Thread: UK out of EU

While I can see how the EU structure can/has rankled in Britain to the point that it was a part of the reason for the exit vote there were other parts to it also. The campaign in favour of exit skillfully cobbled together a coalition of the dissatisfied who for various reasons were unhappy with the status quo. Not all those that voted exit were racists but a good number were. Much the same thing happened in the US election campaign. It is really not hard to understand how either happened.

Before anyone goes off on the so called Alt-Left it should be remembered that uncle Adolf was no leftie but still managed to build a totalitarian state. Either side of center in the political spectrum is fully capable of creating a totalitarian state.

For votes on critical issues a rethink of the majority required to win might be a good idea. The 50+1 bar is really a pretty slim majority for these types of issues and leaves a country deeply divided internally after that fact.

Bob

Originally Posted by BobH

For votes on critical issues a rethink of the majority required to win might be a good idea. The 50+1 bar is really a pretty slim majority for these types of issues and leaves a country deeply divided internally after that fact.

There is a good reason why in most civilised countries, a supermajority is needed for far reaching decisions, such as changes to a constitution. I would have expected the same, or similar, with regards to a referendum that might have consequences for several generations of UK citizens.

As for totalitarianism, it is a word that is often used in the wrong context. I have always liked it, and I particularly like the http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory, because it shows that left and right wing totalitarian regimes share more similarities than dissimilarities. But the theory has its limits, and I am still waiting for a good explanation of where to fit the Front National, Ukip, or Branch Trumpidians. Austria's FPÖ, and Germany's AfD, would be easier to place, since they are more or less single issue ethno-nationalist movements. The Front National, and - to a lesser degree - Ukip, and the Trump movement, are much harder to place, since they combine extremist, and sometimes even radical, ideas of both the far left and right.

Originally Posted by celticcrusader

lets not overly complicate the matter with stats

I'm sorry, but that wasn't me. These things are complicated. And complex. In my opinion, far too complex to put them into a single question of a referendum. But, well, that referendum is not even legally binding, because Parliament is sovereign. Mrs May may yet decide not to trigger Article 50 at all (she will), Parliament may decide to vote it down (they might), and there may be another referendum over the proposed exit conditions (Leave will lose).

Democracy is fragile, and complex, and often complicated. Which is a good thing in my opinion. Nothing of consequences as far reaching as Brexit should be left in the hands of ill informed voters, especially in an age of Cambridge Analytica, facebook, and psychometrics. If you don't know what psychometrics are, you should. Add to that the Sun/Express/Mail, and you have a ticking time bomb.

Originally Posted by BobH

While I can see how the EU structure can/has rankled in Britain to the point that it was a part of the reason for the exit vote there were other parts to it also. The campaign in favour of exit skillfully cobbled together a coalition of the dissatisfied who for various reasons were unhappy with the status quo. Not all those that voted exit were racists but a good number were. Much the same thing happened in the US election campaign. It is really not hard to understand how either happened.

Before anyone goes off on the so called Alt-Left it should be remembered that uncle Adolf was no leftie but still managed to build a totalitarian state. Either side of center in the political spectrum is fully capable of creating a totalitarian state.

For votes on critical issues a rethink of the majority required to win might be a good idea. The 50+1 bar is really a pretty slim majority for these types of issues and leaves a country deeply divided internally after that fact.

Bob

I can see your point.

However with anything but the 50+1 system really you have 2 choices, continual referendums or being forced to accept the status quo by default.

The first is unworkable in expense and I would argue in practice. The second is unpallitably unfair.

Those who choose not to vote choose to give up their right to a choice in the matter and have no recourse to complain.

As for the point in bamding together those who are on your side. That is the basis of democracy in my opinion. You might not always agree with all they had to say but you have a similar immediate goal. In this country coallition govenrments have survived on that premise.

Also, if people looked properly there wasn't so much 'lying' as spin on many statements and it came from both sides for brexit.

