Brexit and General UK politics thread

[The_Saint]

My issue with that is you have people that can't balance their household finances voting on issues of trade and taxation. You have people who didn't graduate science getting an equal say to scientists on climate change. You're ensuring that the voices of those who know what they're talking about must be filtered through a figurehead to be voted on not based on fact but on how good the presenter is at emotional manipulation.

Matters of state shouldn't be a popularity contest.

I think Lost Soal answered best:

Congratulations, you've just described elected politicians.

Now I'm fairly lucky in that the electorate/voting district that I am in we've managed to elect a not unreasonable human but if I happened to reside in a different electorate (say fuckwit former Prime Minister Tony Abbott) then I would rather risk the direct opinions of the mass populace than the one opinion of the idiot that represents them.

Why?

Because not every idiotic idea is held by a majority. Australia might have a racism/immigration hatred thing going on (clearly not a majority but a big enough minority for it to be spun as the former) but not every slightly racist anti-immigration idiot is also a flat earther or an anti-vaxxer. If we have to deal with stupidity lets deal with it one subject at a time not get one elected representative who collects dumb ideas like a hyperactive pokemon fanatic GOTTA CATCH EM ALL

[Jub]

Now I'm fairly lucky in that the electorate/voting district that I am in we've managed to elect a not unreasonable human but if I happened to reside in a different electorate (say fuckwit former Prime Minister Tony Abbott) then I would rather risk the direct opinions of the mass populace than the one opinion of the idiot that represents them.

Why?

Because not every idiotic idea is held by a majority. Australia might have a racism/immigration hatred thing going on (clearly not a majority but a big enough minority for it to be spun as the former) but not every slightly racist anti-immigration idiot is also a flat earther or an anti-vaxxer. If we have to deal with stupidity lets deal with it one subject at a time not get one elected representative who collects dumb ideas like a hyperactive pokemon fanatic GOTTA CATCH EM ALL

That just suggests that the entire system is broken and not just the voting aspect.

I'd argue that informed voters would be less likely to vote for idiots in the first place and could lead to a better class of politician, but it's untestable.

The real issue is that humans aren't very good at long term planning and assessing the needs of more than a small handful of people at a time. Nor are they likely to be good at all the things a nation needs to be run well. Ideally, you'd get a system where the people in charge are advised by panels of unbiased experts in various fields and make choices according to those opinions. In theory, that's what happens now, but the reality is that experts are anything but unbiased and half of the time aren't even experts at all.

[The Romulan Republic]

As expected May's government has survived the vote of no confidence but has yet to present their plan B. Persistent rumours that Plan B is another run of plan A with more incentives to individual MPs.

Keep beating that dead horse, May.

There's something morbidly fascinating about Brexit- there is overwhelming empirical evidence that this will be a catastrophe, everyone can clearly watch in slow motion as the SS UK keeps sailing dead toward that iceberg, everyone can see it coming, and no one seems to be able to do jack shit about it. I don't think I've ever seen a first world government achieve such systematic failure repeatedly on such an essential issue, with so many opportunities to avert disaster. If there were an Olympic Gold Medal for Failure, the British Parliament would have a lock on it.

[The_Saint]

Whatever happened to the screaming regarding the initial referendum result I remember immediately following the referendum that lots of people voted leave because:
- they didn't think it'd get enough votes (definition of self defeating prophecy perhaps? )
or
- they didn't think there'd be any negative consequences (that the cold, hard light of day the next morning clearly revealed)
or
- hey it'd be fun idea just imagine the lols if we were no longer part of the EU, yea, nah, just a laugh right? I mean this whole referendum thing isn't important right? right?

The UK (EU) members here might have a clear idea but from 15,000km away it seemed like there was a heap of indignation that upped and disappeared regarding the validity of the referendum result. Was that resolved by the general election (where major parties campaigned on a Brexit platform) or just dropped due to British stiff upper lip of just rollign with what you got?

Just curious as it would seem the idea of a 2nd referendum is to resolve this but I don't hear any more of reference back to the possible idiocy in voting the first time.

[K. A. Pital]

As expected May's government has survived the vote of no confidence but has yet to present their plan B. Persistent rumours that Plan B is another run of plan A with more incentives to individual MPs.

Keep beating that dead horse, May.

There's something morbidly fascinating about Brexit- there is overwhelming empirical evidence that this will be a catastrophe, everyone can clearly watch in slow motion as the SS UK keeps sailing dead toward that iceberg, everyone can see it coming, and no one seems to be able to do jack shit about it. I don't think I've ever seen a first world government achieve such systematic failure repeatedly on such an essential issue, with so many opportunities to avert disaster. If there were an Olympic Gold Medal for Failure, the British Parliament would have a lock on it.

At least the UK has the NHS. In or out, they still are at least somewhat better than the failure known as the USA. Might be just thinking in terms of the lesser evil, but hey... anything beats gruesome deaths of the uninsured...

[Captain Seafort]

If there were an Olympic Gold Medal for Failure, the British Parliament would have a lock on it.

*Looks at US Congress*

Are you sure about that? At least our government is still getting paid and still getting on with its job.

[Zaune]

At least the UK has the NHS. In or out, they still are at least somewhat better than the failure known as the USA. Might be just thinking in terms of the lesser evil, but hey... anything beats gruesome deaths of the uninsured...

For now, anyway.

[The Romulan Republic]

If there were an Olympic Gold Medal for Failure, the British Parliament would have a lock on it.

*Looks at US Congress*

Are you sure about that? At least our government is still getting paid and still getting on with its job.

Point, but at least in the US there is a unified block opposed to and offering an alternative to Trumpism. In the UK, it seems like there are just different shades of pro-Brexit parties.

[Crazedwraith]

If there were an Olympic Gold Medal for Failure, the British Parliament would have a lock on it.

*Looks at US Congress*

Are you sure about that? At least our government is still getting paid and still getting on with its job.

Point, but at least in the US there is a unified block opposed to and offering an alternative to Trumpism. In the UK, it seems like there are just different shades of pro-Brexit parties.

It's a little more complicated than that. Since the parties are not united at all when comes to brexit, people from the big two (Conservative and Labour) run the gamut of remain and can't say it to virulently no deal hard brexit supporters.

Of the others the Lib Dems and the SNP are actually still pro-remain but they're still have to push for a second referendum rather than being able to say 'let's just call the whole thing off' right out.

[Bedlam]

*Looks at US Congress*

Are you sure about that? At least our government is still getting paid and still getting on with its job.

Point, but at least in the US there is a unified block opposed to and offering an alternative to Trumpism. In the UK, it seems like there are just different shades of pro-Brexit parties.

It's a little more complicated than that. Since the parties are not united at all when comes to brexit, people from the big two (Conservative and Labour) run the gamut of remain and can't say it to virulently no deal hard brexit supporters.

Of the others the Lib Dems and the SNP are actually still pro-remain but they're still have to push for a second referendum rather than being able to say 'let's just call the whole thing off' right out.

And the SNP is an interesting case (and a reason why I don't want to set the precedent of repeating a referendum) they don't care what happens to the 92.5% of the population which isn't Scottish. Although they are pro Europe if they think dropping out without a deal with increase the chance of them getting and winning another referendum of Scottish Independence (which they do) then they aren't going to push very hard for it.

[Starglider]

Point, but at least in the US there is a unified block opposed to and offering an alternative to Trumpism. In the UK, it seems like there are just different shades of pro-Brexit parties.

The Liberal Democrats have consistently stated that if elected, they would immediately cancel Brexit, no if buts or second referendum required. I've been receiving emails stating this for the last two and a half years, as I have on occassion donated to them and thus get spammed for life. Of course they have zero chance of becoming the majority party and getting to action this; I think they were somewhat shocked to lose so many seats in the last election, as they were hoping a clear direct appeal to remainers would outweigh or at least offset the number of long-time supporters they lost to conceeding so many points to the Tories in the coalition.

[bobalot]

The omnishambles of Brexit continues.

I wonder if markets have already priced in the impact of a hard Brexit.

[Lost Soal]

Without a doubt there are people who are betting on a hard Brexit.

[Mr Bean]

Without a doubt there are people who are betting on a hard Brexit.

Is not hard Brexit the most likely? As it stands the EU has no reason to extend the deadline, May does not have the power to negotiate nor has she been removed from power... so where does a deal come from other than hard brexit?

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Yeah, and things are getting interesting given that Cambridge Analytica -the same company that was part of the 2016 shitshow and being investigated by the Mueller investigation- also did this shit show. Given that the 'bad boys' are currently under their own Mueller style investigation right now...

[The Romulan Republic]

Yes- the legitimacy of the referendum is certainly questionable, due to the involvement of the same global Neo-fascist alliance that elected Donald Trump.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Yes- the legitimacy of the referendum is certainly questionable, due to the involvement of the same global Neo-fascist alliance that elected Donald Trump.

Hell the referendum was more of a poll than a genuine referendum from what I can tell... and the situation has raised eyebrows once more and more things came to light.

