The Consequences of Brexit (part 3)

[altus]

But if they are truly representative of the people should they not be voting with the majority anyway. Surely if they are not prepared to do likewise then they don't represent them.

Given the chance, people vote for incompatible things like lower taxes and more public spending (see California in 2009). Our representative system guards against that. It also helps protect minorities against the rule of the mob.

[Hairyloon]

And with a thought experiment, we can easily change the parameters: imagine a more difficult question such that 60% vote for the "stupid" option. A real democracy would be obliged to go with that stupid option: that is one of the biggest flaws in democracy and of the reasons we have a representative system.

But if they are truly representative of the people should they not be voting with the majority anyway. Surely if they are not prepared to do likewise then they don't represent them.

 

It is a fair point, but their duty is to represent the best interests of their constituents.

[Puggie]

Here's my reading of the situation. Brexit negotiations in Brussels aren't going well.

 

I suspect that behind closed doors there has been hostility by the EU's lead negotiator at this early stage of Brexit negotiations. There was always a fear the EU would want to punish the UK for their decision to leave, and perhaps those fears are starting to materialise.

 

It might be all smiles and handshakes for the cameras but behind closed doors the atmosphere could be very different.

 

I also suspect the EU's attack team have been trying to weaken Britain's negotiating position by questioning the legitimacy of the PM and the mandate of her government.

 

Did I get it right 8 days ago?

[chalga]

Did I get it right 8 days ago?

 

No,there's still no Brexit negtiations happening.

[silentP]

Given the chance, people vote for incompatible things like lower taxes and more public spending (see California in 2009). Our representative system guards against that. It also helps protect minorities against the rule of the mob.

 

I get, I do. Left to the masses there would be all manner of silliness going on, this ties in with Hairyloons comment that followed yours.

 

I ask this then. Why did they give us the opportunity to vote for something this important. Of everything that they could have asked they chose a referendum on our place in Europe. Not only that but they reduced to Yes or No. There was no literature supporting the consequences of voting either way. We either had to find it for ourselves like our good friend Carlinate and others did or, somewhat foolishly rely on government and opposition MP's to give us the 'facts' which brings me to a comment posted by Chalga..

 

Quote: This will come as no surprise to many on here,but what it means is that if this is replicated,many already have had the wool pulled over their eyes because they don't understand what the people in power are saying Unquote.

 

This being true and in many cases it likely is, how do you combat that if that's what's needed. It could also be true that having had that wool pulled umpteen times in the past that the uneducated (to coin a phrase) finally took their chance when it was given. When you're on the bottom, you look for a way out whatever it is. Even an idiot (coining once more) can tick yes or no if that's all that's required.

 

Were the government naive and complacent in believing that Yes would win? I think yes (which begs the question of who are the real fools in all of this) but I also think the fault lies in a non explanation of what it meant short and long term.

 

I can't successfully argue against the known because there are no facts to counter with. I have speculation at best, I have feelings and an inkling that all is not good in camp Europe at street level. It's one thing to announce that they are more determined to make it work because of our leaving but I'm not so sure that it's what the populous wants.

Edited May 2, 2017 by silentP

[L00b]

<...>

 

This being true and in many cases it likely is, how do you combat that if that's what's needed. It could also be true that having had that wool pulled umpteen times in the past that the uneducated (to coin a phrase) finally took their chance when it was given. When you're on the bottom, you look for a way out whatever it is. Even an idiot (coining once more) can tick yes or no if that's all that's required.<...>

With more and better education, preferably of the objective type, and maybe a few compulsory lessons in critical thinking.

 

Wherein knowledge and information becomes assessed and understood for what it is, rather than ironically derided as 'essays':

I knew you'd come back with an essay to read

 

Should I take from the above that you shared (perhaps still share) populous sentiment about 'experts'?

