The inevitable Brexit thread


Off-Topic Discussions

701 to 750 of 863 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>

Smarnil le couard wrote:

Far from me...

I'm not trying to say the EU should give a UK that leaves the EU any kind of special deal; I'm saying that, on paper, with so much that should have been lined up in favour of a 'remain' vote, I hope that someone in the EU is thinking 'what the heck just happened?' possibly followed up by 'was that a one-off bizarro situation, or are we going to have to make changes so it doesn't happen elsewhere?'


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charles Evans 25 wrote:
Smarnil le couard wrote:

Far from me...

I'm not trying to say the EU should give a UK that leaves the EU any kind of special deal; I'm saying that, on paper, with so much that should have been lined up in favour of a 'remain' vote, I hope that someone in the EU is thinking 'what the heck just happened?' possibly followed up by 'was that a one-off bizarro situation, or are we going to have to make changes so it doesn't happen elsewhere?'

Sorry, I misunderstood you then.

Alas, what the EU does has little or no bearing on what happened in the UK, as the leave vote campaign had precious little ties with reality.

UK had the best deal of all EU, hands down, but it didn't matter in the end because ordinary people voted according to what they had been fed for years by their local elite and newspapers, that is : 1) nothing good ever comes from Brussels ; 2) we (UK) are freedom fighters pitted against the evil EU empire. Look at our blue sabers! ; 3) all your women are belong to EU.

The EU can work wonders, it won't matter at all if local politicians keep scapegoating it for everything that goes wrong as a convenient way to sweep under the rug their own shortcomings.


The Raven Black wrote:

One word : scapegoating

Blame the migrants
Blame the EU
Blame the elite / establishment

Works wonders when people are desperate

(edited, typo corrected, minor rewording)

The pre-referendum debate/discussion campaign was going on for six months or so. There should have been more than enough time for the 'remain' side to utterly discredit any claims lacking foundation in reality (especially with Nigel Farage's constant assistance by quoting figures that fell apart under scrutiny) that the EU was/is a source of problems. Or at least there should have been enough time assuming the big speakers on the 'remain' side were competent politicians (which admittedly there seems to be some debate about in the UK right now, at least in the case of Jeremy Corbyn - does this lead to a conclusion that Corbyn may have been a crucial weakness in the 'remain' campaign???).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charles Evans 25 wrote:


I'm not trying to say the EU should give a UK that leaves the EU any kind of special deal; I'm saying that, on paper, with so much that should have been lined up in favour of a 'remain' vote, I hope that someone in the EU is thinking 'what the heck just happened?' possibly followed up by 'was that a one-off bizarro situation, or are we going to have to make changes so it doesn't happen elsewhere?'

I don't think that the EU wants or needs to make any changes. From the Eurocrat perspective, what happened was fairly obviously a set of mistakes on the part of the UK government.

* The EU, and specifically the Brussels government, has never been particularly popular anywhere, and it's designed with that in mind. The EU is supposed to make sensible decisions, not politically popular ones, because politically popular is often a synonym for stupid favor-currying. (See the Italian government for a long-standing example of that.)

* Brexit should never have been offered as a referendum in the first place; that's a classic example of the sort of politically popular but stupid favor-currying the EU is, by design, dead against. But they're also used to stupid referenda returning the wrong vote, and generally find a way to negotiate government-to-government to negate the referendum. (Case in point, Ireland initially said "no" to both the Nice and Lisbon treaties.)

* As is usual with these favor-currying referenda, there's a serious case of voter's remorse going on. However, there's a power vacuum in the UK right now, which was not expected by the UK, which makes it difficult to have discussion with anyone.

* Once the UK gets its house in order, the EU has all the angles covered:
-- if the UK opts against the Brexit, it's business as usual.
-- if the UK opts for the Brexit, the divorce terms are likely to be so onerous as to deter anyone else from trying something like this.... and the individual member states will get to pick over the carcase to their own private benefit. (Think of Star Wars; Britain may be in the position of Alderaan soon, an acceptable loss as a demonstration to the rest of the galaxy.)

