mheslep said:Amazing. Bold move by the Brits.
The bit that's difficult to accept is that the democratic decision was made based on a large amount of provably misleading information from both sides. All that I could be sure of was that leaving would definitely cause some major trouble (as is becoming apparent in Ireland and Scotland) and that both sides had made extremely misleading statements. In addition, despite being fed up with many aspects of the way the EU works, I feel that working together to solve problems is better than working separately, and hoping that we can hide from Europe's problems by cutting ourselves off seems very unrealistic.mheslep said:A vote by 30 million people is "Democratically unacceptable"? Please.
Certainly misleading information is often present, but how is it know that this particular outcome was *based on* misleading information?Jonathan Scott said:The bit that's difficult to accept is that the democratic decision was made based on a large amount of provably misleading information from both sides.
As was remaining likely to cause (more) trouble (e.g. the rise of the BNP, EDL, Left Unity, Class War, ...)All that I could be sure of was that leaving would definitely cause some major trouble (as is becoming apparent in Ireland and Scotland)
I have no comment on the best method of cooperation, but the UK is hardly cut-off from Europe post exit. The EFTA exists, the EEA and NATO remain, The Chunnel will not be plugged.cutting ourselves off seems very unrealistic.
But hardly believing that UK would. One of the main arguments for the no to Scottish independence was the prospect of staying within the European Union. The SNP was recently reelected on a manifesto of providing a fast possibility of holding a new referendum under drastically changed circumstances - and Brexit certainly would qualify for that. If I was Scottish, I certainly would have voted no to independence in 2014, but yes today.mheslep said:Unlikely. Scottish independence went down by 400 thousand votes, knowing at the time the UK might leave the EU.
I believe this to be one of the great flaws of democracy, in particular of big important referendums. People will tend to believe the truths that seem convenient for them and vote accordingly - greatly benefitting sides that can draw up such "easy" arguments and also implying that many people voting will not have the time nor interest in delving deeper into what are often very complex issues. This is the entire point behind parliamentarism, electing officials to do just that and to take informed decisions. To push the most important issues where many people will vote according to their gut feeling to a referendum is not a brilliant idea from this perspective.Jonathan Scott said:and that both sides had made extremely misleading statements.
I'm sure there were people in 1776 who said the same thing about America leaving. It was tough at first, but we made a go of it.Ryan_m_b said:I'm voting Remain. It's ridiculous to leave, it would be economic suicide.
Points that resonated with a majority of voters. The first two alone would have been enough for me to vote "Leave." With regard to sovreignty, having to abide by onerous rules and regulations from a bunch of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels would convince me to bail at the first opportunity.Ryan_m_b said:Not to mention that the leaders of the Leave campaign are just banging an ideological drum of "Immigration! Sovereignty! Nationalism!"
Mark44 said:Points that resonated with a majority of voters. The first two alone would have been enough for me to vote "Leave." With regard to sovreignty, having to abide by onerous rules and regulations from a bunch of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels would convince me to bail at the first opportunity.
I didn't say that, and you shouldn't infer it. Relative to my own country, the US, I am opposed to illegal immigration. Regarding immigration to Europe and the UK, if I were to have a vote, I would be against immigration in numbers too large to be assimilated into the particular country. With the massive influx of emigres lately, several of the countries, among them Hungary and, as I recall, Slovakia, are rethinking the idea of open borders.StatGuy2000 said:Mark44, am I to take it from your quote above that you are opposed to immigration, then?
I had forgotten about that possibility, that the EU would keep out an independent Scotland. Good point.Orodruin said:But hardly believing that UK would. One of the main arguments for the no to Scottish independence was the prospect of staying within the European Union...
The amount actually sent to the EU by the UK government, taken out of the hands of the UK Parliament, appears to be 250 million per week (13 billion a year). Do you think that figure would have been found modest by woud be Leave voters? Also, the Leave campaign mentions "costs" where I look, not government spending per se, so they may be referring to other monies leaving Britain due to the EU, possibly fines, licensing on business.Jonathan Scott said:.. and even though the amount was actually much less than that, surveys showed that nearly half of Britons believed it:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-million-a-week-to-the-eu-claim-a7085016.html
So given that the margin of victory was only a few percent, it looks as if that particular lie may well have contributed significantly to the result.
The thing that they did not tell the voters is that Brittish companies will have to abide by the regulations anyway if they want to trade with the EU.Mark44 said:With regard to sovreignty, having to abide by onerous rules and regulations from a bunch of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels would convince me to bail at the first opportunity.
Yes, do not get me wrong. I think it is far superior to any other form of government mankind has tried. (Take monarchy for example, if being at the mercy of the majority is bad, being at the mercy of a single person that might be excruciatingly unfit to rule would be worse.) I am just saying it has some gaping flaws.mister mishka said:Lastly I agree with previous posts about the flaws of democracy, though it still seems like the best system currently out there.
mheslep said:The amount actually sent to the EU by the UK government, taken out of the hands of the UK Parliament, appears to be 250 million per week (13 billion a year). Do you think that figure would have been found modest by woud be Leave voters? Also, the Leave campaign mentions "costs" where I look, not government spending per se, so they may be referring to other monies leaving Britain due to the EU, possibly fines, licensing on business.
https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/
Orodruin said:The thing that they did not tell the voters is that Brittish companies will have to abide by the regulations anyway if they want to trade with the EU.
