News: No news is good news...

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: The UK's EU Referendum  (Read 36061 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline The GrimSqueaker

  • The Badger on the Road | Staff Infection Officer | Debased Vassal Slayer | Title Barfly | XOXOXO Gossip Girl | Bent Over
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19053
  • Country: nz
  • From the Fourth Necromantic House
Re: The UK's EU Referendum
« Reply #100 on: June 24, 2016, 01:15:48 PM »
Cornwall voted to Leave but wants to keep getting money. Yeah, that's not how it works.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cornwall-36616955

Quote from: @TracyAuGoGO
Tact is for people who are too slow witted to be sarcastic.
Drink
Knights Tippler
Quote from: Surviving the World
If you can't make fun of something, it's probably not worth taking seriously.

You have to love the smell of science in the morning. It smells of learning.... or perhaps a gas leak.

Offline Irisado

  • A Light in The Grim-Darkness ~ Guns Don't Kill People, Copyright Stats Do | Farseer | Reporting Live! from the Crime Scene | Somewhat behind the times
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11480
  • Country: gb
  • Soñando debajo del arco iris
  • Armies: Administrators must not play 40K
Re: The UK's EU Referendum
« Reply #101 on: June 24, 2016, 01:28:49 PM »
I truly despair.  This is what I have been saying all along.  So many regions of the UK receive money from the EU and now they have voted to leave they still want to receive the money, which neither central nor local government can give them.  This is the politics of insanity.  Asking for money which was guaranteed by voting to remain.  I'm running out of words to describe how short sighted and ill informed this Brexit vote is.
You haunt my in-box like an ex-girl friend could only dream of.

The Forum Rules - Please Read and Remember Them.

Soñando con una playa donde brilla el sol, un arco iris ilumina el cielo, y el mar espejea iridescentemente

Offline Lonewolf

  • Cthulhu cultist, The Final Solution | Swarmlord | Staff Soap Spotter
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4558
  • Country: de
  • Murdering armies since 2003 - retired since 2012
Re: The UK's EU Referendum
« Reply #102 on: June 24, 2016, 02:24:45 PM »
I tried and failed to read the whole thread, but i (and many of my colleagues, some of them with family in England/Ireland) have been following the Brexit debate and vote closely and haven't yet figured out how to feel about it.

I am German and personally i am pro European, but i also think that the EU should have remained a mostly economical union for a longer timeperiod. It grew too fast in size and depht, frightening a lot of people and becoming less than it could be. For example i was always in favour of a more flexible EU membership system, where you could opt in (and out)for certain perks (lets say easy access to the EU market for example) but have to return something for it (free movement and working of EU members in your state for example).

I am almost in favour to scratch the EU completely, mark it as learning experience and start it over again. The reason why i say "almost" is, that i know, that if the EU should fail completely, an experiment of such a magnitude wont be tried again for a long time and the dream of a united European Nation will be over decades if not centuries.

In one part of the thread Irisado, you mentioned that many people voted for the brexit for idiotic reasons, which is true enough. On the other hand, politicians of all member states (and the UK takes in my eyes a close to the top spot in that regard) blamed the EU for everything going wrong in the country, so you can hardly blame the people if they start to believe it at some point. Cameron himself has been a prime example for this, as far as i have read.

Also you stated that direct democracy dosent work, because normal people can not comprehend the scope of some decisions. I dont fully buy that. Direct democracy can work well, as Switzerland shows. You need to build up a culture for it to work, though. First step, you need an educated population, who are not treated by politicians of all parties like a sheep herd, but who are given the feeling, that their opinion counts and is respected. Then and only then the majority of voters in an referendum will take the time to sit on their arses for a couple of hours and think their vote through, and dont follow the loudest trouble maker or the shiniest yellowpaper frontpage.

After all, you dont need to know every nuance of a possible lawchange, contract, ect. (honestly, most of my countries politicans hadn't even read the terms of the first Greek saving package and voted for it anyway (no joke, it was probably the main reason for the stepping down of our then Bundespräsident Horst Köhler, because he received a lot of political pressure to ratify the package regardless, though thats my most educated guess for his decision)) to get a good feel of the possible impact.

Germany is a very good example for this. We have been ruled now for over a decade by a large coalition of one color or another (though the main party stayed the same), but basically with the same agenda. The parties in opposition have become so meaningless, that they have no way to fullfill their important role as check to the governments work. "Alternativlos" (without alternative) has become one of our chancellors most famous quoted words, especially concerning very important topics like the Greek crisis, the recent migration wave, spy scandals etc., though there are always alternatives. As a voter the feeling started to grow, that it dosent matter to which of the established parties you cast your vote for, because at the end nothing changed and election promises where often broken the month after the polls where cast (sometimes even on the very day).

This lead to a lot of frustration and now to the rise of the AFD, a conservative, in some parts fully rightwing party, who used that frustration to grow in size so fast, not seen since the time of "Die Grünen" (the green party)in the late 70s. And i can fully sympathize with their voters (well to those who aren't from the "brown" fraction anyway). The knee jerk reaction of the established parties was basically to call them all nazis, which (considering the above mentioned frustration) resulted in even more people voting for the AFD, just to show the established parties the middle finger.   

And all this is, in my opinion, mostly because the people feel left out in the decisionmaking process, that has partially huge impacts in their every day life. Another sign of this is the ever decreasing number of people who carry a partybook (are members of a party organisation). The younger generation (to which i am still holding on with a fingertip, considering my 33 years of age  :P ) is actually quite politically intrested, but they feel simply left out in the current system of status quo and search for different ways of participation. You start to feel like you life in a prison, where you are allowed to vote every couple of years for new wardens, when you should actually be running the show. But the walls never change save maybe for the paintjob.

Now before i forget to where i want to go with this: direct democracy. This is a great way to relieve the above described pent up frustration. People are less likely to swallow every lie they get served, if they have a feeling, that they are not ignored and that they are the sovereign, not sheep, driven every couple of years to the pen, to cast a perceived meaningless vote.

For the EU, id advocate to include into the EU contracts, that after 10 or so years of membership, the country in question has to cast a vote, if they want to stay or not and the decision has to be accepted from all sides, without the aggressive talk i have been hearing lately, even from EU officials themselves. That way the people dont feel forced into a project, that might very well change their way of living, at least not without the knowledge, that they can get out of it again, if things go south. The EU has time (and a right now not existing incentive) to prove that it can improve the lives of its members in one way or another. Also the country's politicians will be less prone to blame the EU for everything going wrong, because of the very real chance, that it might backfire (e.g. Brexit). Then when the time comes to vote, in my eyes, you can then trust the majority of people to make an educated decision.

Ok, that text became longer, than i had anticipated  :)


No problem, I'll give you a 100% increase in pay effective immediately and retroactive to 1999.