I would also argue that if leave lost, the hate crime would still have jumped. It would have just been the tact that changed. It's uncomfortable but this was a charged debate.

Geek

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by TheGeek

I can see your point.

However with anything but the 50+1 system really you have 2 choices, continual referendums or being forced to accept the status quo by default.

The first is unworkable in expense and I would argue in practice. The second is unpallitably unfair.

Those who choose not to vote choose to give up their right to a choice in the matter and have no recourse to complain.

As for the point in bamding together those who are on your side. That is the basis of democracy in my opinion. You might not always agree with all they had to say but you have a similar immediate goal. In this country coallition govenrments have survived on that premise.

Also, if people looked properly there wasn't so much 'lying' as spin on many statements and it came from both sides for brexit.

I would also argue that if leave lost, the hate crime would still have jumped. It would have just been the tact that changed. It's uncomfortable but this was a charged debate.

Geek

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk

Yup, going by more than a 50+1 majority would likely lead to the problems you mentioned. You could have as part of that idea that fact that if the higher percentage required was not met a moratorium on referendums of 5 years would come into effect. That would give government a chance to recognize they have a problem and work toward a solution more amenable to the majority.

Yup, those who did not vote gave up their right to bitch for sure.

Yes, banding people together in a cause is part of democracy. There are groups that should under all circumstances be publicly disavowed by either side of the political spectrum though. There will always be racism as long as there are humans but when they are accepted as part of a coalition movement and not publicly disavowed their behavior is not kept in check. They feel enfranchised to do things they would ordinarily not. The old if you lay with dogs you wake up with fleas applies there. We have seen that as a spill over effect in Canada from the US election. I do not want to see that kind of behavior encouraged in any way, shape or form.

Putting a spin on things is basically the same as lying but with a bit more finesse. It is up to the voter to be discerning in that regard and does not excuse them from having to think.

Yes, it is a charged debate and unfortunately the various causes that lead to the situation were left to fester for too long without being adequately addressed. By the time there is a referendum the time for debate is past and you have no choice but to live with the outcome.

Bob

Originally Posted by BobH

Putting a spin on things is basically the same as lying but with a bit more finesse. It is up to the voter to be discerning in that regard and does not excuse them from having to think.

I think with the new ethno-nationalist movements across Europe, we are in unchartered territory. They have introduced Trump-level ignorance of science, facts, and established truths into politics, and the media are struggling with that.

Here is a concrete example: "75% of all the laws that are made in our countries every year are made by these [EU] institutions" (Nigel Farage). That is not a spin. That is an outrageous, easily disprovable, lie.

A spin is based on facts. Any normal politician uses tricks, eg cherrypicking a certain time span for crime rates, to spin his side of the story. People are used to it, because they understand that politics isn't an exact science. They know that when someone says "crime has risen dramatically over the five months, three weeks and two days in Q1/2 2014", the mid- or long-term trend will look markedly different - why else pick that particular span? As I said, it's not pretty, it would be nice if it didn't happen, but that's politics.

Ukip? Some of their core arguments were not spins. They were lies. But the media are so used to "fair and balanced reporting" that they feel dutybound to report these lies as if they somehow were just alternative representations of something that might be true. They are not. Take another example: "£350m for the NHS". That's UKIP's equivalent of Mr Trumps "big, tall, physical, beautiful wall". It's a lie. It's never going to happen. And everyone with an IQ > 80 knows that. That's a Goebbels level lie: Make it big enough, repeat it despite factual evidence to the contrary, use a barrage of media coverage, win."

No, I am not saying that Mr Farage is Goebbels. Nor am I saying that UKIP is a national socialist worker's party 2.0. Nor am I saying that every UKIP voter is a neo Nazi. But Ukip has been using propaganda mechanisms that bear an eery similarity to those of the Reichspropagandaministerium. And the combination of Mr Murdoch's media reach, combined with fake news on facebook, and psychometrics makes for an abilitiy to present, and maintain, lies that is novel, and dangerous. And people have proven less resilient to ethno-nationalist propaganda than many, including I, expected.

