would be the 'easiest trade deal in human history'.
- s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
  It was never seriously discussed because Theresa May didn't believe in it. Now that there will be an actual supporter in charge, you'll probably see more action on it.
  - smcl 7y ago
    What does that matter? The point was that "hard brexit" wasn't raised as a real possibility by the Leave campaign before the referendum (in fact hard vs soft wasn't even a thing before the vote). The campaign was based on promises of a lovely favourable trade deals and a hybrid in-and-yet-out where it suited us arrangement. The fact that Boris is PM and he's A-OK with hard brexit doesn't change any of that. And I don't know what "more action" we could see - it is by very definition the zero-action option.
    - benj111 7y ago
      Nit. Hard Brexit is moving further away from Europe compared to a soft Brexit which would be something like Norway or closer. What Teresa May was offering was a hard Brexit. What Boris is proposing is a no deal Brexit https://fullfact.org/europe/what-is-hard-brexit/ https://fullfact.org/europe/what-is-hard-brexit/
- Thiez 7y ago
  > We were though promised that we would be able to leave the EU, keep access to the common market, and save ourselves £350 million a week, in what would be the 'easiest trade deal in human history'. If it sounds to good to be true, it usually is. Surely it isn't the case that more than half the voters really believed Brexit was going to be that easy?
mdpye 7y ago
But the vote was poorly informed and actively manipulated. Many people voted leave as a protest against the state of the country, not the EU, and have said so. And many of the most persuasive statements made by the leave campaign were shown to be deliberate falsehoods. I respect the desires of those who genuinely wish to leave the EU, but the referendum result was not anything close to a true measurement of that, and any measure since has been grossly polluted by the ensuing acrimony. The referendum was about many things, and most of them weren't our membership of the EU.
- tomxor 7y ago
  > Many people voted leave as a protest against the state of the country, not the EU, and have said so. This is true in my experience, almost all arguments I have ever heard in person are of this form... I don't know where this came from but suspect the concept of "Leave == Change" was likely seeded on social media. > The referendum was about many things, and most of them weren't our membership of the EU. Yes, this is the source of the problem, even though manipulation is more of a problem than it used to be, this vote is particularly vulnerable to it because it's so poorly defined - it's basically impossible to have a sane and comprehensive debate about the topic so instead people naturally cling onto something that fits their values, and it's extremely easy to just fabricate those things in this case.
- _Understated_ 7y ago
  Perhaps I live in a bubble but to me it was pretty clear: In or out. As for the result not reflecting the people that's nonsense: Everyone with the ability to vote and the right to vote could and should have voted. If they didn't then tough. If people were swayed by politicians promising one thing or another and all the nonsense that flowed through social media then that's on them. I don't get this attitude that people have of "oh, it's not fair, we were lied to". We are talking about policicians here: they are only going to say whatever makes them popular and gets/keeps them in power.
  - Lio 7y ago
    Except that in or out isn't clear because it doesn't cover the details of what out means. I'm assuming you wouldn't expect the Brexiteers to stop campaigning if they had lost the vote? They'd just carry on trying to smash things up until they got their way. There were supposed to be rules follow with regard to funding and truthfulness on the part of the Leave campaign and it's now clear that those rules were broken. [1] So in short, those of us in the UK that think the UK would be better off as a member of the EU are still going to fight for that because we care about doing what we think is best for the country. [1] https://news.sky.com/story/vote-leave-broke-campaign-spending-rules-says-electoral-commission-11425636 https://news.sky.com/story/vote-leave-broke-campaign-spendin...
tomxor 7y ago
> if that's their source then hell-mend them. Social media is an echo chamber. It's not designed for two-sided debates. I think you are writing off a huge portion of people because their manipulation is convenient and happens to fit your opinion. The effects of manipulation through social media are a real and significant societal problem that undermine any type of democratic process. It is particularly vulnerable when the decision is poorly defined in almost every way imaginable beyond the entirely abstract concept of "not part of the EU".
- _Understated_ 7y ago
  This is nothing to do with my opinion... Social media is an echo chamber. Plain and simple. Opposing views are unwelcome! Here's a small test for you: go into an anti-vax group on FB and present a reasoned argument as to why vaccines are safe. You will be annihilated! If people believe their social media was manipulated they either need to stop using it or at least stop believing it. If they can't do that then how do you hope to have a reasoned debate about the pro's and con's of Brexit? I don't disagree that the Brexit thing was a joke from start to finish but we are talking about politicians here. Everything is a game to them and in my opinion as a group they are inherently untrustworthy. I honestly do not believe you will ever hear the truth from either side. Or if you do, it will be drowned out by the noise. FWIW I think social media is societal cancer to put it mildly.
CaptainZapp 7y ago
The problem was tht the populace was just asked: IN or OUT? None of the unsescapable consequences were mentioned, not was the form of an exit discussed.
maximente 7y ago
social media is a real problem though. witness how Brazil's elections went: basically WhatsApp was used to spread really nasty stuff about the opponents, and since it's a country whose consumption of social media >> any other media, that had a real effect. i suspect we'll see this used in other elections ASAP. https://theconversation.com/whatsapp-skewed-brazilian-election-proving-social-medias-danger-to-democracy-106476 https://theconversation.com/whatsapp-skewed-brazilian-electi...

philbarr 7y ago

Oh yeah, absolutely all of the people who voted leave were completely rational. Like my father-in-law who voted leave so we can send all them Indians back home.

s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
Ah yes, the common, people didn't vote my way, so they must be crazy/racist/stupid. People had their reasons for voting the way they did, and you show your ignorance and lack of perspective when you dismiss their views like that. Calling people racist doesn't make opposing views go away, especially when over half the people in the country have those views. edit: Keep up the downvotes, it doesn't change anything.
- rsynnott 7y ago
  Someone who voted for brexit to ‘send the Indians home’ is clearly both racist (self-evident) and stupid (how would brexit do that?)
  - s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
    One person's anecdote (that we don't know happened) doesn't represent half of a country's population. What't the GPs are doing are dismissing valid views from the other side by shouting racism. There's no proof or any real evidence provided that the other side is racist, just anecdotes.
- philbarr 7y ago
  Not all people who voted leave are racist, but all racists voted leave.
  - s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
    Source?

benj111 7y ago

"the majority (albeit slim) said "we want out"." The point is that isn't really actionable, it isn't a plan. Hard Brexit was discussed, soft Brexit was discussed, BRINO, Norway plus. Everyone voted for their own preferred Brexit, so now we're in the situation on which Brexit to implement, and no one can agree, so which Brexit to go for? And I would like to point out that no deal Brexit was never seriously discussed in the run up to the referendum, so there isn't a mandate for that. We were though promised that we would be able to leave the EU, keep access to the common market, and save ourselves £350 million a week, in what would be the 'easiest trade deal in human history'.

s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
It was never seriously discussed because Theresa May didn't believe in it. Now that there will be an actual supporter in charge, you'll probably see more action on it.
- smcl 7y ago
  What does that matter? The point was that "hard brexit" wasn't raised as a real possibility by the Leave campaign before the referendum (in fact hard vs soft wasn't even a thing before the vote). The campaign was based on promises of a lovely favourable trade deals and a hybrid in-and-yet-out where it suited us arrangement. The fact that Boris is PM and he's A-OK with hard brexit doesn't change any of that. And I don't know what "more action" we could see - it is by very definition the zero-action option.
  - benj111 7y ago
    Nit. Hard Brexit is moving further away from Europe compared to a soft Brexit which would be something like Norway or closer. What Teresa May was offering was a hard Brexit. What Boris is proposing is a no deal Brexit https://fullfact.org/europe/what-is-hard-brexit/ https://fullfact.org/europe/what-is-hard-brexit/
Thiez 7y ago
> We were though promised that we would be able to leave the EU, keep access to the common market, and save ourselves £350 million a week, in what would be the 'easiest trade deal in human history'. If it sounds to good to be true, it usually is. Surely it isn't the case that more than half the voters really believed Brexit was going to be that easy?

