Brexit: The DT Poll

[chzel]

I'm with Andrew and Spikebolt on the matter of referendums. If the common man can't have the whole and clear picture of a situation, and some understanding of the consequences of each choice, they are not qualified to decide on the matter. Might not be "perfectly democratic" but neither are so many things we accept and enjoy every day. And since referendum results are easily swayed by loud rhetorics and sentiments, they have even less value. Unless of course it's a huge difference (80-20 or thereabouts).
Our own referendum is prime example of stupidity at it's best. We were asked whether to accept an EU proposal that was no longer on the table, it was pitched by many as leave/stay, the result was 60% No, the government regarded the No as a motion to negotiate harder, and accepted the later and worse conditions. It was a stupid bluff that didn't work out, other than give the govt a carte blanche for the accepting EUs "proposals".

[Spikebolt]

So you anti-referendum guys have lots of respect and faith in the expertise and judgement of elected politicians?

I trust that they are capable or ordering the finest studies your country can afford and make an informed decision based on that. If even with the finest studies they can't make an educated decision how can the common, non-informed, people make that educated decision for them?

[fohat]

If even with the finest studies they can't make an educated decision how can the common, non-informed, people make that educated decision for them?

They don't make "decisions" at all.

They go by their emotions.

That is why the proper decision - almost always "the lesser of the 2 evils" - is so hard to get to.

[Halvar]

It's pretty safe to assume that referendums back then wouldn't have changed a thing!

I agree, I'm sure I would even have voted for the Euro in 1995, for all the wrong reasons.

[Muirium]

Politicians, bless them, aren't scientists, eagerly exploring the truth. Far from it. They each have a political axe to grind.

The idea that people would choose based on facts is pleasant, naive nonsense. We all have our desires, our gut instincts, and our prejudices. While none of us has a time machine to allow us to run the timeline twice to find "answers". History doesn't work that way.

I'd rather my vote counts equally with every other. In typical party elections, only swing districts matter. For years, my MP was a unionist, entirely against the one thing I desire most for my country. My vote literally did not enter into the parliamentary equation. But when we had our referendum, it did.

I'll take direct democracy over indirection, thank you.

[kbdfr]

I remember when in 1969 (yes, I am that old) French President de Gaulle started a referendum about regionalisation (i.e. giving regional entities more powers).
It was a quite uninteresting matter to most French citizens. De Gaulle’s party had just won (after the 1968 "big bang") a vast majority in Parliament, and he himself was very popular.

There was practically no doubt the referendum would be a success,
but to make sure, relying on his popularity he announced he would resign if it failed.

Guess what happened?
He lost by approximately 48% to 52%
mainly because the French did not appreciate the pressure put on them by his threat.

So in the end the "democratic vote about regionalisation" was anyything else than a democratic vote about regionalisation,
but rather a highly emotional vote with most voters having next to no clue what it was all about.

Of course any similarities to recent events are purely fortuitous

[Wodan]

I'll take direct democracy over indirection, thank you.

Let me know when they develop a system for direct democracy. Are we having weekly votes on all matters that come up?

There's better ways and an indirect democracy doesn't require your vote to be bundled into one local representative. The system we have here does have local representatives as well as a direkt majority vote for the lower house. Parties get their seats according to their national votes and directly elected local representatives are merged into that. There's some math involved but that's generally the idea. This means if your party doesn't get enough votes for a seat in the parliament on a national level but wins a local representative election, they will be sending this guy to the parliament.

On the other hand if your party has a 55% majority in the national votes and wins half the directly elected representatives seats, they will not get these seats on top but as a part of the seats they won through their 55% majority.

[Spikebolt]

Politicians, bless them, aren't scientists, eagerly exploring the truth. Far from it. They each have a political axe to grind.

The idea that people would choose based on facts is pleasant, naive nonsense. We all have our desires, our gut instincts, and our prejudices. While none of us has a time machine to allow us to run the timeline twice to find "answers". History doesn't work that way.

I'd rather my vote counts equally with every other. In typical party elections, only swing districts matter. For years, my MP was a unionist, entirely against the one thing I desire most for my country. My vote literally did not enter into the parliamentary equation. But when we had our referendum, it did.

I'll take direct democracy over indirection, thank you.

Politics is not science, of course. Politic is an art of balance that most people are unable to understand let alone master. Decisions like these weight heavily of several matters of the UK and Europe itself. Will the money the UK saves go towards the country or not? Apparently not even this simple question was made clear.

How can it be possible that a decision that affects these many million of lives inside and outside the UK can be made without evidence of improvement? Without facts, studies, projections? If facts are not a part of the equation then is it even relevant to ask for an opinion? Probably rolling a dice would net a cheaper result.