Offline Irisado

  • A Light in The Grim-Darkness ~ Guns Don't Kill People, Copyright Stats Do | Farseer | Reporting Live! from the Crime Scene | Somewhat behind the times
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11480
  • Country: gb
  • Soñando debajo del arco iris
  • Armies: Administrators must not play 40K
Re: The UK's EU Referendum
« Reply #103 on: June 24, 2016, 03:33:43 PM »
It's not possible to maintain a union of any kind on the basis of member states coming and going every few years.  It's totally impractical and would create too much instability and uncertainty.  Also, an organisation as complex as the EU cannot and must not be subject to referenda, because the evidence all point to the fact that the public at large lacks the necessary education and understanding to be able to make informed choices.  I agree that an educated population would help to some extent with this, but there would still be, certainly in the UK, too many people who would not have access to the necessary level of education.

The other problem is one which you have raised yourself, the fact that politicians like to scapegoat the EU for unpopular policy making decisions.  This means that people start to buy into this discourse and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Direct democracy, such as a referendum, in that context is extremely unwise.  The result today is stark evidence of that.  So many people in this country have voted to leave on the basis of the blame game played by politicians which has combined with their own fears, ignorance, and prejudices, to produce a toxic cocktail of grievances, many of which are much more to do with domestic politics than the EU.

On the point you raise about the main parties being too similar, the voting public has to take responsibility for that.  For a number of decades now, elections in Europe have been won from the centre ground.  As a result, centre right and centre left parties have converged towards the centre ground, especially in terms of economic policy, because that is the only way they have been able to win elections.  Are we really to blame the political parties for responding to how the majority of the electorate votes?  I think that people need to take responsibility for this and not pass the buck to the politicians who are responsible for many of the other issues you mention, such as those I've outlined above, but cannot be criticised for responding to the needs of the electorate.

There is, however, a challenge for centre left parties which, since the financial crisis in particular, have struggled to reconcile their educated middle and upper class voters with their less well educated working class voters, who feel left behind.  This has resulted in them losing votes to the far left in some EU countries or the far right in others.  It's a very difficult problem to resolve.

What is for sure though is that problems such as this would be best handled together, through a programme of more Europe, not isolationism.  Globalisation is here to stay and trying to withdraw from it and take regressive steps, as Brexit is going to do, will not work.  The EU will now have to put resolving many issues on the back burner while sorting out this mess that the UK has created, which will serve only to exacerbate existing problems.

The EU does not need replacing or restarting.  What it needs is a concerted effort to come up with some different approaches to the economic issues which are driving the concerns and dissatisfaction being expressed by a number of voters in several states.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2016, 03:34:47 PM by Irisado »
You haunt my in-box like an ex-girl friend could only dream of.

The Forum Rules - Please Read and Remember Them.

Soñando con una playa donde brilla el sol, un arco iris ilumina el cielo, y el mar espejea iridescentemente

Offline Calamity

  • Concussor Concussed Dice | Captain
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3055
  • Country: gb
  • Cocking up miniatures since 1998
  • Armies: Kharadron Overlords, Bloodbound, Celestial Lions
Re: The UK's EU Referendum
« Reply #104 on: June 24, 2016, 05:45:32 PM »
Let's think this through; is there any way back from this vote?  I think the numbers were just too tight.  52 to 48 is not enough.

Also, I know how much you believe in the EU Irisado, so this must be really tough for you.  :(

Offline Lonewolf

  • Cthulhu cultist, The Final Solution | Swarmlord | Staff Soap Spotter
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4558
  • Country: de
  • Murdering armies since 2003 - retired since 2012
Re: The UK's EU Referendum
« Reply #105 on: June 24, 2016, 06:29:17 PM »
Quote
It's not possible to maintain a union of any kind on the basis of member states coming and going every few years.  It's totally impractical and would create too much instability and uncertainty.  Also, an organisation as complex as the EU cannot and must not be subject to referenda, because the evidence all point to the fact that the public at large lacks the necessary education and understanding to be able to make informed choices.  I agree that an educated population would help to some extent with this, but there would still be, certainly in the UK, too many people who would not have access to the necessary level of education.

You are nicely demonstrating the entire point of my post. You basically say people in general are too stupid to vote what is best for them, so others have to make the decisions for them. Thats not too far away from the feudal age. This leads to the frustration and lack of trust in the government i have described before, especially in times of crisis, when trust is needed. This leads to people basically doing their best, to screw the establishment over, without taking the time to think.

If the EU had been build on the shoulders of the people (by referendum) instead of being the idea of the national governments, if the people where more included in its decisionmaking process, either by referendas or the ability to vote its leaders, it might not be the tight organisation that it is now, but it would be much more stable. And you wouldn't have to fear those referandas either, because when the people say "Yes" once to the EU, they will do so again, if it dosent really screw up at some point.

Basically you dont want to ask the people because you fear their answer. But by not asking, chances are higher, that the answer you will receive, when you eventually ask, will be the one you dont want to hear. Thats another self fulfilling prophecy.

Quote
The other problem is one which you have raised yourself, the fact that politicians like to scapegoat the EU for unpopular policy making decisions.  This means that people start to buy into this discourse and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Direct democracy, such as a referendum, in that context is extremely unwise.  The result today is stark evidence of that.  So many people in this country have voted to leave on the basis of the blame game played by politicians which has combined with their own fears, ignorance, and prejudices, to produce a toxic cocktail of grievances, many of which are much more to do with domestic politics than the EU.

And still you claim that politicians make the better decisions for the whole country. Its a self fullfilling prophecy true enough, but it dosent start with stupid people, it starts with lack of trust into those people, especially since we life now in a time, where i claim that most people desire peace and prosperity.

Quote
On the point you raise about the main parties being too similar, the voting public has to take responsibility for that.  For a number of decades now, elections in Europe have been won from the centre ground.  As a result, centre right and centre left parties have converged towards the centre ground, especially in terms of economic policy, because that is the only way they have been able to win elections.  Are we really to blame the political parties for responding to how the majority of the electorate votes?  I think that people need to take responsibility for this and not pass the buck to the politicians who are responsible for many of the other issues you mention, such as those I've outlined above, but cannot be criticised for responding to the needs of the electorate.

There is, however, a challenge for centre left parties which, since the financial crisis in particular, have struggled to reconcile their educated middle and upper class voters with their less well educated working class voters, who feel left behind.  This has resulted in them losing votes to the far left in some EU countries or the far right in others.  It's a very difficult problem to resolve.

I can only speak for Germany on this, or rather my take on it what happened here. We had a social democratic party leading the government from 1998-2005. This party decided to completely break with their voters by introducing a good number of very capitalistic laws, reducing job security, introducing the Hartz reforms, that basically made unemployed people poorer. Also certain financial laws where introduced (for example only a 25% tax on incomes from intrest rates and stock trading) that benefited most people with high income. Non of their core voters voted them for those measures (and nowadays they are below 20%) and it was maybe the beginning of a deep mistrust towards political parties in general.

Then came Chancellor Merkel and the first large coalition. From the perspective of her party she did a great job. She always managed to take the glory when things went well and managed to shift the blame towards the coalition (who always emerged weaker from those coalitions than before) partner when it didnt. She also assimilated basically the defining characteristics of the social democrats, the greens and to a lesser extent those of the economic party.