mdpye 7y ago

But the vote was poorly informed and actively manipulated. Many people voted leave as a protest against the state of the country, not the EU, and have said so. And many of the most persuasive statements made by the leave campaign were shown to be deliberate falsehoods. I respect the desires of those who genuinely wish to leave the EU, but the referendum result was not anything close to a true measurement of that, and any measure since has been grossly polluted by the ensuing acrimony. The referendum was about many things, and most of them weren't our membership of the EU.

tomxor 7y ago
> Many people voted leave as a protest against the state of the country, not the EU, and have said so. This is true in my experience, almost all arguments I have ever heard in person are of this form... I don't know where this came from but suspect the concept of "Leave == Change" was likely seeded on social media. > The referendum was about many things, and most of them weren't our membership of the EU. Yes, this is the source of the problem, even though manipulation is more of a problem than it used to be, this vote is particularly vulnerable to it because it's so poorly defined - it's basically impossible to have a sane and comprehensive debate about the topic so instead people naturally cling onto something that fits their values, and it's extremely easy to just fabricate those things in this case.
_Understated_ 7y ago
Perhaps I live in a bubble but to me it was pretty clear: In or out. As for the result not reflecting the people that's nonsense: Everyone with the ability to vote and the right to vote could and should have voted. If they didn't then tough. If people were swayed by politicians promising one thing or another and all the nonsense that flowed through social media then that's on them. I don't get this attitude that people have of "oh, it's not fair, we were lied to". We are talking about policicians here: they are only going to say whatever makes them popular and gets/keeps them in power.
- Lio 7y ago
  Except that in or out isn't clear because it doesn't cover the details of what out means. I'm assuming you wouldn't expect the Brexiteers to stop campaigning if they had lost the vote? They'd just carry on trying to smash things up until they got their way. There were supposed to be rules follow with regard to funding and truthfulness on the part of the Leave campaign and it's now clear that those rules were broken. [1] So in short, those of us in the UK that think the UK would be better off as a member of the EU are still going to fight for that because we care about doing what we think is best for the country. [1] https://news.sky.com/story/vote-leave-broke-campaign-spending-rules-says-electoral-commission-11425636 https://news.sky.com/story/vote-leave-broke-campaign-spendin...

tomxor 7y ago

> if that's their source then hell-mend them. Social media is an echo chamber. It's not designed for two-sided debates. I think you are writing off a huge portion of people because their manipulation is convenient and happens to fit your opinion. The effects of manipulation through social media are a real and significant societal problem that undermine any type of democratic process. It is particularly vulnerable when the decision is poorly defined in almost every way imaginable beyond the entirely abstract concept of "not part of the EU".

_Understated_ 7y ago
This is nothing to do with my opinion... Social media is an echo chamber. Plain and simple. Opposing views are unwelcome! Here's a small test for you: go into an anti-vax group on FB and present a reasoned argument as to why vaccines are safe. You will be annihilated! If people believe their social media was manipulated they either need to stop using it or at least stop believing it. If they can't do that then how do you hope to have a reasoned debate about the pro's and con's of Brexit? I don't disagree that the Brexit thing was a joke from start to finish but we are talking about politicians here. Everything is a game to them and in my opinion as a group they are inherently untrustworthy. I honestly do not believe you will ever hear the truth from either side. Or if you do, it will be drowned out by the noise. FWIW I think social media is societal cancer to put it mildly.

CaptainZapp 7y ago

The problem was tht the populace was just asked: IN or OUT? None of the unsescapable consequences were mentioned, not was the form of an exit discussed.

maximente 7y ago

social media is a real problem though. witness how Brazil's elections went: basically WhatsApp was used to spread really nasty stuff about the opponents, and since it's a country whose consumption of social media >> any other media, that had a real effect. i suspect we'll see this used in other elections ASAP. https://theconversation.com/whatsapp-skewed-brazilian-election-proving-social-medias-danger-to-democracy-106476 https://theconversation.com/whatsapp-skewed-brazilian-electi...