EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[richw]

But it's not about what is the case - it's about what people think is the case. When you have campaign material like this, what do you expect the effect was?

I hadn't see That map before. But it is safe to say Turkey won't be joining, as they don't meet the criteria restricting occupation of other EU bloc countries. They also wouldn't get unanimous approval to join. (It's been made clear many times unanimous approval is needed if UK wanted to join, or Scotland if they went alone). Never in our lifetime will Greece or Cyprus let turkey in.

Some of the reasons I've heard people say they voted out -
so they wouldn't have to put up with the football championships.
So we don't have to endure Eurovision (we have guaranteed ourselves nil points next year though!).
I've heard both from multiple people. Maybe we should take a sense test before being allowed a vote.

Despite the vote outcome from those who voted out, only 37% of those registered voted to leave.

 

[Gutfright]

Despite the vote outcome from those who voted out, only 37% of those registered voted to leave.

Which means that less than 37% voted to remain.

We have to assume that those who didn't vote were happy to go along with the wishes of the majority. We can hardly move the goalposts now and arbitrarily decide that 72% turnout is not high enough.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Which means that less than 37% voted to remain.

We have to assume that those who didn't vote were happy to go along with the wishes of the majority. We can hardly move the goalposts now and arbitrarily decide that 72% turnout is not high enough.

You keep ignoring the point...

 

[Gutfright]

You keep ignoring the point...

You mean that inane point you were making earlier that "the media" were misleading people so the result is invalid?

Because obviously all pro-remain newspapers were shut down, remain campaigners were banned from television, and a firewall was put up to block internet access to anything which might be considered pro-remain. We all remember that happening, don't we?

 

[Harbornite]

Let's face it, both campaigns were pretty bad; the leave campaign was happy to throw bullcrap around and the remain campaign failed to address it.

 

[Andyjs247]

To be honest there was a lot of lies and misinformation on both sides. It might be shutting the stable door so to speak but I see there is now a petition for an early day motion tabled for creating an independent regulatory authority! https://www.change.org/p/restore-tr...I&utm_source=petition_update&utm_medium=email Time to write some more letters people! (Example if you follow the link)

 

[Harbornite]

The referendum has revealed plebs on both sides of the debate. The people sending death threats to Farage should be ashamed. However you don't hear of remain voters actually carrying out actions against foreigners or leave voters. This is more than can be said for the idiotic brexiters who have been sending poorly-written threats to foreigners (which is quite ironic if you ask me). Here is the latest instance of this:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-36...e-Polish-family-leave-hate-filled-letter.html

These people are imbecilic and the country would probably be better off without them. (Note that I am not tarring all brexiters with the same brush)

 

[Domh245]

Let's face it, both campaigns were pretty bad; the leave campaign was happy to throw bullcrap around and the remain campaign failed to address it.

You can't win a campaign by saying that "Actually, we can't send an extra £350m a week to the NHS, and no, we won't be able to export all those immigrants"

I don't envy the poor mod who has to move these all to the correct thread

 

[Harbornite]

You can't win a campaign by saying that "Actually, we can't send an extra £350m a week to the NHS, and no, we won't be able to export all those immigrants"

I don't envy the poor mod who has to move these all to the correct thread

Which thread is that? Either way the point still stands and you shoul tell the truth, although what concerns me more is that some people didn't do any research and regretted their vote.

 

[Domh245]

Which thread is that? Either way the point still stands and you should tell the truth, although what concerns me more is that some people didn't do any research and regretted their vote.

The EU thread, this is the one about the conservative leader elections. And I agree with you, the truth should have been told, but it should have been an independent body that went and debunked all of Leave's misinformation (preferably on TV or in print media), so that remain could focus on all the benefits of EU membership. It's all well and good telling the whole truth, but that isn't what wins you votes.

As for your point about research, that is one of the reasons that I was an advocate of letting MPs vote on it instead of the British Public. Yes there may be issues that are of great importance, but the EU is such a massive behemoth that by "solving" one problem you create many others. I think it is also something of a sign of the failing of the British public to engage with political system, although, who can blame them when it is as bad as it is!

 

[Harbornite]

The EU thread, this is the one about the conservative leader elections. And I agree with you, the truth should have been told, but it should have been an independent body that went and debunked all of Leave's misinformation (preferably on TV or in print media), so that remain could focus on all the benefits of EU membership. It's all well and good telling the whole truth, but that isn't what wins you votes.

As for your point about research, that is one of the reasons that I was an advocate of letting MPs vote on it instead of the British Public. Yes there may be issues that are of great importance, but the EU is such a massive behemoth that by "solving" one problem you create many others. I think it is also something of a sign of the failing of the British public to engage with political system, although, who can blame them when it is as bad as it is!

You're wrong, this thread hasn't drifted off topic because it is about the referendum actually. The EU is a complex issue and maybe we would have been better off if MPs had voted, but only time will tell.

 

[TheKnightWho]

You mean that inane point you were making earlier that "the media" were misleading people so the result is invalid?

Because obviously all pro-remain newspapers were shut down, remain campaigners were banned from television, and a firewall was put up to block internet access to anything which might be considered pro-remain. We all remember that happening, don't we?

Inane? Something that you don't really want to answer for is not the definition of inane.

Playing off people's prejudices and fears is quite common. Are you saying it didn't happen, or is that just another inconvenient truth?

 

[Gutfright]

Inane? Something that you don't really want to answer for is not the definition of inane.

Playing off people's prejudices and fears is quite common. Are you saying it didn't happen, or is that just another inconvenient truth?

Some media sources may try to play off people's prejudices and fears, but that is not a good enough reason to abolish democracy.

 

[DarloRich]

When will the next general elections be held. Somewhere in 2020?!

Unless Parliament passes a motion of no confidence in itself before the expiry of the fixed term - there is no mechanism for the PM to call a "snap" election as of old.

 

[Geezertronic]

I can't believe this thread is still going

What it comes down to is a lack of public trust in the likes of Cameron and Corbyn as the leaders, especially since their past views on the EU (especially Corbyn) have been scathing. Johnson and Gove may have been seen as the more trustworthy option to take (which is scary in itself). Personally I don't trust any of them - both Labour and Conservative have done nothing for me personally and I am much less financially stable since 1997 as a result. So who would I vote for if a General Election was called? Not sure - there is no viable 3rd option so I would be caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.

Regardless of the referendum result, since Theresa May is going to become the next Prime Minister, it's all irrelevant anyway

 

[ExRes]

To be honest there was a lot of lies and misinformation on both sides. It might be shutting the stable door so to speak but I see there is now a petition for an early day motion tabled for creating an independent regulatory authority! https://www.change.org/p/restore-tr...I&utm_source=petition_update&utm_medium=email Time to write some more letters people! (Example if you follow the link)

Excellent idea, I've got homes in North Korea and Vatican City as well as here, how many letters can I write?

 

[ainsworth74]

Unless Parliament passes a motion of no confidence in itself before the expiry of the fixed term - there is no mechanism for the PM to call a "snap" election as of old.

Or if Parliament pass a motion to hold an early election with two thirds of all the seats voting in favour. Not neccessarily a 'snap' election but a motion of no confidence is not the only mechanism.

 

[Gutfright]

Further to recent discussion about whether the people of Britain are too stupid to be allowed to vote, I wonder if we are any better informed now in the internet age?

On one hand we have unlimited information and viewpoints at our fingertips. It's never been easier to research things for ourselves and we are a lot less reliant on newspapers and television to know what's happening in the world.

On the other hand, we are a lot less reliant on newspapers and television. When journalists make a false claim, they can be made to retract it and apologise. The same doesn't apply when someone shares or re-tweets something false on social media. I do despair when I see obviously made up claims on my Facebook feed which have been shared millions of times.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Further to recent discussion about whether the people of Britain are too stupid to be allowed to vote, I wonder if we are any better informed now in the internet age?

On one hand we have unlimited information and viewpoints at our fingertips. It's never been easier to research things for ourselves and we are a lot less reliant on newspapers and television to know what's happening in the world.

On the other hand, we are a lot less reliant on newspapers and television. When journalists make a false claim, they can be made to retract it and apologise. The same doesn't apply when someone shares or re-tweets something false on social media. I do despair when I see obviously made up claims on my Facebook feed which have been shared millions of times.

Being misinformed does not make people stupid.

Wilfully misinterpreting your opponents in order to smear them, on the other hand...

 

[Gutfright]

Being misinformed does not make people stupid.

Wilfully misinterpreting your opponents in order to smear them, on the other hand...

In the Internet age we have unlimited information at our fingertips, so there is less of an excuse for being uninformed.

If people choose to believe something, be it a dodgy "fact" provided by a politician or a Facebook post alleging that vaccines cause autism, without doing any research into the matter then surely they're being stupid?

 

[TheKnightWho]

In the Internet age we have unlimited information at our fingertips, so there is less of an excuse for being uninformed.

If people choose to believe something, be it a dodgy "fact" provided by a politician or a Facebook post alleging that vaccines cause autism, without doing any research into the matter then surely they're being stupid?

Because people are not perfectly rational. "Project Fear" was used to shoot down every bit of information that contradicted the narrative that Brexit would be good.

That doesn't make people stupid - it makes them human, and much of the time humans tend to believe what they want to believe.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Further to recent discussion about whether the people of Britain are too stupid to be allowed to vote, I wonder if we are any better informed now in the internet age?

I'm pretty sure no one has said anything remotely like the statement that I've bolded on this forum.

There has been an argument raised that complex decisions should be taken by our elected representatives - since those people are actually paid to spend time studying the issues - which very likely means that they have the time to devote to figuring out the likely consequences of different policy decisions. That is nothing like saying that people are too stupid to be allowed to vote. It really does not do you credit when you so badly distort the arguments of those who have different opinions to yours.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In the Internet age we have unlimited information at our fingertips, so there is less of an excuse for being uninformed.

If people choose to believe something, be it a dodgy "fact" provided by a politician or a Facebook post alleging that vaccines cause autism, without doing any research into the matter then surely they're being stupid?

You're confusing the action with the person. Reposting something without fact-checking it is very often unwise, and on occasions is arguably a stupid thing to do - particularly when the thing you're reposting is untrue or misleading. That doesn't make the person doing it 'stupid'. Very intelligent people can easily do stupid things on occasions.

 

[Geezertronic]

It is often difficult for the average Joe to distinguish internet fact from internet fiction. Just like the Amen posters and the amount of people who think that Facebook is either going to charge or make posts public, researching the internet can also be a bad thing especially if you think a "News" item from The Onion or similar satirical news site is real

 

[Mvann]

The problem is that a referendum is not a good idea for complex issues.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Further to recent discussion about whether the people of Britain are too stupid to be allowed to vote, I wonder if we are any better informed now in the internet age?

Having listened to a number of people interviewed by the media prior to the referendum, some indeed had no real understanding of what a vote to "Leave" actually entailed and were seemingly obsessed with some ideas that they had formulated from heavens knows where on matters they sincerely believed to be true.

People on internet forums seem to accept "the internet age" as the norm, but I would wager that many of those interviewed had not made any personal attempts to make any internet related research and in the case of some late middle-aged female shoppers at a market, could well come out with verbal gems such as...."Hilda in the hairdressers says all these immigrants are the cause of all our troubles"

Why did none of those charged with the interviewing in those market areas ask the question..."If the referendum result gives a majority to "Leave", do you think the price of food and other items will go up in price?"

 

[northwichcat]

could well come out with verbal gems such as...."Hilda in the hairdressers says all these immigrants are the cause of all our troubles"

Or worse than that - people were panic buying salt during the Cold War due to an incorrect rumour about where salt in the UK was sourced which started from a WI group.

 

[Johnuk123]

The problem is that a referendum is not a good idea for complex issues.

It would have been perfectly suitable if Remain had won.

 

[Gutfright]

The problem is that a referendum is not a good idea for complex issues.

Should we abolish voting in general elections for the same reason? There are a lot of complex things to consider in deciding who should be running the country.

 

[TheKnightWho]

It would have been perfectly suitable if Remain had won.

No it wouldn't. The argument "no you!" doesn't mean much.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Should we abolish voting in general elections for the same reason? There are a lot of complex things to consider in deciding who should be running the country.

Except we elect representatives to make the complex decisions for us. I know you think there's a dichotomy between "knows everything" and "knows literally nothing", but in the real world we elect representatives who have a plan of what they will do, and don't put power directly in the hands of people.

 

[Gutfright]

in the real world we elect representatives who have a plan of what they will do, and don't put power directly in the hands of people.

I know it's impossible for such a thing to ever happen in the "real" world in which you live, but...

What would happen in a crazy hypothetical world where we elect representatives who have promised to put power directly in the hands of the people? Say for example on planet Bizzarro a political party made a pre-election pledge to give the people a referendum on a certain matter? Would that be democratic or not?

Again, I know it's all fantasy. Nothing like that could ever happen in the real world. But it's an interesting thought experiment.