That resulted in mostly 4 things. Firstly, she could make a coalition with any other large party, taking them in as the junior partner, secondly, the established parties mostly lost their profiles and thirdly, the former conservative CDU (Merkels party) shifted quite bit to the left, creating a political vacuum at the light to medium right center, so to speak. Fourthly (if that is even a word) opposition died. The only remaining true opposition was "Die Linke", which most people simply refuse to vote for, since it has its roots in the SED, the former GDR (DDR) national party.All in all they where to weak to offer any true need for the government to actually try to debate and haggle with them.

That wasnt actually much of a problem (save for the before mentioned problem that people had the feeling, that their votes went to waste, as no matter for whom they voted, they would get the CDU with Chancellor Merkel in the lead, as can also be seen by the sinking number of voters), until several crisis arrived that needed important decisions to be made. It might have started with the NSA scandal (which was basically ignored save for some nice words), Fukushima, Greek crisis, migrants and now a pretty much bonkers Erdogan (please dont sue me Erdo).

With the opposition basically not existing, Merkel was free to decide the course of action, without debate, without feeling the need to even truly explaining herself. This caused the chain reaction that created the AFD, and might now very well have been one important cause for the Brexit, when she singlehandedly invited everyone (i dont have a problem with war refugees, btw., quite the opposite and id even go so far as to directly handle the asyl process on the Syrian border and ship them over to the EU to avoid the deaths on the sea, but I do have a problem with migrants with little education, who most likely will never have a chance on the job market) into the EU, without even getting all members to agree to that cause of action first.

What i am trying to say here is, you are right, people voted for those parties, but the problem is, once the vote is over and especially if there is no opposition left in parliament, said party can make, sometimes irreversible, decisions, no matter if they reflect peoples will or not. And as you admit yourself, politicians also dont always make the best decisions for the people that voted them. Thats the reason why i am for referendas, within a certain framework.

For an (extreme) example, just look at Turkey right now, you can see there very nicely, how a democracy becomes a dictatorship. Just give it another 5 or so years.
 The opposition is cowered or on its best way to jail, critical medias basically no longer exist, etc. I doubt that people actually wanted all this, when they voted for Erdogan, but now they have now no longer a way to stop it save civil war, though i am hopefully too much of a pessimist here.

Quote
What is for sure though is that problems such as this would be best handled together, through a programme of more Europe, not isolationism.  Globalisation is here to stay and trying to withdraw from it and take regressive steps, as Brexit is going to do, will not work.  The EU will now have to put resolving many issues on the back burner while sorting out this mess that the UK has created, which will serve only to exacerbate existing problems.

I agree with you here. But i fear that the whole design of the EU is flawed, if it takes years to release one member state. Heck with Greece it was even considered to be impossible without destroying the EU (again "Alternativlos" according to our Chancellor).

Also the EU seems to be paralyzed anyway, according to some news i have read, stating that since in 2017 there are votes in France and Germany, important decisions get to be postponed past that date. If thats true, then its design flaw in my eyes.

Quote
The EU does not need replacing or restarting.  What it needs is a concerted effort to come up with some different approaches to the economic issues which are driving the concerns and dissatisfaction being expressed by a number of voters in several states.

I fear that is wishfull thinking, especially when people in 2 or 3 years realize, that the world didnt end for Britain, when they left the EU (which i dont think it will, despite the usual panic making). If one more (large) country should leave now, i believe the EU is done for. But if the EU dosent change, dosent become more democratic, closer to the people, if it stays that somehow undefined, frightening monster, that can easily be blamed for everything bad happening, because it, due to its distance to the people, never managed to build up trust among them, i believe the EU will sooner or later fall apart.


No problem, I'll give you a 100% increase in pay effective immediately and retroactive to 1999.

Offline The GrimSqueaker

  • The Badger on the Road | Staff Infection Officer | Debased Vassal Slayer | Title Barfly | XOXOXO Gossip Girl | Bent Over
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19053
  • Country: nz
  • From the Fourth Necromantic House
Re: The UK's EU Referendum
« Reply #106 on: June 24, 2016, 07:35:38 PM »
However, referendums are glacially slow and only work on the most simple of 0/1 questions. They're not a one size fits all solution. Stay/leave. Change - Yes/No. They're not designed to work for anything more difficult than that. Trying to adjust them for policy making would be a disaster. Certainly, you could save them for the final adoption process for a law yet then we're back to the problem of them being a marathon to complete. You're also going to find referendum fatigue as people just get plain sick of them turning up all the damn time for things they don't find at all interesting.

That's ignoring the costs involved.
Quote from: @TracyAuGoGO
Tact is for people who are too slow witted to be sarcastic.
Drink
Knights Tippler
Quote from: Surviving the World
If you can't make fun of something, it's probably not worth taking seriously.

You have to love the smell of science in the morning. It smells of learning.... or perhaps a gas leak.

Offline Spectral Arbor

  • Major
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3021
  • Country: ca
  • Thanks for the help.
Re: The UK's EU Referendum
« Reply #107 on: June 24, 2016, 09:20:15 PM »
I like that the only reason people would vote to leave is because they're stupid. I love the... Bourgeoisie of it. The assumption that only those of high society know what's best for the plebes.

Except, the whole problem of looking at the people below you as plebes. And treating them like plebes. And calling them idiots. And then wondering why the proletariat keep revolting. Of course, the peasants have always been revolting, but now they're rebelling.

The unwashed masses eventually get sick of being stepped on and being told it's for their own good. The stay side did not convince people that staying was in their best interest. So people voted to leave. They are pursuing what they believe is best for themselves. Right or wrong plays no part in it. Truth doesn't matter, only belief. Belief toppled a Prime Minister, while truth got buried in the dust somewhere.

Nine Inch Nails - Head Like A Hole - YouTube
« Last Edit: June 24, 2016, 09:25:46 PM by Spectral Arbor »

Offline The GrimSqueaker

  • The Badger on the Road | Staff Infection Officer | Debased Vassal Slayer | Title Barfly | XOXOXO Gossip Girl | Bent Over
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19053
  • Country: nz
  • From the Fourth Necromantic House
Re: The UK's EU Referendum
« Reply #108 on: June 24, 2016, 09:30:10 PM »
First - theme music. Bonnie Tyler - I Need a Hero (Lyrics) - YouTube

Irisado has been referring to ignorance, not knowing. Stupidity is something else entirely. Lonewolf mentioned stupidity in his own summaries which is all well and good as it enforced his counter points.

An educated voting public is a good thing. As seen this morning where interviewed Leave voters were shocked and dismayed at what they'd done, thinking it didn't matter. Knowing why you want to vote a certain way is far better than voting through emotion or out of pure reaction.

Still, you roll with this class versus class motif as it can be very British and as Hamilton has shown us, with the right script you may win some awards.  :-*
« Last Edit: June 24, 2016, 09:34:07 PM by The GrimSqueaker »
Quote from: @TracyAuGoGO
Tact is for people who are too slow witted to be sarcastic.
Drink
Knights Tippler
Quote from: Surviving the World
If you can't make fun of something, it's probably not worth taking seriously.

