News BREXIT - more good than bad or more bad than good?

[russ_watters]

According to this poll from a few days ago, only 5% of voters feel they were lied to and 47% remain too dumb to be allowed to vote (though even much of the change may be due to voter turnout):
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...gainst-brexit-today-opinion-polls-suggest/amp

 

[fresh_42]

The solution is not "too dumb to vote". The solution has to be education and qualification. Unfortunately, this is not in the interest of certain political groups as can be seen these days.

 

[russ_watters]

The solution is not "too dumb to vote". The solution has to be education and qualification.

It would be a Goodwin's law violation for me to point out what's wrong with that.

[caveat: "qualification" is still "too dumb to vote"]

 

[fresh_42]

It would be a Goodwin's law violation for me to point out what's wrong with that.

[caveat: "qualification" is still "too dumb to vote"]

Choose another comparison though. What should be wrong to set people in a status where they actually can make qualified decisions? At least I have learned at school that this is a premise for democracies, or at least should be in theory.

 

[russ_watters]

Choose another comparison though. What should be wrong to set people in a status where they actually can make qualified decisions? At least I have learned at school that this is a premise for democracies, or at least should be in theory.

In the US, yes, qualifications for voting are anathema because by definition they require an authority's judgement. Historically they are used for discrimination/marginalization. And as we've seen in this thread, the authority can simply decide that anyone who disagrees with the authority is unqualified.

The Goodwin's Law thing was about the first part: people with wrong opinions require "re-education".

This issue has a nearly exactly 50/50 opinion split, which to me should mean "the other side" (whichever that is) should be respected as a real opinion. This isn't anti-vax or flat Earth!

 

[fresh_42]

Goodwin's Law?

It is the prototype (here) of an example in which a mass of people had been talked into a decision they would never have made if asked as a person. If you like, take this example from MIB:

Edwards: Why the big secret? People are smart. They can handle it.

Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.

 

[fresh_42]

And as we've seen in this thread, the authority can simply decide that anyone who disagrees with the authority is unqualified.

No, that is definitely not what I wanted to say. I only prefer a "facts on the desk" policy over a manipulative pseudo information. And yes, it requires a measure of truth. If this is impossible in your mind, that a fact cannot be verified as such, then the entire discussion is obsolete.

... wait a second 4th and long ...

 

[Orodruin]

According to this poll from a few days ago, only 5% of voters feel they were lied to and 47% remain too dumb to be allowed to vote

Has anybody else referenced "too dumb to vote" in this thread. There is a huge difference between misinformed and dumb. The problem is that, given the right channels to influence people, it is rather easy to do so - even to the point that you can get them to vote contrary to their own interests. Democracy is not infallible in any way or form, to quote Churchill:

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…

To me, the biggest problem with the Brexit referendum was not that people were stupid or dumb. The biggest problem was that there was no real option being offered, but rather a fluid notion sprinkled with a few promises of unicorns. The most reasonable argument for a confirmatory vote would have been that nobody knew what they were actually voting for in 2016, not because of being dumb but because it was completely unclear what Brexit would mean. "Brexit means Brexit" is the problem here, because there are many forms of Brexit and the lack of a definite one in the referendum meant that the Leave campaign could tailor their argument to any voter by changing the message regarding what form of Brexit was intended. The idea of a confirmatory vote was even proposed as possible step in the process by leading brexiters (until they won the referendum).

 

[PeroK]

In 2014 Scotland voted to remain in the EU.

In 2014 Scotland voted to remain in the UK (by 55%-45%). One major issue that the Independence movement faced was that Spain made it clear that they would veto an independent Scotland joining the EU(!). If Scotland had gone independent, it was very likely they would not have been allowed into the EU.

Ironically, the only way at that time for Scotland to stay in the EU was to stay united with England. But, then of course England voted to leave the EU anyway. Sometimes you can't win!

 

[Orodruin]

One major issue that the Independence movement faced was that Spain made it clear that they would veto an independent Scotland joining the EU(!). If Scotland had gone independent, it was very likely they would not have been allowed into the EU.