Not talking about working regulations. One Leave commercial featured product regulations for pillows. If Britain wants to export pillows to the EU, they will still have to abide by those regulations. (Also, many of the regulations quoted in reality had nothing to do with pillows, butt simply regulations containing the word "pillow")Vanadium 50 said:Why? Surely China, for example, trades with the EU, and nobody suggests Chinese working conditions are as good as those in the EU.
sunrah said:I guess the question is moot, being that most things in politics are good for some and bad for others. Anyway, I'm still undecided. What do you think? And if you're not voting, why not?
As a "True Believer" in keeping government small, i would have voted to exit.Nobody is placing the blame on the refugees for wanting a better life. The blame goes to the EU leadership for failing to engage the citizens in any discussion of accepting refugees, how many, and from where. They decided for all the little people that they WOULD take millions of refugees and said little people could just lump it. That is not the job of any government. The job of the government, first, foremost, and always is the protection of its citizens, not the protection of some other country's citizens. And therein lies the problem with most of the West's governments. They all think they are better and smarter than their citizens. They need to know their place and Britain has just given them a clue as to where that is.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/george-washington-isolationist/246453/[George] Washington believed that with regard to foreign nations, it's best to trade freely and "have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop."
rootone said:However you analyse it, the populace of the UK have voted for a sharp right turn,and personally I think it could get ugly and am glad I no longer live there.
Jonathan Scott said:The advertisements made it seem that the net cost of being a member of the EU was £350 million a week which could have been spent on the NHS instead. As stated on the quoted fact-checking site, that was ignoring the rebate, and also ignored all EU payments back to the UK, so it wasn't really the actual cost. In addition to those payments, there are services provided by the EU which the UK would otherwise have to provide itself, but it's difficult to estimate those. However, it's not the specific amount which is the biggest lie; it's the suggestion that if we left the EU that amount of additional money could be spent on the NHS, which is ludicrous.
They didn't say it directly, but they implied it in a way which many people consider extremely misleading.mheslep said:With respect to the general point that the UK Parliament might have spent the money elsewhere, the payments back to UK don't matter - they go to where the EU wants them spent, none of it goes to the NHS. Where is the advertisement by Leave that said *all* of the UK'S EU money would go to NHS. I've not found it; if so I agree that's propaganda.
Alternatively, see their web page at http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_cost which includes the following two points in sequence:Vote Leave said:We send the EU £350 million a week
Let's fund our NHS instead - Vote Leave
Vote Leave said:FACT
The EU now costs the UK over £350 million each week - nearly £20 billion a year
FACT
Our EU contributions are enough to build a new, fully-staffed NHS hospital every week
The referendum in itself is not ugly, what worries me is that the argument seems to have been won on the basis of stirring up racist sentiment, more general xenophobia, and the notion that this will somehow restore the UK to the position of being a global economic power ruling over an empire full of readily exploitable resources.mheslep said:How is the outcome sharply "right"? Would the referendum make things "ugly", vs the outcome of no referendum?
mheslep said:How is the outcome sharply "right"? Would the referendum make things "ugly", vs the outcome of no referendum?
I wouldn't necessarily classify the stereotypical (which I mention so that it's clear that I don't think everyone can be described as this) leave-voter as right wing. If you look at the extreme right, Eurosceptic parties in Europe, they are right in 1 aspect only; immigration. For all other categories, they would register left to nearly extreme left. Look at the economic programs -as far as they have any serious plans- of these parties; UKIP in the UK, FN in France, VB in Belgium, PVV in the Netherlands. They would be branded as communists by some of the less nuanced people in the US.rootone said:The referendum in itself is not ugly, what worries me is that the argument seems to have been won on the basis of stirring up racist sentiment, more general xenophobia, and the notion that this will somehow restore the UK to the position of being a global economic power ruling over an empire full of readily exploitable resources.
Restore an empire of readily exploitable resources? Do you have a basis or reference?and the notion that this will somehow restore the UK to the position of being a global economic power ruling over an empire full of readily exploitable resources...
ZVdP said:I wouldn't necessarily classify the stereotypical (which I mention so that it's clear that I don't think everyone can be described as this) leave-voter as right wing. If you look at the extreme right, Eurosceptic parties in Europe, they are right in 1 aspect only; immigration. For all other categories, they would register left to nearly extreme left. Look at the economic programs -as far as they have any serious plans- of these parties; UKIP in the UK, FN in France, VB in Belgium, PVV in the Netherlands. They would be branded as communists by some of the less nuanced people in the US.
This can be seen in the suggestion that the £350m could be used to fund the NHS, not really a right wing statement.
I was a hyperbole of course (referencing how some call Obama a communist), but if you focus on their economic and social programs (which typically isn't much I have to admit) it's quite socialistic, because that's what their voters like to hear; more government spending on them (less on their neighbour).micromass said:I would love some evidence as to how Belgium's VB can be seen as communists.
ZVdP said:if you focus on their economic and social programs (which typically isn't much I have to admit) it's quite socialistic