Democracy is great but I'm not sure yesterday's winner was democracy or ignorance.

[seebart]

So in the end the "democratic vote about regionalisation" was anyything else than a democratic vote about regionalisation,
but rather a highly emotional vote with most voters having next to no clue what it was all about.

Of course any similarities to recent events are purely fortuitous

I understand what you mean and that is an argument. Leaving certain decisions to politicians for fear of an "emotional vote" by emotionally motivated "blind" voters is an interesting premise, but having no voice / vote cannot be the solution. Joining the EU and "adopting" the Euro were major changes to daily life, not some remote concept.

[cookie]

Cameron gambled 2 years ago and it was a close shave, this time he gambled again and it massively backfired. He will be remembered as the man who lost Europe. As I said already, this referendum had by far the worst conditions!

You can't give an angry mob so much power and wonder if everything explodes.

[kbdfr]

[…] Joining the EU and "adopting" the Euro were major changes to daily life, not some remote concept.

Just to precise things: Germany did not "join" the EU, but concluded treaties with 5 other countries to (inter alia) found a common market. It was called the "European Community" and later became the European Union.
You could hardly have voted on it, it was 1957

[cookie]

I guess someone asked for a demographic graph:



Youngbloods wanted to stay, the Old-Farts wanted to leave.

[seebart]

It was called the "European Community" and later became the European Union.

That is correct, it slowly morphed into the behemoth that costs billions in self-administration and regulates petty lightbulbs and the likes.

[Redmaus]

...

[jbondeson]

I'm waiting for the "Last pre-Brexit GMK GB" that will pop up before UK customs starts getting their paws on the UK-Germany packages in a couple years.

[XMIT]

I'll be watching the GBP-USD exchange rate.

Many years, hobbies, and pounds ago, when I was a competitive cyclist, the £ was doing quite poorly. It was often cheaper to buy bicycle parts from sites like probikekit.co.uk and take advantage of the triple whammy of: cheap shipping to the US with Royal Mail, no duties on the items I purchased, and the hurting exchange rate.

Not that this helps at all with mailing keyboards the other way. Postage prices in USD - which are rising regardless - will be even more painful for GBP-paying folks if the market continues to slide.

I would have voted Remain. This is a sad day for international politics. Sorry guys.

[seebart]

Come on guys, whats so bad about wanting to regain your sovereignty?

Nothing at all, let's see how it goes.

[cookie]

I am afraid the UK will fail or the EU will fall apart. I can't see a scenario where both can succeed.

[chuckdee]

I guess someone asked for a demographic graph:



Youngbloods wanted to stay, the Old-Farts wanted to leave.

What are those last four categories?

[Halvar]

Come on guys, whats so bad about wanting to regain your sovereignty?

Right, it's gonna be HUUUUGE!

[kbdfr]

Come on guys, whats so bad about wanting to regain your sovereignty?

Sorry, but that’s really utter bullshit.
The mere fact that the UK conducted a referendum proves it had not in the least "lost its sovereignty".

Obviously there are enough people who take meaningless buzz words as arguments.

[cookie]

I guess someone asked for a demographic graph:



Youngbloods wanted to stay, the Old-Farts wanted to leave.

What are those last four categories?

It's the social grade: http://www.ukgeographics.co.uk/blog/soc ... -c1-c2-d-e

[seebart]

Come on guys, whats so bad about wanting to regain your sovereignty?

That in fact may have been a large part of the "blind emotional" Brexit vote in this case. The british pride for sovereignty.

[Muirium]

You could say that. For both English and Scots. In opposite directions!

[seebart]

You could say that. For both English and Scots. In opposite directions!

That's right Scotsman, this is your break from the Empire.

[BimboBB]

Come on guys, whats so bad about wanting to regain your sovereignty?

Sorry, but that’s really utter bullshit.
The mere fact that the UK conducted a referendum proves it had not in the least "lost its sovereignty".

Now they made sure, they will keep it. Nothing bad as well.

[Muirium]

The way the pound is going right now, that nothing has a high cash value for everyone in the country!

[rootwyrm]

I currently work for a large financial institution (I won't say which, but they are very large.) Almost every one of these with operations in the UK was betting money that it wouldn't happen. Or that the public will make a sudden about-face today and demand they stay in the EU and ignore the referendum. Because Cameron would just say "okay we'll negotiate harder."

I don't think there are words for how utterly fucked the UK is financially.

[Muirium]

Severed pig's head, with David Cameron's own cock in its mouth, kind of fucked?

There's words for everything when you try!

[seebart]

Regarding the "bets" only, there are probably more loosers than winners right now. The outside bet won. Big.