It should be mentioned that this was largely the result of the Spanish domestic independence movements, most notably in Catalonia. It was also a previous Spanish government (Spain has also had something like 4 general elections in as many years, much due to the emergence of new parties challenging the de facto two-party system). Scottish acceptance into the EU would surely not have been automatic, but it might have come around in time.

On the contrary, Donald Tusk (now unfettered as he has stepped down from being president of the European Council) recently said that the EU was likely to look favourably on an application for membership from Scotland if it were to become independent. Of course, it would still have to go through the regular application process, which in itself can take years if not decades.

 

[PeroK]

It should be mentioned that this was largely the result of the Spanish domestic independence movements, most notably in Catalonia. It was also a previous Spanish government (Spain has also had something like 4 general elections in as many years, much due to the emergence of new parties challenging the de facto two-party system). Scottish acceptance into the EU would surely not have been automatic, but it might have come around in time.

On the contrary, Donald Tusk (now unfettered as he has stepped down from being president of the European Council) recently said that the EU was likely to look favourably on an application for membership from Scotland if it were to become independent. Of course, it would still have to go through the regular application process, which in itself can take years if not decades.

It's too late now. The doubt over EU membership also left Scotland with no clear plan for a currency post-independence. In any case, Scottish independence needed certainty on the EU issue. I'm not saying the result would have been different, but without certainty on remaining part of Europe, Scottish independence was doomed.

 

[Vanadium 50]

n 2014 Scotland voted to remain in the UK (by 55%-45%)

Oops. I meant "UK".

 

[Vanadium 50]

The doubt over EU membership also left Scotland with no clear plan for a currency post-independence.

There is the Scottish Pound. It couldn't be any harder to spend one in London than it is now.

 

[Klystron]

On the subject of an informed citizenry, both @fresh_42 and @russ_watters, among other members, make valid points. Voters have a duty to educate themselves and each other to the best of their ability before casting votes. Voting remains a right and privilege of each citizen within a framework of reliable information.

For example, I have renewed digital subscriptions to the Washington Post and New York Times in addition to PBS and BBC news feeds anticipating the vital 2020 presidential election. I also read articles from The Guardian, San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Times, local and international news sources to stay informed. I plan to caucus with my neighbors later this month to help choose candidates for office.

Voting in the state I grew up in became quite difficult as more and more referendums saturated voter ballots. I remember studying over 25 pages of ballot information and dozens of public sources to decide a fresh water initiative among many where even the sponsors and principle opponents of the measure remained obscure.

While my current home state avoids much of that ballot expansion, we must vote for municipal judges and other local civil servants. Finding reliable information on these candidates remains very difficult, particularly when diverse candidates have similar names, leaving informed choice problematic.

Brexit, and Catalonia and Scottish independence movements remind me of historical attempts to separate California into smaller states, if only to improve representation at the state and federal levels and reform taxation.

[Edit 20200213: "The Guardian" should be "Reuters". While I read the some Guardian articles, Reuters appears in my news feed as a source for international news. Thanks.]

 

[fresh_42]

... to separate California into smaller states, if only to improve representation ...

The electoral college is a topic for its own ... Best thing I've ever heard was from TX. As I told a friend of mine that there are people in TX who want the state to leave the US, she replied: "Yes, but in that case, Austin will leave Texas."

It's currently not only the US and UK. National movements appeared in many other countries, too, and often won elections. As if nationalism had ever solved a single problem! However, it caused two world wars with countless deaths and further back in history, things don't look much better. People apparently have a strong desire for simplification, and nationalistic illusions are the simplest possible. I cannot believe that 8 billion people on only $150,000,000\, km^2$ land - of which great parts are inhabitable - allow simple or even local solutions anymore.

 

[StatGuy2000]

It's too late now. The doubt over EU membership also left Scotland with no clear plan for a currency post-independence. In any case, Scottish independence needed certainty on the EU issue. I'm not saying the result would have been different, but without certainty on remaining part of Europe, Scottish independence was doomed.

I frankly don't follow here. Why is it too late for the people of Scotland to choose to separate from the UK in another referendum, and (potentially) join the EU at this stage?

On the currency side, Scotland could, for example, adopt the UK pound sterling as a temporary currency, on the path of adopting the Euro.

It's also clear that there is far more openness among other EU countries in accepting Scotland as part of the EU, and Scotland could make a compelling argument that they have always wanted to remain in the EU and were essentially forced to withdraw against their will (thus reducing concerns from EU member Spain about how Scotland joining the EU could embolden separatist movements in Catalonia and the Basque Country).

 

[Vanadium 50]

As if nationalism had ever solved a single problem!

Other than ending the Thirty Years War, you mean.

(For some reason, this reminds me of "Apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?")

 

[fresh_42]

Other than ending the Thirty Years War, you mean.

(For some reason, this reminds me of "Apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?")

What has religion to do with it? Except you didn't mean 1618-1648.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I'm a fan of self-determination of smaller political subdivisions when they decide to do so in a democratic manner.

Otherwise, the size and scale of government only grows, and the larger polity may not appreciate the needs and unique features of smaller constituents.

"Let my people go."

 

[Vanadium 50]

Except you didn't mean 1618-1648.

I thought I did. What did I mean instead?

 

[fresh_42]

I thought I did. What did I mean instead?

The solution of this war was a draw and a freeze of a certain situation, not nationalism. There was simply nothing of value left to conquer. Nationalism in the form of imperialism has caused this war, or what had Swedish troops lost on German soil? And as usual: disguised as a religious problem. It was definitely not the solution.

The problem with nationalism is, that it doesn't stop at the own border. It always has had a component of national interests on foreign soil. It is not a concentration on own development, it is an aggression against all others. At least I haven't witnessed / learned otherwise. If it was "mind your own business", I would certainly have a different opinion, however, it isn't.

 

[DEvens]

According to this poll from a few days ago, only 5% of voters feel they were lied to and 47% remain too dumb to be allowed to vote (though even much of the change may be due to voter turnout):
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...gainst-brexit-today-opinion-polls-suggest/amp

Maybe you should check the bulb in your overhead projector.

There was a poll quite recently. It took the form of a general election. The remainers were invited to seek other employment. A non-trivial part of that is exactly the insulting attitude you display here.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

The solution of this war was a draw and a freeze of a certain situation, not nationalism. There was simply nothing of value left to conquer. Nationalism in the form of imperialism has caused this war, or what had Swedish troops lost on German soil? And as usual: disguised as a religious problem. It was definitely not the solution.

The problem with nationalism is, that it doesn't stop at the own border. It always has had a component of national interests on foreign soil. It is not a concentration on own development, it is an aggression against all others. At least I haven't witnessed / learned otherwise. If it was "mind your own business", I would certainly have a different opinion, however, it isn't.

Nationalism

1) identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations
2) advocacy of or support for the political independence of a particular nation or people

The 1st definition of nationalism suggests much more imperialism than the 2nd. Historically, order is often reversed in the forming (or reforming) of nations. First, nationalism supports the political independence of a particular nation or people. Often, sometime after political independence is obtained, financial interests promote imperialist policies often using nationalist propaganda as cover.

But there are enough counter-examples to show that strong imperialism does not always follow from strong nationalism. Costa Rica for example has strong nationalism - they highly value their political independence, their culture and their unique features and status among the nations. Yet it is hard to find the kinds of imperialist examples in their history that are so easy to find in the case of England, the US, Russia, or Mexico.

I think the challenge for most countries is how to accept strong nationalism that supports independence and identity without letting it serve as cover for undue influence in other countries. But isn't this simply the national scale of the same challenge at the personal level - How do I have my personal independence and unique identity without attempting to exert undue authority over other people?

 

[Vanadium 50]

The solution of this war was a draw

I - and most historians - was that the Peace of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years War, and created the modern nation-state. Specifically, that nations exercised exclusive sovereignty within their borders. That idea has sunk into such a degree that many folks can't imagine a time when this was not so. Remnants of pre-Westphalian thinking look quaint: Philippe is King of the Belgians, not King of Belgium.

 

[fresh_42]

I - and most historians - was that the Peace of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years War, and created the modern nation-state.

This must be a special kind of humor. Sorry, I don't get the joke. Here is how the region where the war took place looked like in 1,700 (and please compare it with the map at 1600):

https://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/1700/de_index.html

A few square miles of a principality doesn't make a nation.

 

[russ_watters]

I only prefer a "facts on the desk" policy over a manipulative pseudo information. And yes, it requires a measure of truth. If this is impossible in your mind, that a fact cannot be verified as such, then the entire discussion is obsolete.

I can't believe you could cite the Nazi-German propaganda machine and then still say such a thing. You're missing the entire point/lesson history has to teach us: government cannot be the one responsible for Truth.

 

[russ_watters]

Has anybody else referenced "too dumb to vote" in this thread.

Yes, explicitly and implicitly:

Because people are stupid and even worse: uniformed.

My understanding is that it is very well documented that most of the people who voted "leave" did NOT even begin to understand the implications, having been straight-out lied to by their politicians who promised that it would all be very simple and advantageous.

They've been getting a better understanding of it lately but it's too late.

There are some interesting statistical correlations with voting Leave or Remain. The most spectacular is with level of education (based on the proportion of graduates in the local electorate), in that areas with higher levels of graduates were far more likely to vote Remain...

So if anyone can come up with a scientific measure of gullibility for UK voters, I think there would be an even stronger correlation with voting Leave.

That doesn't take me wonder. The educated understand global economy...

This is obviously because the problems are real and the majority of better-educated people are indeed anti-Brexit...

There is a huge difference between misinformed and dumb.

No there isn't. It's a very thin hair to split. And here's why:

The problem is that, given the right channels to influence people, it is rather easy to do so - even to the point that you can get them to vote contrary to their own interests.

The problem with this view is that almost half the population made the "right" decision, so that means (if we follow the logic) there must be something in their mental makeup that makes them superior to those who made the "wrong" decision. They successfully saw through the misinformation when others with inferior makeup couldn't. There's really only two possibilities, and a razor-thin difference for those who couldn't see the "right" answer:
1. They aren't intelligent enough to come to the right conclusion.
2. Their biases are so strong they can't invoke their intelligence to reach the right conclusion.

What my - and I daresay @Vanadium 50's complaint is is that the very idea that the "pro Brexit" voters could have been making a correct decision for them doesn't seem to have occurred to the majority here -- even after he noted its absence! This is a breathtaking level of disrespect and condescension for the opposing view.

 

[fresh_42]

I can't believe you could cite the Nazi-German propaganda machine and then still say such a thing. You're missing the entire point/lesson history has to teach us: government cannot be the one responsible for Truth.

I can't believe how you manage to turn every statement of mine into its opposite meaning. The Goebbels quotation has been an example how a group of people can be manipulated to believe something they wouldn't as individual persons. It is basically nothing else than the definition of the term propaganda.

I did not say that government is responsible for truth, journalism is. A free press has to make sure that politicians don't get away with lies. This pressure has to be of a presence, that politicians don't have the chance to lie without being caught.

I did not claim that government is responsible for truth. However, in an open debate I do expect facts over lies, even from politicians. Otherwise their lies have to be exposed by the press.

I bet you you manage to turn these statements in any direction you want. And bold faced letters are certainly a good method to hide that you turned my statements upside down.

 

[russ_watters]

Voters have a duty to educate themselves and each other to the best of their ability before casting votes.

Yes, and my other half of the thought I want to emphasize: it is not the duty of government - indeed the government needs to be explicitly forbidden from it.

 

[russ_watters]

I cannot believe that 8 billion people on only $150,000,000\, km^2$ land - of which great parts are inhabitable - allow simple or even local solutions anymore.

I don't know how it works in other countries, but in the USA we have layers of government, because what matters to people is different at different levels of zoom. It is unreasonable and inefficient for the people of California to pay for and set the snow removal budget of Fargo, North Dakota. Not only are Californians ill equipped to judge, they would also almost certainly judge to cut the budget and apply it to their own projects, leaving Fargo buried.

On the global scale, we in the west don't want China making the rules for us. That's not unreasonable.