 

There's nothing "expert" in collating historical, statistical, economical, social, empirical <...> information, relating it to the current situation at time T zero to determine causal relationships, and then extrapolating a future situation at time T+<short term> on basis of known proposed changes: it's what every last decision-maker, public or private, of any level has always had to do to get/keep things going since man was man.

 

No one ever gets it right 100% of the time, but only the most cretinous of fools would dismiss out of hand what those with a reasonable degree of authority/predictive success have to say...rather than at least ponder what their message is and on what basis they arrived at it.

[Hairyloon]

I ask this then. Why did they give us the opportunity to vote for something this important.

 

I would say "hubris", but it is not a common word and I had to look it up when I met it. Fits the bill though.

The fundamental reason is that the EU have plans to crack down on tax avoidance and this was causing substantial dissent in the ranks of the Conservative Party.

 

Cameron, being the arrogant tit that he is, thought that we would all vote for him and settle the matter once and for all.

[silentP]

With more and better education, preferably of the objective type, and maybe a few compulsory lessons in critical thinking.

 

Wherein knowledge and information becomes assessed and understood for what it is, rather than ironically derided as 'essays':

 

Should I take from the above that you shared (perhaps still share) populous sentiment about 'experts'?

 

I think the term is very overused, that would be my expert opinion. We have one on every subject broached don't we! No, I'm happy for people to know stuff about stuff, sometimes even I find it useful but how that information is relayed is more important than simply knowing it.

 

---------- Post added 02-05-2017 at 09:35 ----------

 

I would say "hubris", but it is not a common word and I had to look it up when I met it. Fits the bill though.

The fundamental reason is that the EU have plans to crack down on tax avoidance and this was causing substantial dissent in the ranks of the Conservative Party.

Cameron, being the arrogant tit that he is, thought that we would all vote for him and settle the matter once and for all.

 

That made me laugh

[Carlinate]

I

 

I ask this then. Why did they give us the opportunity to vote for something this important. Of everything that they could have asked they chose a referendum on our place in Europe. Not only that but they reduced to Yes or No. There was no literature supporting the consequences of voting either way

 

 

David Cameron and the incompetent 'advisors' that surrounded him were frightened of losing power because of the impact of Ukip and the influence of the far right Conservatives.

 

They came up with the brilliant plan of stealing Ukips thunder by offering a referendum on the single issue that Ukip was fighting.

 

This meant that anyone seriously wanting to leave the EU could only achieve it by voting Tory, a vote for Ukip would be wasted on that issue because they couldn't get in.

 

So Cameron and his cohorts offered the referendum for completely selfish and personal reasons, they risked the countries future in order to retain power one more time.

 

Brilliant plan, and it worked, problem being that there's this thing called the law of unintended consequences which can be a problem.

 

They then proceeded to ensure that this law came about by running the most pathetic Remain campaign imaginable.

 

While he was deciding which option would best further his career Boris wrote two opposing newspaper columns, one for and one against.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj6lLzx9dDTAhWMIMAKHZjHC2IQFgg3MAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.standard.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fboris-johnsons-article-backing-britains-future-in-the-eu-a3370296.html&usg=AFQjCNG5kFEb-OQ2xcgQMq0ZXpZatHTJ9w

 

Instead of campaigning along similar lines and emphasising the benefits of EU membership, such as the closeness of the market and the trade deals agreed and in place and the relatively low cost of retaining and improving on this deal they went with the 'Chicken Licken ' " The sky is falling in " approach.

 

They assumed that no one would be daft enough to bring about the no plan chaos we now have.

 

Additionally, they underestimated just how sick and tired we all are ( Remainers as well ) with our current political situation.

 

I'm convinced many Leave votes were driven by protest and dissatisfaction with the status quo, in a referendum unlike a British Election, all votes count.

 

Basically the whole thing came about as a result of political arrogance and stupidity and now they don't know how to handle it.

 

Other than that everything is peachy

[Puggie]

I'm convinced many Leave votes were driven by protest and dissatisfaction with the status quo

 

I made this argument many pages and I was shot down.