Very interesting point about deceived voters holding onto their misconceptions, thanks.
Very interesting point about deceived voters holding onto their misconceptions, thanks.
So far we only have seen the Brexiteers point of view that the UK will get a great trade deal with the EU and they will be better of alone. Of course this is just in the minds of the Brexiteers and the politicians who spread that kind of BS. This year we will see the reality kick in.
When negotiations will get tough and Boris Johnson has to cave in, to get at least something done before the year is over. At the end it will be a similar deal Theresa May negotiated. It just will have another name.
The other possible option is a crash out Brexit in 2021, which might have devastating consequences for all of us.
Of course we don't know what exactly will happen but one thing is 100% sure, it won't be the unicorn Brexit everybody was voting for.
Good luck UK, you need a lot of it in 2020.
Yes, my New Year’s Resolution is to advocate for UK people & against putin & his crooked disinformation strategy (which certainly doesn’t help the people of russia, either).
jesseriley wrote:
Very interesting point about deceived voters holding onto their misconceptions, thanks.
You're welcome.
Ultramarkus wrote:
So far we only have seen the Brexiteers point of view that the UK will get a great trade deal with the EU and they will be better of alone. Of course this is just in the minds of the Brexiteers and the politicians who spread that kind of BS. This year we will see the reality kick in.
When negotiations will get tough and Boris Johnson has to cave in, to get at least something done before the year is over. At the end it will be a similar deal Theresa May negotiated. It just will have another name.
The other possible option is a crash out Brexit in 2021, which might have devastating consequences for all of us.
Of course we don't know what exactly will happen but one thing is 100% sure, it won't be the unicorn Brexit everybody was voting for.
Good luck UK, you need a lot of it in 2020.
It may take decades for the UK to negotiate enough deals to get back to where they left. The new realities will come gradually. The pain will not be felt overnight -- kind of like the story of slow-boiling a frog.
What do you mean "at the end"? At the beginning, Johnson's deal is May's deal, except for the backstop. Even then, they both put a border in the Irish Sea -- something Northern Ireland opposed and still opposes. After her snap-general election, May needed DUP support, but with the new election results, Johnson didn't, and now risks alienating Northern Ireland.
One big danger now, a direct consequence of Great Britain pulling out of a Greater United Europe, will be internal pressure to turn a United Kingdom into a Divided Kingdom:
- A main reason Scotland voted against independence was the risk of losing EU membership. Now independence is looking like the best path and quickest path back to EU membership.
- An alienated Northern Ireland may also look to reunite with its Southern neighbor.
- Eventually an increasingly disgruntled Wales may decide it is also in its interest to be subservient to a remote Brussels government, rather than a remote London government.
The parallels between England resenting being goverened by an unelected Brussels government are obvious.
https://fullfact.org/election-2019/how-boris-johnsons-deal-different-theresa-mays/https://time.com/5744404/brexit-tear-apart-united-kingdom/https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/how-brexit-might-break-britain-disunited-kingdom-n1062526rekrunner you are 100% right.
The main problem is that the Brexit vote was an emotional vote about immigration. A lot of issues where not considered. The Good Friday agreement is one of the big ones, which got totally forgotten. And trade is a lot more complicated than people think. The success of the EU just made it look easy.
Of course, Brexit might be never really over and they might never really "leave" the EU. Because there is nowhere to go too. The British Isle will sit in front of Europe for a couple hundred million years. They are not moving anytime soon.
Ultramarkus wrote:
rekrunner you are 100% right.
The main problem is that the Brexit vote was an emotional vote about immigration. A lot of issues where not considered. The Good Friday agreement is one of the big ones, which got totally forgotten. And trade is a lot more complicated than people think. The success of the EU just made it look easy.
Of course, Brexit might be never really over and they might never really "leave" the EU. Because there is nowhere to go too. The British Isle will sit in front of Europe for a couple hundred million years. They are not moving anytime soon.
Define emotional vote and please provide examples were no emotion comes into a choice in life, politics or frankly anything.
Please also provide evidence of EU success against compatible measures of those outside of the EU.
Please provide your definition of leaving the EU.
jesseriley wrote:
Yes, my New Year’s Resolution is to advocate for UK people & against putin & his crooked disinformation strategy (which certainly doesn’t help the people of russia, either).
Great you are finally getting it and on the side of UK people, great to have a convert which is rare on these dogmatic forums.
With the new forum system. It took me 2 seconds to fix the typo in this thread title. Granted it only too about 10 seconds with the old system but glad I fixed it.
Funny to see the UK implode over a relatively minor immigration issue. People are really scared of outsiders and it shows. lol
A good example of an emotional vote is, ... every post roscoe elects to make.
Harambe wrote:
Funny to see the UK implode over a relatively minor immigration issue. People are really scared of outsiders and it shows. lol
They have not imploded yet. But they might in the near future. Let's see what kind of Brexit Johnson will negotiate.
Good one! 6-8 YEARS to sign a typical trade deal!
rekrunner wrote:
So many questions...
roscoe. wrote:
Question, what circumstances should a referendum be called based on your criteria?
...
Can you answer my question then. Which referendum or in what circumstance would you agree with specifically and can you provide an example of one where both sides put out no disinformation?
I suppose it depends on the country's organization of government, and to what extent it allows/permits referendums.
In USA, I cannot think of any circumstance.
In the UK, national referendums appear to require a specific act of parliament, and even then, it is non-binding on the Government and Parliament.
The Swiss seem to have a good system.
I cannot provide you any examples of a successful referendum. "jesseriley" just said marijuana -- sounds good to me. Marijuana has been demonized for decades -- plenty of conspiracy theories about that.
I do know that there were many unanswered questions after the Brexit referendum, and there was that whole saga of Cambridge Analytica where the extent of the misinformation campaign is still unknown.
roscoe. wrote:
So you agree with the result, yet the posting within this thread shows that you thought it was non legally binding, foolish to be called and misinformed (only on the leave side). You cannot have it both ways and you are starting to sound like the crazy lines and policies the Labour Party ended up with ahead of the recent election.
I didn't say I agreed with the result -- I said "I think it will be worse for Britain than Europe, especially in the short term, but they will eventually forge new deals and adapt in the long term."
I agreed with the enforcement of the result, as, even though it was a non-binding referendum, Cameron promised to honor it.
Cameron was foolish to call for it and agree to honor it. It was a gamble that backfired in a big way for him and for the UK.
I have no doubt that the referendum was non-binding, because, as we have seen, they cannot be constitutionally.
I also said "to be fair there was misinformation in both "leave" and "remain" campaigns" in my very first post.
I can have it all of those ways.
roscoe. wrote:
You like pasting Wikipedia selectively yet do not provide the full story, a common trait of the remain fraction post result.
As I said 13 referendums in the UK since 1973. 3 involving the whole of the UK, 10 of which were for invidual UK countries. This does not preclude the 10 from being UK referendums or being part of the UK’s democratic history in recent decades.
The takeaway points were that national referendums, like the "EU referendum" require an Act of Parliament, and even then, cannot be constitutionally binding. Before recent times, it was considered "unconstitutional" and "alien devices". It doesn't seem important that there were many other smaller referendums, which I assume are equally constitutionally non-binding on the Government and Parliament.
roscoe. wrote:
The past the post system and electoral system in the UK means that it is insufficient for questions and decisions such as the 2016 version. So for example a party may gain the support of the electorate on Brexit but not on health or schooling for example. The party with the least support on The EU gets into power, but the mandate for Brexit is not there. The mix of issues and stances in a general election does not give a sufficient mandate on issues such as this one that are binary (in or out of the EU institutions) and therefore the government quite rightly put it to the people as either they could not or would not decide themselves.
That's fine if the people were fully informed of all the consequences, and that they were not misinformed, and if they had given more guidance on how to leave. Binary questions do not give more than one answer and there were many questions. There are still many questions unanswered that will have to be decided/negotiated during the transition period, which will likely require more extensions.
roscoe. wrote:
Regarding the flaw you identify and number as 1. Would you have wanted a further leave question on how we leave after the overall result, or should the government do this part?
Of course Labour and the Liberal Democrat’s wanted another referendum but critically wanted remain back on as an option which was half the reason they were crushed at the recent general election. Not honouring the result of the referendum and apply that democratic principle of losers consent.
Now you've asked the right question. Yes. Either, or. The government should have resolved these questions before triggering Article 50. This could have been in the form of a second referendum asking "how should we leave?", or perhaps a series of indicative votes to Parliament. I was not in favor of a second referendum as a "re-do", because then if "remain" won, what next -- a third referendum as a tie-breaker?
roscoe. wrote:
The breath taking arrogance of point 2. Who are you to decide that people were under and mis-informed. Democracy relies on people making decisions on a variety of experiences, knowledge and information. The weight of scare mongering on the remain side was huge, this included wheeling out Obama and suggesting the UK would be stupid to vote leave and would be at the back of the cue for a trade deal, yet still leave won.
Tell me, in the US elections of 2008 or 2016 were people mis or under informed? Yet you have to accept the result and that is how democracy works. You have to trust that the electrorate of educated countries to make the right decision.
I did not decide, but kept myself informed of the aftermath, particularly (as I have mentioned a few times above) the role of Cambridge Analytica in the Leave.EU campaign, in addition to bus-size slogans about the NHS.
Yes the US vote of 2016 was also mis-informed -- another Cambridge Analytica success story.
2008 was the result of a backlash of 8 years under an unpopular president who got us into two wars (the second one by lying to Congress, the American people, and the United Nations) that we are still fighting, and almost caused an economic collapse of the whole world.
That is how democracies work, and to some extent we have to accept the results because that is how the system works, unless another working system, like the judicial system, allows us to right some wrongs.
However, in the UK, referendums are not a necessary part of the UK government, and they are non-binding, so we don't have to necessarily accept the result.
So just to get your position straight, some quotes from you in this thread:
‘I will admit to being unfamiliar about many of the intricate and ceremonial details of the process of the UK government and election process’
‘The people of UK and the US should not ever be consulted on any matters they elected their representatives to decide’
‘National elections and European elections should be different’
‘I do not disagree with the principle of referendums’
‘I didn't say I agreed with the result’
‘I agreed with the enforcement of the result’
‘That's how a "representative democracy" works -- people are not consulted on the important decisions’
‘I never said I "do not want to enact the democratic result of the 2016 referendum’
‘This whole notion that the public needs to micro-manage what they elected their representatives to manage seems unusual and unrealistic’
‘I did say that the US and UK people should not be consulted on matters they have elected their representatives to decide. As you put it, the people have lent their sovereignty to Congress, or to the Parliament (respectively)’
As I mentioned you have an incoherent message. You would appear to have a very undemocratic approach and although not perfect, democracy is the best system we have. The key principle that you continuously skirt around and ignore is that politicians should not get to decide which votes they respect. Regardless of your belief in the wisdom of the decision to call a referendum on Europe (our 3rd one in the UK and therefore part of our political history and tradition).
rekrunner wrote:
So many questions...
roscoe. wrote:
Question, what circumstances should a referendum be called based on your criteria?
...
Can you answer my question then. Which referendum or in what circumstance would you agree with specifically and can you provide an example of one where both sides put out no disinformation?
I suppose it depends on the country's organization of government, and to what extent it allows/permits referendums.
In USA, I cannot think of any circumstance.
In the UK, national referendums appear to require a specific act of parliament, and even then, it is non-binding on the Government and Parliament.
The Swiss seem to have a good system.
I cannot provide you any examples of a successful referendum. "jesseriley" just said marijuana -- sounds good to me. Marijuana has been demonized for decades -- plenty of conspiracy theories about that.
I do know that there were many unanswered questions after the Brexit referendum, and there was that whole saga of Cambridge Analytica where the extent of the misinformation campaign is still unknown.
roscoe. wrote:
So you agree with the result, yet the posting within this thread shows that you thought it was non legally binding, foolish to be called and misinformed (only on the leave side). You cannot have it both ways and you are starting to sound like the crazy lines and policies the Labour Party ended up with ahead of the recent election.
I didn't say I agreed with the result -- I said "I think it will be worse for Britain than Europe, especially in the short term, but they will eventually forge new deals and adapt in the long term."
I agreed with the enforcement of the result, as, even though it was a non-binding referendum, Cameron promised to honor it.
Cameron was foolish to call for it and agree to honor it. It was a gamble that backfired in a big way for him and for the UK.
I have no doubt that the referendum was non-binding, because, as we have seen, they cannot be constitutionally.
I also said "to be fair there was misinformation in both "leave" and "remain" campaigns" in my very first post.
I can have it all of those ways.
roscoe. wrote:
You like pasting Wikipedia selectively yet do not provide the full story, a common trait of the remain fraction post result.
As I said 13 referendums in the UK since 1973. 3 involving the whole of the UK, 10 of which were for invidual UK countries. This does not preclude the 10 from being UK referendums or being part of the UK’s democratic history in recent decades.
The takeaway points were that national referendums, like the "EU referendum" require an Act of Parliament, and even then, cannot be constitutionally binding. Before recent times, it was considered "unconstitutional" and "alien devices". It doesn't seem important that there were many other smaller referendums, which I assume are equally constitutionally non-binding on the Government and Parliament.
roscoe. wrote:
The past the post system and electoral system in the UK means that it is insufficient for questions and decisions such as the 2016 version. So for example a party may gain the support of the electorate on Brexit but not on health or schooling for example. The party with the least support on The EU gets into power, but the mandate for Brexit is not there. The mix of issues and stances in a general election does not give a sufficient mandate on issues such as this one that are binary (in or out of the EU institutions) and therefore the government quite rightly put it to the people as either they could not or would not decide themselves.
That's fine if the people were fully informed of all the consequences, and that they were not misinformed, and if they had given more guidance on how to leave. Binary questions do not give more than one answer and there were many questions. There are still many questions unanswered that will have to be decided/negotiated during the transition period, which will likely require more extensions.
roscoe. wrote:
Regarding the flaw you identify and number as 1. Would you have wanted a further leave question on how we leave after the overall result, or should the government do this part?
Of course Labour and the Liberal Democrat’s wanted another referendum but critically wanted remain back on as an option which was half the reason they were crushed at the recent general election. Not honouring the result of the referendum and apply that democratic principle of losers consent.
Now you've asked the right question. Yes. Either, or. The government should have resolved these questions before triggering Article 50. This could have been in the form of a second referendum asking "how should we leave?", or perhaps a series of indicative votes to Parliament. I was not in favor of a second referendum as a "re-do", because then if "remain" won, what next -- a third referendum as a tie-breaker?
roscoe. wrote:
The breath taking arrogance of point 2. Who are you to decide that people were under and mis-informed. Democracy relies on people making decisions on a variety of experiences, knowledge and information. The weight of scare mongering on the remain side was huge, this included wheeling out Obama and suggesting the UK would be stupid to vote leave and would be at the back of the cue for a trade deal, yet still leave won.
Tell me, in the US elections of 2008 or 2016 were people mis or under informed? Yet you have to accept the result and that is how democracy works. You have to trust that the electrorate of educated countries to make the right decision.
I did not decide, but kept myself informed of the aftermath, particularly (as I have mentioned a few times above) the role of Cambridge Analytica in the Leave.EU campaign, in addition to bus-size slogans about the NHS.
Yes the US vote of 2016 was also mis-informed -- another Cambridge Analytica success story.
2008 was the result of a backlash of 8 years under an unpopular president who got us into two wars (the second one by lying to Congress, the American people, and the United Nations) that we are still fighting, and almost caused an economic collapse of the whole world.
That is how democracies work, and to some extent we have to accept the results because that is how the system works, unless another working system, like the judicial system, allows us to right some wrongs.
However, in the UK, referendums are not a necessary part of the UK government, and they are non-binding, so we don't have to necessarily accept the result.
‘Now you've asked the right question. Yes. Either, or. The government should have resolved these questions before triggering Article 50. This could have been in the form of a second referendum asking "how should we leave?", or perhaps a series of indicative votes to Parliament. I was not in favor of a second referendum as a "re-do", because then if "remain" won, what next -- a third referendum as a tie-breaker’
This is the mostly reasonable paragraph you have scribed in this whole thread. Apart from the parliament deciding as of course they were not divided along the same lines as the referendum result and massively biased towards remain.
Translation: roscoe is a troll.
‘I suppose it depends on the country's organization of government, and to what extent it allows/permits referendums.
In USA, I cannot think of any circumstance.
In the UK, national referendums appear to require a specific act of parliament, and even then, it is non-binding on the Government and Parliament.
The Swiss seem to have a good system.
I cannot provide you any examples of a successful referendum’
So you seem to like the Swiss referendum system, but maybe it would surprise you to hear that they have 2 votes on EU (equivalent at the time) and 10 on additional integration or adoption of further concessions. Now a question. Were the Swiss brighter and more informed that the UK on these votes? Were their referendums free from any misinformation? Surely by voting not to join as a landlocked country surrounded by EU members Switzerland would be on the brink of collapse and their citizens are now eating moss and grass to keep themselves going.
I think dairy is a bigger industry in Switzerland, the cows eat the moss and grass.
roscoe. wrote:
So you seem to like the Swiss referendum system, but maybe it would surprise you to hear that they have 2 votes on EU (equivalent at the time) and 10 on additional integration or adoption of further concessions. Now a question. Were the Swiss brighter and more informed that the UK on these votes? Were their referendums free from any misinformation? Surely by voting not to join as a landlocked country surrounded by EU members Switzerland would be on the brink of collapse and their citizens are now eating moss and grass to keep themselves going.
Voting not to join is completely different to voting to leave.
Surely you can see that.
‘Whether push or pull, it looks like you are helping me argue against public referendums due to public misinformation, highlighting the need for a proper information environment, perhaps even reform, to help get referendums right‘
No. because misinformation is present for every democratic event, including elections. And this has been the case since the birth of democracy. The 2016 US elections were chocked full of misinformation on both sides to a very large degree but were roughly equal in terms of coverage and push, pull factors for each party. What I have been trying to portray is that the whole establishment and massive portions of the media (BBC, Sky News, Gardian) were against Brexit as it upset the status quo and went against baked in vested interests and therefore the vote to leave was more than a legitimate result. You have to factor in those that were scared by the bogus economic predictions, Obama’s threats etc from the perceived consequences to vote leave. A large portion of votes that may have voted leave were I believe spooked into voting remain.
The problem for this group was that we had heard this all before with the ERM and the Euro currency. Rather than doubling down on these two disaterious EU projects the UK got out or did not join and despite all the so called experts and largely the same organisations supporting them at the time. History shows the UK to be on the right side of these decisions, as will be the case for this one. If you were to ask these same people for their opinions now 90% plus I reckon would go back on their original inclinations in hindsight.