So what's there that needs changing?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Charles, They did. Repeatedly. It didn't matter, the same lies were trotted out milliseconds after the Leave camp admitted they were lies.
Plus the whole "the british people have had enough if experts" is posibly ture. We've always been suspicious of people smarter ths. ourselve. Not quite as bad as the States but certainly there.
Plus plus, it's hard to stand up to propoganda when you've been fuelling it. What were Cameron and Os bourne suppsoed to say?" Well, actually, cahps, the EU is pretty good for us. I know, I know, I always say how hard I'm battling the, to cut red tape, but really, it's a pretty good arrangement."


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Charles Evans wrote:
The pre-referendum debate/discussion campaign was going on for six months or so. There should have been more than enough time for the 'remain' side to utterly discredit any claims lacking foundation in reality

It doesn't seem that humans respond to rational arguments nearly as well as inflamed rhetoric.


Charles Evans 25 wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

One word : scapegoating

Blame the migrants
Blame the EU
Blame the elite / establishment

Works wonders when people are desperate

(edited, typo corrected, minor rewording)

The pre-referendum debate/discussion campaign was going on for six months or so. There should have been more than enough time for the 'remain' side to utterly discredit any claims lacking foundation in reality (especially with Nigel Farage's constant assistance by quoting figures that fell apart under scrutiny) that the EU was/is a source of problems. Or at least there should have been enough time assuming the big speakers on the 'remain' side were competent politicians (which admittedly there seems to be some debate about in the UK right now, at least in the case of Jeremy Corbyn - does this lead to a conclusion that Corbyn may have been a crucial weakness in the 'remain' campaign???).

It should be obvious from casual study of humanity or of history that "discrediting claims lacking foundation in reality" is at all an easy thing to do - even given years to work with, much less months.

Propaganda works and works largely irregardless of its truth content.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
* The EU, and specifically the Brussels government, has never been particularly popular anywhere, and it's designed with that in mind. The EU is supposed to make sensible decisions, not politically popular ones, because politically popular is often a synonym for stupid favor-currying. (See the Italian government for a long-standing example of that.)

So, a government deliberately designed to ignore and be isolated from the consent of the governed?

That strikes me as a horribly, horribly bad idea, whatever your opinion of the stupidity of popular opinion. Perhaps getting the f+#* out of such a system is the best move, regardless of the consequences.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
* The EU, and specifically the Brussels government, has never been particularly popular anywhere, and it's designed with that in mind. The EU is supposed to make sensible decisions, not politically popular ones, because politically popular is often a synonym for stupid favor-currying. (See the Italian government for a long-standing example of that.)
So, a government deliberately designed to ignore and be isolated from the consent of the governed?

Yes, it's called representative democracy.

A lot of people worship at the altar of "democracy" but forget about the "representative" bit. The point is that you consent to be governed by people who will "represent" your interests but have the skills, knowledge, and time to be able to make reflective decisions instead of knee-jerk reactions to propaganda designed to appeal to the emotions of the mob.

That's also the basic design of the United States government, by the way.

And, yes, representative democracy is a horrible system, possibly the worst system of government out there, "except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." [Winston Churchill, 11 November 1947]

Liberty's Edge

Propaganda appeals to emotions. Those are far stronger than logical reasoning (older part in the brain)

Direct vote did not work for a few hundred people. I do not expect it to work for several millions


The Raven Black wrote:

Propaganda appeals to emotions. Those are far stronger than logical reasoning (older part in the brain)

Direct vote did not work for a few hundred people. I do not expect it to work for several millions

To be fair nothing "works" in the sense that it has no drawbacks.

Direct vote lets you run the country with 51% mob rule, a mob that can easily be lead/swayed/riled up about anything or nothing.

A system of elected elites often vote in their own best interests/the best interests of the people who get them elected, which has various degrees of correlation to the people they represent. This isn't new: parliment wrote the tea act in large part because most of them owned stock in the dutch east india company.

And of course an absolute monarch often decides that yes, they will have the gold plated palace while we tax the pig farmers some more.

Pick your poison.


Why gold plate your palace when you can build it out of solid gold to begin with? It's classier!


BigNorseWolf wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

Propaganda appeals to emotions. Those are far stronger than logical reasoning (older part in the brain)

Direct vote did not work for a few hundred people. I do not expect it to work for several millions

To be fair nothing "works" in the sense that it has no drawbacks.

True. But has direct democracy ever worked in the sense that it produced a functional and stable society larger than an individual settlement, say, 20,000 individuals?

England, the country, has had a representative democracy since Simon de Monfort in the 13th century; the United States since the 18th. Most of the Commonwealth States have had representative democracy since before they were actually States (e.g., the Dominion of Canada). And, of course, almost all of the absolute monarchies in Europe have either been replaced by constitutional monarchies with representative assemblies that actually do the job of governing, or with outright representative republics.

The individual Swiss cantons had a version of direct democracy (the Landsgemeinde), but those were tiny compared to London, let alone to England or the UK.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
* The EU, and specifically the Brussels government, has never been particularly popular anywhere, and it's designed with that in mind. The EU is supposed to make sensible decisions, not politically popular ones, because politically popular is often a synonym for stupid favor-currying. (See the Italian government for a long-standing example of that.)
So, a government deliberately designed to ignore and be isolated from the consent of the governed?

Yes, it's called representative democracy.

A lot of people worship at the altar of "democracy" but forget about the "representative" bit. The point is that you consent to be governed by people who will "represent" your interests but have the skills, knowledge, and time to be able to make reflective decisions instead of knee-jerk reactions to propaganda designed to appeal to the emotions of the mob.

That's also the basic design of the United States government, by the way.

And, yes, representative democracy is a horrible system, possibly the worst system of government out there, "except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." [Winston Churchill, 11 November 1947]

Ah, I thought you were somehow distinguishing it from all those other representative democracies in the EU (and elsewhere). Like the Italian one, for example.

And yet in all those cases except, at least in your mind, the EU, the government actually needs to remain popular or it (or at least the representatives in it) will be voted out and replaced.


thejeff wrote:


And yet in all those cases except, at least in your mind, the EU, the government actually needs to remain popular or it (or at least the representatives in it) will be voted out and replaced.

Yes, but the EU doesn't actually care who it's dealing with at the national level; whether the Bigendians or the Littleendians have a majority in Parliament, once the PM and his staff sits down and talks to the EU staffers, the EU expects that something sensible at the policy level will come out of it.

This policy has always worked so far (see, for example, the Irish referenda), and it's not clear that it's failed even yet.

Community Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed some posts and their responses. Keep this about Brexit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

*thinks Brexit makes for a terrible cereal bar*


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Cameron actually did the best and most statesmanlike things he could under the circumstances. He fell on his sword, removing himself from the debate about the future. He offered himself as a sacrifice that might satisfy the lust of some of his backbenchers for blood. He resigned on a very long time scale, which grants time for everyone involved to come up with a plan, "knowing" that no decisions are likely to be taken until October.

That's one way of thinking about it. Another way is that he took the coward's way out, using resignation to avoid dealing with the consequences of losing the most idiotic political gamble ever made by a UK politician. Now some other sap is going to have to invoke Article 50 and face all the hard work of dealing with the consequences. Which may very well include ending the United Kingdom itself.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Cameron actually did the best and most statesmanlike things he could under the circumstances. He fell on his sword, removing himself from the debate about the future. He offered himself as a sacrifice that might satisfy the lust of some of his backbenchers for blood. He resigned on a very long time scale, which grants time for everyone involved to come up with a plan, "knowing" that no decisions are likely to be taken until October.
That's one way of thinking about it. Another way is that he took the coward's way out, using resignation to avoid dealing with the consequences of losing the most idiotic political gamble ever made by a UK politician. Now some other sap is going to have to invoke Article 50 and face all the hard work of dealing with the consequences. Which may very well include ending the United Kingdom itself.

Speaking as an american who who knows absolutely nothing about the UK legal process, does that other sap actually have to invoke article 50, or is that just one of the many options said sap has when forming their government?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To the best of my admittedly limited knowledge, there is no legal requirement for it to be invoked. The next Prime Minister could theoretically say "It was a terrible idea, and I will not inflict it upon our nation."