Originally Posted by RobinK

And the combination of Mr Murdoch's media reach, combined with fake news on facebook, and psychometrics makes for an abilitiy to present, and maintain, lies that is novel, and dangerous. And people have proven less resilient to ethno-nationalist propaganda than many, including I, expected.

Yea, social media is new to the mix but people have not changed as far as being resistant to ethno-nationalist propaganda. Given the right breeding grounds, and that is the fault of governments world wide for letting that happen, people are just a susceptible as ever. You can count on human nature and exploit it.

Bob

Originally Posted by BobH

Yea, social media is new to the mix but people have not changed as far as being resistant to ethno-nationalist propaganda. Given the right breeding grounds, and that is the fault of governments world wide for letting that happen, people are just a susceptible as ever. You can count on human nature and exploit it.

Bob

Independent and sovereign thinking has historically been quashed. Our governments and education systems have created a population of 'followers'. Can't have the great unwashed (read deplorables) rise up and question the rulers.

Where have we seen that go wrong?

Originally Posted by RobinK

I think with the new ethno-nationalist movements across Europe, we are in unchartered territory. They have introduced Trump-level ignorance of science, facts, and established truths into politics, and the media are struggling with that.

Here is a concrete example: "75% of all the laws that are made in our countries every year are made by these [EU] institutions" (Nigel Farage). That is not a spin. That is an outrageous, easily disprovable, lie.

A spin is based on facts. Any normal politician uses tricks, eg cherrypicking a certain time span for crime rates, to spin his side of the story. People are used to it, because they understand that politics isn't an exact science. They know that when someone says "crime has risen dramatically over the five months, three weeks and two days in Q1/2 2014", the mid- or long-term trend will look markedly different - why else pick that particular span? As I said, it's not pretty, it would be nice if it didn't happen, but that's politics.

Ukip? Some of their core arguments were not spins. They were lies. But the media are so used to "fair and balanced reporting" that they feel dutybound to report these lies as if they somehow were just alternative representations of something that might be true. They are not. Take another example: "£350m for the NHS". That's UKIP's equivalent of Mr Trumps "big, tall, physical, beautiful wall". It's a lie. It's never going to happen. And everyone with an IQ > 80 knows that. That's a Goebbels level lie: Make it big enough, repeat it despite factual evidence to the contrary, use a barrage of media coverage, win."

No, I am not saying that Mr Farage is Goebbels. Nor am I saying that UKIP is a national socialist worker's party 2.0. Nor am I saying that every UKIP voter is a neo Nazi. But Ukip has been using propaganda mechanisms that bear an eery similarity to those of the Reichspropagandaministerium. And the combination of Mr Murdoch's media reach, combined with fake news on facebook, and psychometrics makes for an abilitiy to present, and maintain, lies that is novel, and dangerous. And people have proven less resilient to ethno-nationalist propaganda than many, including I, expected.

Let's be very clear here.

Nigel Farage is and never was in a place to make any promises as he was not, and UKiP is unlikely to be in power.

That bus was never promising 350m to the NHS. It was touting the thought that many would rather see money going out being spent on the NHS. It was a shallow argument and the figures were a bit iffy when many things are taken into acount, but it was not what it was made out to be.

There is a whole lot about what Nige was telling people they would get. But a vote to leave the EU was never a vote for Farage or for UKiP.

That's where this is different from Trump, he was clearly in a position to make promises and he did, wether they turn out to be true or not we shall see.

UKiP are not in power here, hopefully never will be, and were never in a position to make promises.

And lest we forget it works both ways, the stay party trotted out the leader of the free world to tell leavers that we would be going to the back of the line in trade if we left. In a speech which many think through the wordage was prepared by downing street. Oddly however since the referendum there has been renewed interest in UK trade deals outwith EU.

Another thing to remember about this referendum, it transcended party politics. There were bodies from the majority of parties in both camps.

Geek




Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk