Brexit. UK Politics.

[1024MAK]

A lot of people may not know or care. I don't pretend to know any details, but I was aware that there was close cooperation between EU member states in various science areas. From medical science to space science.
It does not surprise me that this is under threat.

There will be a lot of fallout in many areas 

Mark

[tastefulmrship]

Looks like Britain was voting for MORE than just leaving the EU!



How surprising for the USofA to get world-news wrong! They're normally so on-the-ball with this kinda stuff!
I wonder how many USA-ians even know what the EU is? Or what EU stands for?

(EDIT: On a positive note; LOOK! Gold is up 62.50! -yay-)

[andycadley]

Government was introduced as a means to bypass some problems, the biggest of which being that with population rising it was not easy to hold votes on everything. But having a government, of course, creates its own problems, not the least of which being governments doing the exact opposite of what they were voted in for.

No. Governments exist because representative democracy is fairer than mob rule. The aim is always to have people in place, who should be experts in the areas they are negotiating, who can look at everything - including the will of the people - and then do what is best, even if that goes against what the majority might want. Without that separation minorities will always suffer, emotions will always override reasoned argument and no decision can ever be decided on detailed analysis of an overall situation because the "man in the street" doesn't have the time or inclination to ruminate over every option.

So what's the solution to it - take the power of decision away from the people and give it to very specific centres of power, or maybe educate the 'mob' and make them participate more?

There's no ideal solution. Representative democracy is the best anyone has come up with so far. Ideally the process of choosing a representative needs to be as "fair" as possible and ensure that the government constitutes a suitably diverse set of opinions. UK "democracy" is very, very far from that ideal.

We had the same -incomprehensible, IMO- argument here in Greece, too. If anyone feels scapegoated for voting for chrissakes, then let's all have a lobotomy and live in a dictatorship after all.

It's because it is a "cover your ass" move. If it all goes horribly wrong, the government of the day just trots out the "not our fault, it was the will of the people" excuse. Conveniently leaving aside that the people made their choice based on the skewed "facts" that were being handed out (regardless of which side they were from)

How will Scotland and Ireland breaking away be an un-democratic thing? A sad development in some ways, a normal continuation of the decomposition of the British Empire in others, perhaps bad for the English economy, but I don't get the connection...

Because the UK political system is horribly broken.

It'll be great for Scotland and Ireland, but leave England in a place where there is only one party who can ever be elected, with no credible opposition. The first past the post system, coupled with carefully manipulated boundaries means that it's basically impossible to have a non-Tory government in this country without the staunch Labour support in Scotland (as evidenced by the mass SNP swing last time). If they leave, the last few places where people's votes actually count for anything won't be enough to provide enough swing to oust the government. Remember under the UK system not all votes are equal and in many constituencies voting for an "alternative" has basically no effect, the voices of people who object are simply ignored.

[1024MAK]

I wonder how many USA-ians even know what the EU is? Or what EU stands for?

Erm, and how many people in the UK do you think know what the EU stands for?
According to Google, a hell of a lot of searching occurred after the result of the referendum result was announced...
One can only guess how many voters just went on what they saw and heard from the politicians and the media.

But we have a result. So that's it. Too late now.

Mark

[arnoldemu]

I was watching the fallout on the BBC website. I am sure I saw a great typo saying "UK votes to leave UK".

[1024MAK]

I was watching the fallout on the BBC website. I am sure I saw a great typo saying "UK votes to leave UK".

Actually, that sounds about right. Would the last sane person please turn the light off as they leave...

[Gryzor]

A lot of people may not know or care. I don't pretend to know any details, but I was aware that there was close cooperation between EU member states in various science areas. From medical science to space science.
It does not surprise me that this is under threat.

I'd like to say that, surely, they won't break up scientific research like that. They'll just find new ways to cooperate, perhaps attribute the UK special status as was the case before. But, who know with the lunatics in Brussels - they may break it up just to show the UK...

No. Governments exist because representative democracy is fairer than mob rule.

Wat.


-Apart from a huge logical leap
-apart from the fact that for some magical reason a representative democracy is fair (see how well our governments do)
-apart from the fact that you consider the public to be a mob (interestingly, there might be a connection here, with how hoi polloi has a bad connotation in English)


...you seem to think that detaching the government from the will of the people is somehow and de facto better. May well be, I'm not going into that argument; but democracy, it is not.

The aim is always to have people in place, who should be experts in the areas they are negotiating,who can look at everything - including the will of the people - and then do what is best, even if that goes against what the majority might want.

Of course not. You know there's a name for that - Aristotle's Aristocracy. And that kind of regime was dealt with some thousands of years ago. Your thinking is a totalitarian dream - only, one where we vote for our tyrants. At the very least, if you don't like that definition, this is -again- not a democracy but an enlightened autocracy.

The point of Democracy is NOT to maximise whatever targets you may have. This is probably better achieved under an authoritarian rule. The point of Democracy is to let the people decide for themselves. Including bad decisions - because after all, hey, can you argue without laughing that our governments do what's best for us?

Without that separation minorities will always suffer,

Wat (bis).

Putting aside the fact that one of the basic tenets of Democracy is the rule of law and more than that, fair law, please do put forward historical proof comparing mob and state persecutions.

emotions will always override reasoned argument and no decision can ever be decided on detailed analysis of an overall situation because the "man in the street" doesn't have the time or inclination to ruminate over every option.

Nobody said Democracy is easy. Yes, those are real problems. But, ignoring the fact that this description perfectly fits elected governments as well, it simply doesn't matter. Democracy requires educated, involved citizens who come together, discuss and decide. Not sheeple who outsource their will.

Not optimal? Sure. Relevant? No.

There's no ideal solution. Representative democracy is the best anyone has come up with so far.

No, actually representative democracy is the best anyone has come up so far within technical limitations that just don't exist any more.

Ideally the process of choosing a representative needs to be as "fair" as possible and ensure that the government constitutes a suitably diverse set of opinions. UK "democracy" is very, very far from that ideal.

True, and indeed after the last UK elections when I looked into how votes are counted in the UK I was in shock. However, that is just a necessary prerequisite - not sufficient by a far cry.

It's because it is a "cover your ass" move. If it all goes horribly wrong, the government of the day just trots out the "not our fault, it was the will of the people" excuse.

The fact that a government may use it that way means nothing - just goes to show how inefficient a government may be, in fact. It doesn't mean we, the people, shouldn't have the right and obligation to take decisions.

It'll be great for Scotland and Ireland, but leave England in a place where there is only one party who can ever be elected, with no credible opposition. The first past the post system, coupled with carefully manipulated boundaries means that it's basically impossible to have a non-Tory government in this country without the staunch Labour support in Scotland (as evidenced by the mass SNP swing last time). If they leave, the last few places where people's votes actually count for anything won't be enough to provide enough swing to oust the government. Remember under the UK system not all votes are equal and in many constituencies voting for an "alternative" has basically no effect, the voices of people who object are simply ignored.

...and with that you actually replied to the "no referendums please, we're British" argument. Oh, you can argue "we just need to fix the election system and how votes are counted", but that's just one of the problems with representative government - and of course, even if you fix it, it will come up again in the future as in any -absolutely any- system where power resides with the few.

I really laughed at the UN/UK TV supers, guys

T


PS I really enjoy this discussion, don't mind my somehow impassioned arguments.

[1024MAK]

Err, can you please edit your post. You have quoted me saying things that I did not say  .

Mark

[Gryzor]

Oh dang, sorry mate, that was just wrong copying/pasting the quote tag


EDIT: fixed

[1024MAK]

EDIT: fixed

Thank you 

[Bryce]

I can't speak for all science / research projects, but ESA definitely isn't an EU thing. It's an agreement between 22 members and not all are EU countries. In fact Canada is also involved to a limited extent.

Bryce.

[EgoTrip]

I can't speak for all science / research projects, but ESA definitely isn't an EU thing. It's an agreement between 22 members and not all are EU countries. In fact Canada is also involved to a limited extent.

Bryce.

It's doing my head in how everyone seems to think that anything Europe related will cease to exist and the UK will be completely isolated. Sure things like trade deals will need to be sorted, but at the end of the day there is a lot of money invested both ways and people won't just give up on it. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Most things will continue as they are. There may be some small changes, and job losses, but that will only create gaps which will be filled by others.

[andycadley]

-apart from the fact that for some magical reason a representative democracy is fair (see how well our governments do)
-apart from the fact that you consider the public to be a mob (interestingly, there might be a connection here, with how hoi polloi has a bad connotation in English)

I didn't say it was fair (nothing is), only that it is fairer. It doesn't drown out the voices of minorities. The idea of democracy is that everyone should have a say in decisions, but not that decisions should be swayed by the largest group or the loudest voices.

Putting aside the fact that one of the basic tenets of Democracy is the rule of law and more than that, fair law, please do put forward historical proof comparing mob and state persecutions.

Gay rights
Women's vote
Abolition of slavery
End of capital punishment

All of the above were not favoured by the majority at the time and likely would never occur under a situation where every (eligible) person has an equal say.

Nobody said Democracy is easy. Yes, those are real problems. But, ignoring the fact that this description perfectly fits elected governments as well, it simply doesn't matter. Democracy requires educated, involved citizens who come together, discuss and decide. Not sheeple who outsource their will.

But "sheeple who outsource their will" is exactly what you get from a referendum. The media will whip up a storm and huge portions of the population will inevitably take the "easy" route and just go along with whatever narrative their preferred sources are giving them. Imagining that any of us could live in a society solely populated by well educated individuals who look at the facts, discuss and come up with rational decisions seems rather naïve.

No, actually representative democracy is the best anyone has come up so far within technical limitations that just don't exist any more.

If it were merely a technical issue, we'd have gone past it by now and there'd be nations adopting such a system. It doesn't work though, you need a system of checks and balances to protect the weaker members of society who will otherwise go unheard and abused. The purpose of representative democracy is to try an amplify the voices of these people, so that society as a whole is protected.

...and with that you actually replied to the "no referendums please, we're British" argument. Oh, you can argue "we just need to fix the election system and how votes are counted", but that's just one of the problems with representative government - and of course, even if you fix it, it will come up again in the future as in any -absolutely any- system where power resides with the few.

No system of voting is entirely fair. And power always resides with the few, whether they are elected representatives, the media or just the strongest/loudest/cruellest members of society.

PS I really enjoy this discussion, don't mind my somehow impassioned arguments.

:-)

[Gryzor]

It's doing my head in how everyone seems to think that anything Europe related will cease to exist and the UK will be completely isolated.

Is everyone still running round like Smurfs with arms outstretched, screaming? haven't seen today's press yet... But here in Greece they're trying to tell us that hey, no more tourists from the UK because... visa. Yeah, right.

I didn't say it was fair (nothing is), only that it is fairer. It doesn't drown out the voices of minorities.

Actually, it does. By reducing a large number of citizens down to a few hundred outlets you drown out pretty much anything outside mainstream opinions and issues. Just because a few politicians here and there pick up a pet cause that doesn't cost them anything so that they can say "see, we're doing good" while very often they do the exact opposite behind the scenes (and always steal you blind) it doesn't mean that a representative system is better.


Having your voice and your rights drowned by the noise is not an issue of systems. It's an issue of society levels. And in all the examples you mentioned states actually perpetuated (and still do) oppression for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Representative states, ever since they existed. Whole nations have been massacred under representative governments.


Slavery - better not touch that one, it's a much more complicated issue than that. And capital punishment just doesn't fit with the others. Women's vote is a funny example, since in an immediate democracy women would have a say right away and they wouldn't have to fight, themselves, for a vote.

The idea of democracy is that everyone should have a say in decisions, but not that decisions should be swayed by the largest group or the loudest voices.

Well you went a bit off-road here because the largest group is exactly how democracy should work, but anyhow. As for loudest voices, I agree on that, so do take a look at which politicians are pushed in the limelight by the media.

All of the above were not favoured by the majority at the time and likely would never occur under a situation where every (eligible) person has an equal say.

Says who?


But, it doesn't matter. As I said, Democracy is not supposed to be perfect or offer solutions to everything. Yes, there are issues where it'll fail, and do so miserably. But having a select(ed) few going about and doing not what the people want, no matter if good or bad, but what they believe is correct, is just not a democracy.

But "sheeple who outsource their will" is exactly what you get from a referendum.

This is such a distortion and a twist I can't even follow it. So, having the right (and, again: obligation) to voice your opinion is... "outsourcing it" because the media system is rigged and tells us what to do, so by a roundabout way we are becoming a mouthpiece for others? And you don't even see that the shitstorm happens precisely because, if left to the representative system there's no need for the shitstorm because it's fixed in another way behind closed doors? Or that the same people/groups who control the media control the politicians who would vote instead?


Wow, seriously; you're saying "please don't let me have my say, because I'm stupid and I will read all that you feed me and at the end of the day I'll feel angst and be confused and it won't be my voice, so please do my job for me, I'm totally unworthy to be a citizen after I've voted whereas you are so brilliant that you can manage it all without fail".

If it were merely a technical issue, we'd have gone past it by now and there'd be nations adopting such a system.

Switzerland has been doing it for a while now but anyhow. You seriously believe that they'd give the people that kind of power once the technical requirements were met?

It doesn't work though, you need a system of checks and balances to protect the weaker members of society who will otherwise go unheard and abused.

Sure, of course you do. But this is not an issue of representative/direct. You can do the direct thing and still have your constitution to guide you.

The purpose of representative democracy is to try an amplify the voices of these people,

No, this is a by-product.

No system of voting is entirely fair. And power always resides with the few, whether they are elected representatives, the media or just the strongest/loudest/cruellest members of society.

And outsourcing your voice to a select few just amplifies that effect. It's that simple, really: you officially choose to concentrate power.

[1024MAK]

This debate about how to have a democratic system is interesting to read.
But in the UK, our system for electing MPs to parliament, although called a representative democracy, is not very representative 

I have voted in every EU, national and local election since I became old enough. Yet, only once did I get a govenment that I wanted. I'm now in my mid 40's.
England is a kingdom, the Queen (or King) has in theory the power to shut parliament. Below this, the Prime Minister has nearly as much power as the Kings of old. Far more than you would think.
Our MPs are elected by a first past the post system, with the Boundary Commissions moving constituencies boundaries as they see fit. See Boundary Changes
The second chamber (level), the House of Lords is mostly made up of members appointed by government. See House of Lords - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mark

[1024MAK]

On the subject of people feeling let down, in another forum, a member posted these links:-
Britain's EU Problem is a London Problem | Dissent Magazine
'If you've got money, you vote in ... if you haven't got money, you vote out' |

I live near Bristol, and my workplace is based in Bristol. Bristol is one of the few places in England to vote for remaining in the EU.

I knew there was unhappiness, but I was surprised by what is said in these articles (that I link to).

Keep in mind also, that it is not that long ago that the Conservative party won a general election and got a majority in parliament.

Mark

Edited 2016-06-26 15:09 to fix damaged link 

[1024MAK]

On another forum, a member posted this interesting take on the latest events:

An interesting take on it from the guardians comments section, no idea if its correct, suppose we'll find out sooner than later

Interesting post in the comments of the Guardian yesterday:

If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.

Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.

With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.

How?

Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.

And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legislation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.

The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.

The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?

Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?

Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.

If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.

The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.

When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.

All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.

What do people here think?

Mark

[GeoffB17]

Yes, VERY interesting.


It rather confirms what I believe anyway, the Brexit adgenda is fundamentally undeliverable.   Couple that to the emerging evidence that a substantial part of the leave vote is in fact NOTHING to do with the EU, it's all about other things, which may well be totally legitimate in themselves, but still get back to the fact that leaving the EU is NOT the answer, but just makes things worse.


Within minutes (?) of the result, Farrage was starting to backtrack of the £350m promises about the NHS.   While they were campaigning, it was a nice slogan.   Now someone might have to deliver, errr, hmmm, oh heck??