I can't say whether or not it's politically acceptable... but it is an option they have.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, let's just say that 48% are likely going to be okay with it, plus whatever portion of the leave voters who have been disillusioned by failed promises. It's still not going to be an easy thing to do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Cameron actually did the best and most statesmanlike things he could under the circumstances. He fell on his sword, removing himself from the debate about the future. He offered himself as a sacrifice that might satisfy the lust of some of his backbenchers for blood. He resigned on a very long time scale, which grants time for everyone involved to come up with a plan, "knowing" that no decisions are likely to be taken until October.
That's one way of thinking about it. Another way is that he took the coward's way out, using resignation to avoid dealing with the consequences of losing the most idiotic political gamble ever made by a UK politician. Now some other sap is going to have to invoke Article 50 and face all the hard work of dealing with the consequences. Which may very well include ending the United Kingdom itself.
Speaking as an american who who knows absolutely nothing about the UK legal process, does that other sap actually have to invoke article 50, or is that just one of the many options said sap has when forming their government?

The thing about a democratic process... is that you're kind of obligated to go with how votes turn out. Brexit passed by a pretty sizable margin, so... yes it's going to happen. And the EU want it to happen soon.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
* The EU, and specifically the Brussels government, has never been particularly popular anywhere, and it's designed with that in mind. The EU is supposed to make sensible decisions, not politically popular ones, because politically popular is often a synonym for stupid favor-currying. (See the Italian government for a long-standing example of that.)
So, a government deliberately designed to ignore and be isolated from the consent of the governed?

Yes, it's called representative democracy.

A lot of people worship at the altar of "democracy" but forget about the "representative" bit. The point is that you consent to be governed by people who will "represent" your interests but have the skills, knowledge, and time to be able to make reflective decisions instead of knee-jerk reactions to propaganda designed to appeal to the emotions of the mob.

That's also the basic design of the United States government, by the way.

And, yes, representative democracy is a horrible system, possibly the worst system of government out there, "except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." [Winston Churchill, 11 November 1947]

Ah, I thought you were somehow distinguishing it from all those other representative democracies in the EU (and elsewhere). Like the Italian one, for example.

And yet in all those cases except, at least in your mind, the EU, the government actually needs to remain popular or it (or at least the representatives in it) will be voted out and replaced.

But that is precisely the thing. The EU is NOT a government, no matter what paranoid Britons and others think

It is an alliance of sovereign states that agreed to work together for their mutual benefits

It never became a stronger political union than this thanks in a major part to the UK fighting it relentlessly. Which makes it even more ironic that the Leave side won because the UK citizens were afraid of that imaginary EU government

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Cameron actually did the best and most statesmanlike things he could under the circumstances. He fell on his sword, removing himself from the debate about the future. He offered himself as a sacrifice that might satisfy the lust of some of his backbenchers for blood. He resigned on a very long time scale, which grants time for everyone involved to come up with a plan, "knowing" that no decisions are likely to be taken until October.
That's one way of thinking about it. Another way is that he took the coward's way out, using resignation to avoid dealing with the consequences of losing the most idiotic political gamble ever made by a UK politician. Now some other sap is going to have to invoke Article 50 and face all the hard work of dealing with the consequences. Which may very well include ending the United Kingdom itself.
Speaking as an american who who knows absolutely nothing about the UK legal process, does that other sap actually have to invoke article 50, or is that just one of the many options said sap has when forming their government?
The thing about a democratic process... is that you're kind of obligated to go with how votes turn out. Brexit passed by a pretty sizable margin, so... yes it's going to happen. And the EU want it to happen soon.

Actually pretty small margin overall. Also what Orfamy quest said earlier.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Cameron actually did the best and most statesmanlike things he could under the circumstances. He fell on his sword, removing himself from the debate about the future. He offered himself as a sacrifice that might satisfy the lust of some of his backbenchers for blood. He resigned on a very long time scale, which grants time for everyone involved to come up with a plan, "knowing" that no decisions are likely to be taken until October.
That's one way of thinking about it. Another way is that he took the coward's way out, using resignation to avoid dealing with the consequences of losing the most idiotic political gamble ever made by a UK politician. Now some other sap is going to have to invoke Article 50 and face all the hard work of dealing with the consequences. Which may very well include ending the United Kingdom itself.

It could also have been a protest resignation. Sort of a "It's my job to do what's best for the nation, and to follow the will of the voters. I can't do both of those now." kind of thing.

701 to 750 of 863 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / The inevitable Brexit thread All Messageboards