[K. A. Pital]

Yes- the legitimacy of the referendum is certainly questionable, due to the involvement of the same global Neo-fascist alliance that elected Donald Trump.

You seem to be fond of democracy, but dislike outcomes which are not what you think people should vote like.

Instead of learning from what happened, you question the „legitimacy“.

This is not very logical. You play into the hands of the nationalists in Europe by saying you will ignore unfavorable vote outcomes as „illegitimate“. Because it means the EU is a one-way door and you can only vote for it, otherwise you are doing something wrong.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

You seem to be fond of democracy, but dislike outcomes which are not what you think people should vote like.

Instead of learning from what happened, you question the „legitimacy“.

This is not very logical. You play into the hands of the nationalists in Europe by saying you will ignore unfavorable vote outcomes as „illegitimate“. Because it means the EU is a one-way door and you can only vote for it, otherwise you are doing something wrong.

Here is the thing, part of the reason that this entire Brexit thing is stalled is the current investigation on Brexit itself. Especially since Russia's intelligence service has been making serious headlines over the last few years.

Also, an informative video on the situation:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3_I2rfApYk[/youtube]

[Zaune]

You seem to be fond of democracy, but dislike outcomes which are not what you think people should vote like.

Instead of learning from what happened, you question the „legitimacy“.

This is not very logical. You play into the hands of the nationalists in Europe by saying you will ignore unfavorable vote outcomes as „illegitimate“. Because it means the EU is a one-way door and you can only vote for it, otherwise you are doing something wrong.

Considering that there's some evidence that the Leave side of the debate has violated the campaign spending cap and possibly accepted money from a foreign government to do so, there's a bit more to the accusation of illegitimacy than sour grapes. If there's any lesson to be learned from this referendum it's about the need to demand a minimum standard of intellectual honesty from our press, backed up with the force of law and substantial penalties for malfeasance, so that people can make an informed choice based on accurate information.

[K. A. Pital]

The public perception is that unelected Eurocrats would be trying to overturn a people’s vote.

If we go down that road, the arguments need to be seen and accepted by the same population that voted Leave.

Otherwise... see above for how it will be perceived.

I mean, the government can overturn results which originated from a rule violation, but the evidence bar must be set high. In any case this is more of a hypothetical, May or Conservatives in general will never risk canceling Brexit, I am afraid.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yes- the legitimacy of the referendum is certainly questionable, due to the involvement of the same global Neo-fascist alliance that elected Donald Trump.

You seem to be fond of democracy, but dislike outcomes which are not what you think people should vote like.

Instead of learning from what happened, you question the „legitimacy“.

This is not very logical. You play into the hands of the nationalists in Europe by saying you will ignore unfavorable vote outcomes as „illegitimate“. Because it means the EU is a one-way door and you can only vote for it, otherwise you are doing something wrong.

Only when the legitimacy is actually in question.

Rather than insinuating that I am a hypocrite/closet authoritarian, trying to derail yet another topic with personal attacks on me rather than upon my arguments, why don't you actually explain why you feel the Brexit vote is legitimate? Or do you so lack faith in the strength of your ideas, that you must attack the speaker rather than the argument?

[K. A. Pital]

I did not say you are a closet authoritarian. I actually respect you as a well-meaning individual.

What I meant is that unless you can change the minds of the population, an attempt to overrule the results as illegitimate would be seen as an authoritarian act.

The problem is not in the legitimacy as such, but - by now - in the perceptions.

[The Romulan Republic]

I did not say you are a closet authoritarian. I actually respect you as a well-meaning individual.

What I meant is that unless you can change the minds of the population, an attempt to overrule the results as illegitimate would be seen as an authoritarian act.

The problem is not in the legitimacy as such, but - by now - in the perceptions.

I think there are two separate issues here, then:

1. We need to become better at counting Alt. Reich propaganda, winning over the hearts and minds of those who do not share our views.

2. We need to undertake reforms to ensure that the views of the people as they currently are are counted fairly.

[Zaune]

I did not say you are a closet authoritarian. I actually respect you as a well-meaning individual.

What I meant is that unless you can change the minds of the population, an attempt to overrule the results as illegitimate would be seen as an authoritarian act.

The problem is not in the legitimacy as such, but - by now - in the perceptions.

Considering the likely consequences if we don't overrule the results, I would honestly consider that an acceptable trade-off. The credibility of British democracy will be in the toilet anyway at the rate we're going; contemplating what to do when my insulin runs out or my neighbours get hungry enough to turn on each other certainly hasn't done anything to improve my respect for it.