Listening to a 'pundit' on the radio this morning, he supported leave, he was explaining how things could recover.   His main example - the success of the USA!   Does he not see that that success is substantially based on the fact that the USA is a massive single market, with a single currency (and a single government), but he's just rejected our (initial) attempts to achieve the same thing??


Geoff

[EgoTrip]

@1024MAK That does sound like Cameron. One thing people often do is underestimate the intelligence of politicians, which is a very dangerous mistake to make. Cameron made a promise for an EU referendum, maybe he didn't expect to get his majority government at the time, but he was forced to follow through to save himself. And that's all this man cares about, himself. Like all politicians. And like all politicians, they are all trying to the top of the pyramid, no less Boris himself.

So fast forward through the past year, and we end up in the situation we are in now. Boris has played the fool so often he has now become the very thing he pretended to be. However, I fully expect Boris will find a way through the maze of shit he finds himself in, to save himself. Who will suffer in the long run remains to be seen but is easily predictable, but you know all those nasty Tories will not be out of pocket in any way. Cameron certainly is not and I bet he gets some really nice retirement package in addition to all the other ill-gotten gains he's banked throughout his corrupt career.

Anyway, this country deserves chaos. It would be karmic, for all the chaos the governments of the past have plunged other nations into. This country needs a massive shake up. Maybe now the opportunity will arise to overthrow the current regime and maybe people who actually care about people will take control. But I fear that the cowardly snakes who caused and created all this hell for their own personal profit will wriggle away out of it unscathed and the innocent, as they always do, will bear the brunt of any comeuppance. And even more, I fear that extremists may take over, either Islamic or Social Justice.

[Gryzor]

Hey, anyone seen how 4Chan pwned the petition to redo the referendum?


Not that it was necessary, seems like real people from all over the world were/are voting (I know I did, up to the last step, just to see if it was possible)...


PS Edit: this is interesting... https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215.json

[Puresox]

As We Have a many countries who post in this forum, I am interested in how each of our neighbors feel on Britain's position.

[||C|-|E||]

As I said in before, I think that is going to be a big blow for science. So, the opinion of this Spanish researcher working in UK is: probably a wrong decision. The same view is shared by all the colleagues I have met in the last few days, some from Italy, some from UK, some from Germany, some from other places. About the other possible consequences? I do not really know.

[SOS]

I want to quote German Chancellor "Gauck":
"The elites are not the problem, but the residents"

The elites would not accept the vote, so i think,
the british people becomes "the chance" for a 2nd vote in some month to Brexit or not-to Brexit.

[Bryce]

Whether the UK stay or not is now irrelevant: If they go then they go and are on their own. If they change their mind and say they are staying, then they've already lost any bargaining power they built up over many years and will no longer be taken seriously.

Bryce.

[Puresox]

The EU didn't really want us anyhow, we were not part of the club , so feel everyone is probably happy. I don't know whether it is because we are not physically linked or what , but always felt that we were outsiders . Personally I miss the days that each country had there own strong identity.(Which I know still remains, but it is greatly diminished) I love France for it's fantastic attitude , they're great food customs , their strong belief in eating together eating and drinking wine , having long dinner breaks and recognising the strength of the unity between the family. They drink well and socially. One of my favourite countries. Spain , I have always felt that they have great animosity toward UK , my experience with the county is pretty limited though ,and can only say I like they're respect for family's. Love Tapas too. Germany another place that I haven't had the pleasure of enjoying the country much, What little experience I have had is how well ordered the place is , really clean and people always seem decent , great cakes and some great architecture . Look forward to properly touring the place cos there history intrigues me . Netherland's, never visited . But the people seem to have a great similarity to us Brits . The impression I get from them is great . Italy , another place that I have only partially visited. It's another place that I feel they have animosity toward us Brits , similar to how I feel Spain considers us . Having said that the Italians that I have met and dealt with in the UK ,have been great people and they have a great attitude toward food. I know they're are a mass of other countries within the EU , but don't want to go on all night.