You have to love the smell of science in the morning. It smells of learning.... or perhaps a gas leak.

Offline Spectral Arbor

  • Major
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3021
  • Country: ca
  • Thanks for the help.
Re: The UK's EU Referendum
« Reply #109 on: June 24, 2016, 09:53:37 PM »
I believe he did, specifically, indicate that a lack of intelligence was behind people's votes...

The BBC has just been conducting an interview with people in Hartlepool.  For those of you who do not know, Hartepool is a very run down old town in the old manufacturing area of North East England.  A working class Labour stronghold.  70% voted for Brexit, going against the Labour position, and here are some of the comments from the people who were interviewed:

'I voted leave because of all them immigrants in the schools and in the NHS'

'I voted leave to get the immigrants out'

'I voted leave and I don't know why' (I'm not kidding here).

'I voted leave because I don't like Cameron'

'I voted leave [insert numerous expletives'.

That's the kind of level of education and intelligence on offer in some of these places.

It's also worth pointing out that the North East England receives EU funding, which it will now lose.  This vote isn't going to improve their lives at all.

And since I'm one of those educated folks that can read and recall information, I'll be allowed to vote!  And since I can vote, due to passing the level of literate and capable of recalling something from the page before test I believe was required... I'll stick with my whole elitists getting thumbed because they treat the people with "low education and intelligence" the way they do.

I'm not saying it was a good idea. I happen to think they should have stayed. I happen to think the Brexit was a bad idea. I also happen to see a pretty obvious prejudice going on here. How many hands tall is that horse, by the way?  :-*
« Last Edit: June 24, 2016, 09:54:53 PM by Spectral Arbor »

Offline The GrimSqueaker

  • The Badger on the Road | Staff Infection Officer | Debased Vassal Slayer | Title Barfly | XOXOXO Gossip Girl | Bent Over
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19053
  • Country: nz
  • From the Fourth Necromantic House
Re: The UK's EU Referendum
« Reply #110 on: June 24, 2016, 10:11:48 PM »
Education tests (voter literacy) prior to voting were an American thing. Kind of a bad thing, am'i'right? Can we get an amen? No, I'll go on then. Since we're talking about a very specific example here, I'll leave you to misinterpret it, due to your clearly passing the level of literate. But don't worry, we don't consider you to be 3/5 of a poster. Those days are long gone. An amen now? No, okay. Tough crowd.  :)

Edit: Theme music as it's funny.
brianna (??????) on Twitter: "who made this i cant even believe-
« Last Edit: June 24, 2016, 11:12:05 PM by The GrimSqueaker »
Quote from: @TracyAuGoGO
Tact is for people who are too slow witted to be sarcastic.
Drink
Knights Tippler
Quote from: Surviving the World
If you can't make fun of something, it's probably not worth taking seriously.

You have to love the smell of science in the morning. It smells of learning.... or perhaps a gas leak.

Offline Spectral Arbor

  • Major
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3021
  • Country: ca
  • Thanks for the help.
Re: The UK's EU Referendum
« Reply #111 on: June 24, 2016, 11:14:13 PM »
I'll give you an amen. AMEN! How could I have misinterpreted someone saying that ignorant, stupid people vote for column A actually meant that only ignorant, stupid people voted that way. I'm sure there was a subtle implication that educated, intelligent people could rationally vote for leaving. Certainly no stupid, ignorant people voted to stay. Only well educated, intelligent folks voted to stay. There's no daemonization of the opposing faction, no sir! You must be much more clever than I. I just looked at the words that were there and took them at face value. Tea and medals for everyone... that voted to stay.

The "stay" camp tried to win with well reasoned, educated, clever arguments. They lost to what appears to be fear and anger.

They say that when the only tool you have is a hammer, you see every problem as a nail. The same can be said if all you have are precision tools. You start to see every problem as something you can finesse, something you can outwit, something you can think your way out of. Something you can manipulate to your advantage.

I recently ran into a problem at work. One thing that I do at work is install scales on garbage trucks. I know, glamorous. Hold the applause. The toolbox has many different gadgets, handy doo-dads, electrical diagnostic gear. Cool, techy stuff. The scales are held together with 1' Bolts, tightened to 550 foot-pounds. [The amount of force that 550 lbs would exert on a 1 foot long bar, for those that aren't in the know.] We generally put those on with a 3 foot long torque-wrench, so you need to exert just shy of 200 lbs of force on the handle to achieve your torque spec.

The bolt I had to remove was stuck. I mean, stuck. I'm a big guy. 280 lbs. I couldn't budge it. All the clever, brilliant ideas weren't going to budge it. We tried penetrating oil, torching it [Heating metals and then rapidly cooling them can be used to loosen seized bolts, again, if you aren't familiar.], and using a heavy impact gun. It didn't move. What worked? Getting an 8 foot long extension and lifting with all the force I could muster, to turn it 1/6 of a turn at a time. My best guess is that I was applying over 2000 foot-pounds of torque, and that got it to budge.

The point? Clever wasn't the right course of action. Getting a big, stupid bar and grunting it out got the job done. Fancy was not the right way to deal with the problem.

The stay camp used tools that the "common folk" weren't going to be influenced by. See the rise of Trump for a reasonably analogous situation. The people that needed to be convinced to stay weren't going to be budged by clever word play. Couldn't care less for "high concepts" that only the presumably intelligent and well educated were going to consider. They had fears and anger that weren't addressed in a way they could access.

Sometimes, straight forward, direct, simple methods are needed. This was one of those cases. Trying to manipulate people only works if the tools you use will influence them. The uneducated people start to see manipulation when things go over their heads, and they then have more fear. I sure wish I was more clever, so I could understand it.

Could you perhaps explain how I misinterpreted? I'm sure it will just be a waste of effort on one such as myself, but I beseech thee nonetheless.

Offline The GrimSqueaker

  • The Badger on the Road | Staff Infection Officer | Debased Vassal Slayer | Title Barfly | XOXOXO Gossip Girl | Bent Over
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19053
  • Country: nz
  • From the Fourth Necromantic House
Re: The UK's EU Referendum
« Reply #112 on: June 24, 2016, 11:48:24 PM »
Oh, we'll all agree (except for that guy, there's always that guy) that both campaigns were *terrible* at explaining their position. A lot of shouting, slogans, and general discomfort but with more shouting.

Referring to the example in question, let me be the first to actually use the word stupid in direct reference, that was some pure puffin road cone shagging stupidity quoted there.  "Adam" was an example quoted often. I edited out the video above as it was linked from the HuffPost and damned if I'm sending them links. He didn't think his vote counted as the result was certain. So he voted Leave. Guess what? That was beslubbering stupid reasoning. Feels good to actually say doesn't it?

As an aside, what's with these countries that refuse to use the easier metric system? Any hoo...

Gove, bless his heart, made a wonderful statement about experts.
Quote
I think that the people of this country have had enough of experts from organisations with acronyms saying they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong.

Guess who was wrong and who was right? It's alright, we already know. The consequences were named, they were listed. Yet what message got across - a big red bus saying lots of money to the NHS. That promise lasted less than 12 hours after the vote. Just like the "experts" already said.

As shown today, web searches *soared* today from the UK wondering what the EU does. People didn't know. The same people who, those that bothered to, voted (terrible sentence, my editor would be aghast). This wasn't about finesse, it wasn't about being superior, it was about ignorance and manipulating it for one's own ends.

Irisado started this thread to raise the issues and discuss them so that at least here, people were able to see what was involved. Honestly, I wish he'd been hired by the Remain campaign as he did a far better job than they did. No shouting, no hyperbole. Just the facts and the reasoning behind them. Sure, we got emotional at times as, wait for it, THE DECISION beslubberING MATTERED. Unfortunately, the majority of the UK don't read 40KOnline. We're working on that, by the way. Chemtrails, fluoride, electromagnetic radiation and all that jazz.

I honestly am not going to guess how much you personally know about the details of the campaign. I followed it and researched it after Irisado posted as, amphetamine parrot, I didn't know and I wanted to know. Intellectual curiosity. Something I wish *was* contagious. I'm not a UK resident so I didn't get to vote yet I still wanted to know what was going on, why, and what were the stakes. I wish many of the actual UK residents had done the same. As, well, we already know what happened there.

So, there we go.

Please tell me what high concepts and clever word play abandoned the common folk?

Theme music as it's all about the children of the future and, damn it, a magnificent song. Queen - I Want It All (Official Video) - YouTube
Quote from: @TracyAuGoGO
Tact is for people who are too slow witted to be sarcastic.
Drink
Knights Tippler
Quote from: Surviving the World
If you can't make fun of something, it's probably not worth taking seriously.

You have to love the smell of science in the morning. It smells of learning.... or perhaps a gas leak.

Offline Lonewolf

  • Cthulhu cultist, The Final Solution | Swarmlord | Staff Soap Spotter
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4558
  • Country: de
  • Murdering armies since 2003 - retired since 2012
Re: The UK's EU Referendum
« Reply #113 on: June 25, 2016, 01:54:16 AM »
However, referendums are glacially slow and only work on the most simple of 0/1 questions. They're not a one size fits all solution. Stay/leave. Change - Yes/No. They're not designed to work for anything more difficult than that. Trying to adjust them for policy making would be a disaster. Certainly, you could save them for the final adoption process for a law yet then we're back to the problem of them being a marathon to complete. You're also going to find referendum fatigue as people just get plain sick of them turning up all the damn time for things they don't find at all interesting.

That's ignoring the costs involved.

You dont need a referendum over every topic and every other day, just for those of great public intrest (again using Switzerland as an example). Thats why I said, that there needs to be a framework for them. One of those rules could be, that you need a certain minimum participation, for the referendum to count.  And you are right of course, only yes/no questions, or maybe questions with at most 3-4 options can work really. But even so you can cover a large area of topics.

Also towards the costs, i am sure that you could set up an online voting system, maybe also working with something similar like the PIN and TAN system. Though the setup costs would be high, since that system would need to be secure from manipulation, you would only have to set it up once. I also think it would get more people to vote. Just an idea honestly.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2016, 02:00:24 AM by Lonewolf »


No problem, I'll give you a 100% increase in pay effective immediately and retroactive to 1999.

Offline The GrimSqueaker

  • The Badger on the Road | Staff Infection Officer | Debased Vassal Slayer | Title Barfly | XOXOXO Gossip Girl | Bent Over
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19053
  • Country: nz
  • From the Fourth Necromantic House
Re: The UK's EU Referendum
« Reply #114 on: June 25, 2016, 02:23:15 AM »
Does there need to be a certain minimum participation for governmental votes? The UK is currently exploring that requirement though, if the online site remains up long enough for people to register.

Certainly not 3-4 options, that'll usually end with middling results within the boundaries of error.

You say matters of great public interest yet that's a matter of personal opinion as well. Things I find of great interest, due to my environmental career, I'm sure others certainly do not. It all sounds good but how do we make it actually work?
Quote from: @TracyAuGoGO
Tact is for people who are too slow witted to be sarcastic.
Drink
Knights Tippler
Quote from: Surviving the World
If you can't make fun of something, it's probably not worth taking seriously.

You have to love the smell of science in the morning. It smells of learning.... or perhaps a gas leak.

Offline Lonewolf

  • Cthulhu cultist, The Final Solution | Swarmlord | Staff Soap Spotter
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4558
  • Country: de
  • Murdering armies since 2003 - retired since 2012
Re: The UK's EU Referendum
« Reply #115 on: June 25, 2016, 04:19:08 AM »
Well by applying a minimum participation rate, you basically make sure that only matters of public interest make it through to the point, where a binding decision is made.

You could also introduce a rule, that you need to collect a certain amount of signatures before a referendum is even started. Would also cut down on the costs for the public, since the person or organization trying to go for a referendum needs to organize a campaign to gather those signatures with their own money.

Concerning the UK, all i can say is, that even if they truly decide to leave the EU, i doubt that it will hurt them too much long term. While the EU right now is all about blustering and "making an example" (which is an idiotic reaction in my eyes, as it just drives the UK farther away and will make coming joint projects all the more difficult and really just makes the EU look like a dick, after all the UK has been, and right now still is a net payer), there are a couple of tricks to circumvent the toll barriers and there will still be enough EU members willing to make bilateral contracts with the UK.

What might hurt is, if the scots and ireland decides to leave the UK, though i am no way deep enough into UK politics to know what the chances for this are (the scots recently decided after all to stay, though one of the reasons for the decision was the fear, that they would leave the EU, if they became independent, which is a mood point now of course) and what kind of impact this would cause.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2016, 04:23:23 AM by Lonewolf »


No problem, I'll give you a 100% increase in pay effective immediately and retroactive to 1999.

Offline Irisado

  • A Light in The Grim-Darkness ~ Guns Don't Kill People, Copyright Stats Do | Farseer | Reporting Live! from the Crime Scene | Somewhat behind the times
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11480
  • Country: gb
  • Soñando debajo del arco iris
  • Armies: Administrators must not play 40K
Re: The UK's EU Referendum
« Reply #116 on: June 25, 2016, 06:58:48 AM »
You are nicely demonstrating the entire point of my post. You basically say people in general are too stupid to vote what is best for them, so others have to make the decisions for them. Thats not too far away from the feudal age. This leads to the frustration and lack of trust in the government i have described before, especially in times of crisis, when trust is needed. This leads to people basically doing their best, to screw the establishment over, without taking the time to think.

I've been talking about fear, ignorance, prejudice, and a lack of education.  None of this equates to stupidity.I believe that education solves many problems.  I have taught EU politics in higher education over a number of years, and every single time I've seen nearly all my students have a more positive opinion of the EU at the end of the course before it than at the start because, and they told me this, they felt much better informed about how it actually worked.

The same is true for the public at large.  Inform them better and they make informed decisions.  There are still people today complaining that they didn't have the information that they needed to make an informed choice.  This was also a source of great frustration, far more so than a lot of what you're describing.

Your point is also contradictory, because people are voting for other people to make decisions for them every time there is an election, and even in this referendum they were effectively voting for this too, because voting for Brexit was inevitably going to lead to a change of Prime Minister.

Quote
If the EU had been build on the shoulders of the people (by referendum) instead of being the idea of the national governments, if the people where more included in its decisionmaking process, either by referendas or the ability to vote its leaders, it might not be the tight organisation that it is now, but it would be much more stable. And you wouldn't have to fear those referandas either, because when the people say "Yes" once to the EU, they will do so again, if it dosent really screw up at some point.

The people were very much in favour of the stance adopted by their national governments when the ECSC was formed, and when the Treaty of Rome was signed to create the EEC.  Also, remember that the UK had a referendum in 1975 which the remain vote won by 2:1.  The people were involved in that.

The EU was, furthermore, constructed for the people as much as it was the political elites.  Its entire ethos has been to bring peace and prosperity to the people of Europe.  Of course elites have benefited from this, but so have the people.  That was reflected by the fact that still nearly half of the UK votes in favour of remaining.

There are disenfranchised people in member states, and specifically relating to the UK it was the old Labour working class vote which defied its party leadership and voted to leave.  This was not because of the EU though.  Most of them don't even know what the EU is, what it does, or how it works.  They just didn't like David Cameron and were angry with their own Labour leadership for losing touch with them, and voted to punish both of them.  That's not how people are supposed to vote in a referendum.  They are supposed to vote about the issue the referendum is being held on, but this did not happen.  It would happen with other referenda either, and that is one of the great dangers of having them.  Referenda are, therefore, neither representative nor progressive.

Quote
Basically you dont want to ask the people because you fear their answer. But by not asking, chances are higher, that the answer you will receive, when you eventually ask, will be the one you dont want to hear. Thats another self fulfilling prophecy.

The way in which modern democracy works is that the people choose their representatives.  Referenda do not have to be called.  They are not a requirement of a democratic state, and as you've seen a combination of a lack of education and grievances (the two points I've made above) means that many lose sight of what they are supposed to be voting for and the whole concept is quickly drowned in a sea of protest voting.  That is from where the danger comes.  It's not about fear, it's about pragmatic reality.

Quote
And still you claim that politicians make the better decisions for the whole country. Its a self fullfilling prophecy true enough, but it dosent start with stupid people, it starts with lack of trust into those people, especially since we life now in a time, where i claim that most people desire peace and prosperity.

Because they do.  They possess the information, they have access to the institutions to make things happen, and they have the power to make change.  You might not like the decisions they take, but if they're won a mandate during an election, it's necessary to accept that this is part of the democratic process.  Like it or not that's what the majority of politicians do.  There are always bad apples, poor leaders, corrupt members of the elite, but to imply that they are somewhat incapable and the people should decide is to make the same argument you're claiming that I shouldn't be making, but just reversed.

The difference with a referendum is that the politicians have not made the decision.  The people have.  The crucial problem with that is that the decision has been taken on the basis of fear, ignorance, and prejudice in the case of this EU referendum, not the facts.  Just like the AV referendum in this country in 2011 was used as a vehicle to punish Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats for going into coalition with the Conservatives.  There is, therefore, a lack of democratic legitimacy in the result because the people have decided directly for reasons which were nothing to do with the actual question on the ballot paper.

I don't understand why you keep talking about self-fulfilling prophecies and stupid people.  None of that has anything to do with what is being discussed here.

Quote
I can only speak for Germany on this, or rather my take on it what happened here. We had a social democratic party leading the government from 1998-2005. This party decided to completely break with their voters by introducing a good number of very capitalistic laws, reducing job security, introducing the Hartz reforms, that basically made unemployed people poorer. Also certain financial laws where introduced (for example only a 25% tax on incomes from intrest rates and stock trading) that benefited most people with high income. Non of their core voters voted them for those measures (and nowadays they are below 20%) and it was maybe the beginning of a deep mistrust towards political parties in general.

More or less the same as new Labour under Tony Blair.  The reason was that the middle class, especially the upper middle class, which is where the majority of voters lie in western European countries support capitalist economics.  As a result, they form the centre ground where parties must be if they want to be elected.  This explains the decisions take by centre left parties which got into government during the 1990s and early 2000s.

Quote
What i am trying to say here is, you are right, people voted for those parties, but the problem is, once the vote is over and especially if there is no opposition left in parliament, said party can make, sometimes irreversible, decisions, no matter if they reflect peoples will or not. And as you admit yourself, politicians also dont always make the best decisions for the people that voted them. Thats the reason why i am for referendas, within a certain framework.

Right, and I agree with everything you say here, except that it does not justify the case for referenda for the reasons I've explained above.  If people are so concerned about homogenised politics, they need to be more careful with their voting during elections.  There is certainly, for example, a lot of tactical voting which goes on in the UK which some people later come to regret (it was this sort of voting which, in part, led to the Conservative majority in 2015 here which had not been predicted).  Also, it's incumbent on national governments to ensure that certain sections of society are not left behind by the economic policies which they choose.  This has been a problem going back decades.  You don't solve it by having referenda.

Quote
For an (extreme) example, just look at Turkey right now, you can see there very nicely, how a democracy becomes a dictatorship. Just give it another 5 or so years.
 The opposition is cowered or on its best way to jail, critical medias basically no longer exist, etc. I doubt that people actually wanted all this, when they voted for Erdogan, but now they have now no longer a way to stop it save civil war, though i am hopefully too much of a pessimist here.

Actually, Erdogan has strong support from some elements of society.  It's roughly a 50:50 split.  This is why he has been able to stay in office.  Comparing Turkey with EU member states, especially those from western Europe, is also a bit like comparing apples and oranges when it comes to the quality of democracy and how deeply embedded it is within the institutions.

Quote
I agree with you here. But i fear that the whole design of the EU is flawed, if it takes years to release one member state. Heck with Greece it was even considered to be impossible without destroying the EU (again "Alternativlos" according to our Chancellor).

There was never any question of Greece leaving the EU.  It doesn't even want to.  The question was whether Greece should leave the euro.  The reason why that idea did not get implemented was because it was concluded that it would cause Greece's economic situation to deteriorate even faster than if it were to stay in the euro.

Article 50 of Lisbon Treaty has never been implemented, so none of us knows how well it will work in practice yet, so it's too soon to draw any conclusions about whether it's flawed.  The whole design of the EU, however, certainly isn't flawed.  It has been improved and enhanced greatly over the years, especially back from when it had separate institutions for each part of the old EEC back in the 1950s.

Quote
Also the EU seems to be paralyzed anyway, according to some news i have read, stating that since in 2017 there are votes in France and Germany, important decisions get to be postponed past that date. If thats true, then its design flaw in my eyes.

I have no idea what this about based on what you've said, but I could probably analyse it with more information.  Can you post some links (in English though please, as I cannot read German)?

Quote
I fear that is wishfull thinking, especially when people in 2 or 3 years realize, that the world didnt end for Britain, when they left the EU (which i dont think it will, despite the usual panic making). If one more (large) country should leave now, i believe the EU is done for. But if the EU dosent change, dosent become more democratic, closer to the people, if it stays that somehow undefined, frightening monster, that can easily be blamed for everything bad happening, because it, due to its distance to the people, never managed to build up trust among them, i believe the EU will sooner or later fall apart.

I'd say that wishful thinking is believing that having referenda is the silver bullet to solving problems ;).

The claim that the the world would end for the UK if it left the EU was never made by the remain side.

The more the idea that something is remote, big, and frightening is said to be such in the media, the greater the perception that this is how it is becomes.  The EU is nothing like this.  It has a small bureaucracy (national government institutions and their civil service are all much larger), and is linked to the people through their governments and the European Parliament.  What needs to change is the perception of the people and the only way to change that is much better education about the EU than that which there has been up until this point, especially in the UK.

The EU will not fall apart.  In fact, all it would take for that kind of discussion to desist is the economic situation to improve across Europe.  That was slowly starting to happen before the UK left.  The danger now is that this is harmed by Brexit.  An adverse economic situation always makes life difficult for the EU to move forwards (it faced a similar problem in the from the mid 1970s to the early 1980s).
You haunt my in-box like an ex-girl friend could only dream of.

The Forum Rules - Please Read and Remember Them.

Soñando con una playa donde brilla el sol, un arco iris ilumina el cielo, y el mar espejea iridescentemente

Offline Irisado

  • A Light in The Grim-Darkness ~ Guns Don't Kill People, Copyright Stats Do | Farseer | Reporting Live! from the Crime Scene | Somewhat behind the times
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11480
  • Country: gb
  • Soñando debajo del arco iris
  • Armies: Administrators must not play 40K
Re: The UK's EU Referendum
« Reply #117 on: June 25, 2016, 07:00:04 AM »
Merged into discussion from a separate topic to avoid breaking the character limit.  Yes, my response was too long to comply with the 20,000 character count limit.

I like that the only reason people would vote to leave is because they're stupid. I love the... Bourgeoisie of it. The assumption that only those of high society know what's best for the plebes.

Except, the whole problem of looking at the people below you as plebes. And treating them like plebes. And calling them idiots. And then wondering why the proletariat keep revolting. Of course, the peasants have always been revolting, but now they're rebelling.

The unwashed masses eventually get sick of being stepped on and being told it's for their own good. The stay side did not convince people that staying was in their best interest. So people voted to leave. They are pursuing what they believe is best for themselves. Right or wrong plays no part in it. Truth doesn't matter, only belief. Belief toppled a Prime Minister, while truth got buried in the dust somewhere.

You have introduced those derogatory terms into the debate.  Nobody else here has.

Remain lost this vote because of the following reasons:

1. The right/far right supporters of the Conservative Party/UKIP hate the EU and everything it stands for and voted to leave.  They themselves are in a minority in the UK, but UKIP activists made sure to go around working class council estates in the north of England and other deprived areas to ensure that their xenophobic agenda about the migrants was heard.

2. Labour's core vote, much of which rarely votes now, turned out in force (see the working class comment in point 1) to punish Cameron and Osborne (who campaigned strongly for remain) because they felt their lives had been made worse by austerity.  They weren't even thinking about the EU and just wanted to punish the government.

3. Some elements of Labour's core vote was whipped up into a frenzy about immigration by the press, the UKIP activists, and their own lack of understanding of the issue.  They did vote against the EU, but based on a lie.  They believed that a vote to leave the EU would stop immigration into the UK.  It will not.

4. Remain's campaign spent too much time talking about negative consequences and not enough focus was given to the benefits of being in the EU.

Those are four main reasons off the top of my head.  Others will emerge in the coming days.

I'll give you an amen. AMEN! How could I have misinterpreted someone saying that ignorant, stupid people vote for column A actually meant that only ignorant, stupid people voted that way. I'm sure there was a subtle implication that educated, intelligent people could rationally vote for leaving. Certainly no stupid, ignorant people voted to stay. Only well educated, intelligent folks voted to stay. There's no daemonization of the opposing faction, no sir! You must be much more clever than I. I just looked at the words that were there and took them at face value. Tea and medals for everyone... that voted to stay.

Please cut out the sarcasm, it's detracting from has been a very well framed and formulated debate.

You've misinterpreted the point I was making, although to be fair to you I could have worded it better.  However, you're making a universal sweeping statement based on something which I was applying to some places.  Please refer back to my post you quoted and you will see how I framed it.

Hartlepool is in an extremely run down area of North East England which has been in a very poor state since the collapse of the manufacturing and ship building industries decades ago.  This was recognised by the EU, which has spent an awful lot of EU funding in North East England to try to improve the situation for people living there, but national government in this country has ignored the north-east and other areas of the north too for decades, and this adversely affected what happened in the referendum vote.

Let's also look at the analysis of the vote.  Academics, pollsters, and other experts have the evidence to show that it was the lower someone's level of education was the greater the probability they would vote to leave.  At no point did any of them claim that these people were stupid.  It is a fact, however, that the level of education was a major factor in this referendum.  Compared to general elections, many more people of a lower education turned out to vote (many are so apathetic about politics now they choose to stay at home), and this played a major role in the outcome.  The more highly educated a person, the greater the probability they would vote to remain.

This does not mean that everyone with a lower level of education voted leave and that everyone with a higher level of education voted to remain.  It shows the tendency of most people in these groups.  You could see this reflected in the results.  Areas with a lot of university influence generally voted to remain (Bath, Bristol, Newcastle, Oxford and Oxfordshire, Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire, and Exeter, for example).  Also some cities dominated by working class Labour voters which did vote to leave, such as Nottingham, only did so by a small margin, owing to the presence of a large university and its staff and students living there.

It is, therefore, not about daemonising people.  Far from it.  That has already been done by the leave side and how it has treated the whole issue of migration.  EU nationals living in this country are scared and worried about their future as are many British people living in EU member states.  It's about explaining how and why different groups of people voted the way in which they did.

Quote
The "stay" camp tried to win with well reasoned, educated, clever arguments. They lost to what appears to be fear and anger.

Many of them did, but Cameron and Osborne went too far with scare stories about the economic situation if the UK left, which did not help.  Corbyn, by contrast, was lacking in any sort of conviction and passion, which didn't help to solve the problem of Labour voters defecting to vote leave.

Finally, if you want to talk about manipulation.  Rummy made excellent points in his response to you about that.  The most pernicious and harmful manipulation that has taken place concerns migration and has been carried out by both Vote Leave and Farage.

First Vote Leave's claims that it would spend £350 million pounds on the NHS instead of the EU budget.  This was a blatant lie for two reasons.  First, that wasn't the amount sent to the EU every week, because it did not include the British rebate (so a misleading figure) and second it was never going to be spent on the NHS.  A prominent leave member of the Conservative Party, Sarah Wollaston (a former doctor) defected to the remain camp on the basis of that lie.  Farage has also let the cat of the bag that this money will not be spent on the NHS, as Rummy has stated.

The less well educated in this country were sold a lie by Vote Leave and Farage on the NHS, and on public services in general, which, combined with Farage's horrific and grossly misleading poster on the subject, was one of the worst forms of manipulation of the voting public I have ever seen.

Well by applying a minimum participation rate, you basically make sure that only matters of public interest make it through to the point, where a binding decision is made.

You could also introduce a rule, that you need to collect a certain amount of signatures before a referendum is even started. Would also cut down on the costs for the public, since the person or organization trying to go for a referendum needs to organize a campaign to gather those signatures with their own money.

Who decides what a matter of public interest is?  Who would pay for the costs of running regular referenda (they are expensive)?  Who would formulate the questions and guarantee their objectivity?  How would you combat voter fatigue?  How would a turnout threshold be agreed to make the referendum valid?  Would you make it compulsory to vote?

There are too many questions to answer about the concept your proposing and too much subsequently instability.  Having substantial experience of the UK electorate I can assure you that they don't like voting on a regular basis.  I really don't see this as a way forward at all.

The UK already has a better system for the second part of what you are proposing.  Online petitions which attract more than 100,000 signatures must be responded to by the government in some way, and some even have to be debated in parliament.

Quote
Concerning the UK, all i can say is, that even if they truly decide to leave the EU, i doubt that it will hurt them too much long term. While the EU right now is all about blustering and "making an example" (which is an idiotic reaction in my eyes, as it just drives the UK farther away and will make coming joint projects all the more difficult and really just makes the EU look like a dick, after all the UK has been, and right now still is a net payer), there are a couple of tricks to circumvent the toll barriers and there will still be enough EU members willing to make bilateral contracts with the UK.

I disagree.  First, I empathise with the strong reaction in Europe.  The UK has messed the other member states around for years, demanding a rebate, being awkward about so many policy areas, opting in, opting out, and being generally obstructive in so many areas of policy making.  It's, therefore, entirely understandable that the EU has reacted in the way in which it has.

You also have to take account of the fact that a message needs to be sent to other member states with right wing forces similar to UKIP that attempts to leave would not be easy.  As a result, a lot of this is about sending a political message more widely, not picking on the UK in particular.

Also, nobody, to my knowledge, has stated that the UK will be 'made an example of'.  Where did you read that?  Juncker, Tusk, and Schultz have all just stated the facts in a very dispassionate and cold manner, yes, but that is all that they have done.

Quote
What might hurt is, if the scots and ireland decides to leave the UK, though i am no way deep enough into UK politics to know what the chances for this are (the scots recently decided after all to stay, though one of the reasons for the decision was the fear, that they would leave the EU, if they became independent, which is a mood point now of course) and what kind of impact this would cause.

The chance of Scotland becoming an independent nation in the near future is now high.  There will be a lot of pressure put on the Westminster Parliament to grant a second referendum there.  The SNP is very powerful in Scotland and is going to be hard to ignore.

There will be no referendum for the foreseeable future in Northern Ireland, for various complicated reasons linked to the troubled history there.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2016, 05:10:32 AM by Irisado »
You haunt my in-box like an ex-girl friend could only dream of.

The Forum Rules - Please Read and Remember Them.

Soñando con una playa donde brilla el sol, un arco iris ilumina el cielo, y el mar espejea iridescentemente

Offline Calamity

  • Concussor Concussed Dice | Captain
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3055
  • Country: gb
  • Cocking up miniatures since 1998
  • Armies: Kharadron Overlords, Bloodbound, Celestial Lions
Re: The UK's EU Referendum
« Reply #118 on: June 25, 2016, 07:52:48 AM »
Honest question Irisado.  Are you ok after this vote?  I know how much the EU means to you so this can't be easy.  :(

Offline Lonewolf

  • Cthulhu cultist, The Final Solution | Swarmlord | Staff Soap Spotter
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4558
  • Country: de
  • Murdering armies since 2003 - retired since 2012
Re: The UK's EU Referendum
« Reply #119 on: June 25, 2016, 07:57:32 AM »
Quote
Who decides what a matter of public interest is?  Who would pay for the costs of running regular referenda (they are expensive)?  Who would formulate the questions and guarantee their objectivity?  How would you combat voter fatigue?  How would a turnout threshold be agreed to make the referendum valid?  Would you make it compulsory to vote?

1. The public itself by collecting signatures.
2. They would be far less regular then you might think. How often does switzerland run referenda? And many of those are concerning local topics, so usually only people living at that place are even allowed to vote. Nation wide referendas dont happen that often, judging by the experience of countries who actually run them. Also running a campaign to collect said signatures would also be expensive, so only topics that really concern a lot of people would be put forward. Also internet solution. But i am starting to repeat myself.
3. The person or organization that runs the campaign.
4. Doubt that this would be a factor, we are not talking about dozens referendas a year after all.
5. By the people who make and pass the laws (legislation) id suppose? Or would you like every referendum to have its own threshold? That would be highly impractical. You could argue about several thresholds, like changes to the constitution maybe needing 75% or so, while for other topics a simple minority is enough.
6. No, making a vote, especially for a referendum, compulsery kinda defeats its point. Also kinda curious, why you ask that one, since i cant think of any public vote that is actually compulsery.

Quote
I disagree.  First, I empathise with the strong reaction in Europe.  The UK has messed the other member states around for years, demanding a rebate, being awkward about so many policy areas, opting in, opting out, and being generally obstructive in so many areas of policy making.  It's, therefore, entirely understandable that the EU has reacted in the way in which it has.

Thats true, but for starters, the EU agreed to the UKs special status in the first place. So they can hardly hold it against them now. Also i have been working the last 5 years on construction projects and facility management. One important lesson i have learned is, that its very important to stay on good terms with people you might need later on again, even if you dont like them. Pissing people off might give you a moments satisfaction but can potentially cause you a lot of trouble and unnecessary work later on (though there are situations where this is neccessary). In other words, id have preffered a more constructive and grown up reaction from the EU.

Quote
Also, nobody, to my knowledge, has stated that the UK will be 'made an example of'.  Where did you read that?  Juncker, Tusk, and Schultz have all just stated the facts in a very dispassionate and cold manner, yes, but that is all that they have done.

I recalled it from a newspaper article i can no longer find, but i might be wrong on that one. There is an article however, where Jean Claude Juncker states in an interview that "Der Deserteur wird nicht mit offenen Armen empfangen. Das steht für die Haltung der Kommission ebenso wie für die Einstellung anderer Regierungen" (the deserteur wont be received with open arms. This reflects the position of the commission and the positions of the other governments). This was actually shortly before the vote and i doubt that it was a helpfull remark. The UK didnt desert (which is an illegal act that can get you killed), they are using an legal option that is open for every country should they chose so.

There is also this remark by the chairman of the foreign commision in the Europaparlament Elmar Brok, who said  "Das war eine Fehlentscheidung, für die bitter bezahlt werden muss" (This was a wrong decision, for which has to be dearly paid).

Though i just read, that the UK solution to the referendum seems to be to postpone the Brexit until further notice. Now this i can see pissing the EU off.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2016, 07:59:01 AM by Lonewolf »


No problem, I'll give you a 100% increase in pay effective immediately and retroactive to 1999.

 


Powered by EzPortal