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

[fresh_42]

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.

I start to see where we differ.

I do indeed think that going to school and receive an education is a public duty,
as it is to inform about political decisions and laws.
Politics should obey the same rules as any advertising company has to.

I have a different understanding of what are the duties of a state. O.k. you are a libertarian, which in my eyes is nothing else as anarchy, and you may be of this opinion. Having another doesn't make my state model a dictatory.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

I'm not sure but I'm thinking you aren't seeing that I'm harshly judging the side I disagree with in that post. The attitude I state is my collective perception of the majority opinion here, laid in stark terms, and I do not agree with it. It's a caricature.

 

[Orodruin]

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

I see nothing in your quote that makes the misinformed people dumb. I do not think it is a fine hair to split. Rather, becoming misinformed is very easy even for smart people due to things such as confirmation bias. ”You must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest one to fool”.

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.

No, this is your inference. I have never said or thought anything like this, nor is it a logigal inference from what I have said.

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.

3. They have been systematically exposed to different information. This has nothing to do with being dumb, it just has to do with different environment and exposure to differing world views and information. Your two options are really only exhaustive if you assume that everyone has the same background.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

Then I'm thoroughly confused. A free press is what we have. You're saying it has failed, but then you also used a government run propaganda machine as your example of the failure. Your example is evidently the opposite of your point.

So please be explicit: rather than just saying the people are uneducated/unqualified, say who should rectify that and how it should be rectified.

My issue here is that in my perception you are arguing with reverse innuendo rather than explicitly stating what you mean.

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.

So again: how should that be made to happen? Again: a free press we have. It isn't working. So how does that get fixed?

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.

I can't parse that: how can bold face letters be intended to hide anything? Isn't that the opposite of what bold is for?

 

[russ_watters]

I see nothing in your quote that makes the misinformed people dumb. I do not think it is a fine hair to split. Rather, becoming misinformed is very easy even for smart people due to things such as confirmation bias. ”You must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest one to fool”.

I suppose we just have different definitions of smart/dumb then. In my view, not recognizing facts and logic makes one less intelligent regardless of the [internal] reason why. I'm judging the outcome, not the mechanism. Also worth pointing out, I fulfilled your request to provide examples where the others in the thread on the "anti" side used synonyms of the word "dumb" to describe the "pro" side. So I submit that I am accurately using the word per convention in the thread.

3. They have been systematically exposed to different information.

...Your two options are really only exhaustive if you assume that everyone has the same background.

My options assume the same information*. Please explain how in today's day and age people can be "systematically exposed to different information" without choosing to be.

*My options do not assume the same background. Indeed, background is the primary reason why two people can make intelligent judgments with different conclusion: they have different values.

 

[fresh_42]

Then I'm thoroughly confused. A free press is what we have. You're saying it has failed, but then you also used a government run propaganda machine as your example of the failure. Your example is evidently the opposite of your point.

My example was a direct answer to a question about how people can be influenced and directed in a specific direction. Where did I say the free press fails? The school education is the weak point, which is the necessity to make use of the press.

So please be explicit: rather than just saying the people are uneducated/unqualified, say who should rectify that and how it should be rectified.

I think we have to spent a lot more effort in school education. As long as people make their voting decision dependent on what is printed in The Sun (or heard on Fox News in the US), as long do we have a problem. Our goal has to be that we enable people by education to read the NYT (or an equivalent newspaper of your preferred opinion). I meant this by qualification: Not to be satisfied with an argument by authority. Doubt instead of belief.

I can't parse that: how can bold face letters be intended to hide anything? Isn't that the opposite of what bold is for?

Nope. It is shouting and grays out the rest. It says: 'This statement is true!' no matter of context, the rest, and regardless of evidence.

 

[Mark44]

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

And the smaller political subdivisions mean that the constituents are much closer to the politicians who represent them.

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

I can empathize with the UK farmers who struggled with the mountains of regulations that came from the faceless bureaucrats in Brussels. Furthermore, the EU Constitution is problematic, both in its length and its complexity. Per this article, https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/hard-look-european-constitution, the EU constitution is 70,000 words, or 15 times as long as the US Constitution, which fits in a small booklet that can easily fit in one's shirt pocket. The complexity arises in its murky delineation of powers vested in the Union versus those of the individual countries. Quoting from the EU Constitution, it also states that

in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence the Union shall act only if and insofar as the objectives of the intended action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.

From the linked article, "That sentence suggests that Brussels might exercise some competence outside its exclusive authority if some undefined body decides that the EU could do it better than a member state."

 

[russ_watters]

I start to see where we differ.

I do indeed think that going to school and receive an education is a public duty,
as it is to inform about political decisions and laws.

...but you worded that blandly. It's not just "inform about political decisions", it's pushing people toward correct decisions, isn't it? You believe, in part, that people voted for Brexit because the government didn't properly educate them (directly or indirectly) about it being a poor decision, right?

...and then you used a government propaganda campaign as a counterexample. I see that as a contradiction.

Politics should obey the same rules as any advertising company has to.

Yes, on that we very much differ. That's a Government Truth Authority that Goebbels would certainly approve of.

I have a different understanding of what are the duties of a state. O.k. you are a libertarian, which in my eyes is nothing else as anarchy, and you may be of this opinion. Having another doesn't make my state model a dictatory.

To be frank, I'm not sure you're seeing the dictatory potential. When it comes to freedom of speech and the press, it's not so much a slippery-slope as an all-or-nothing proposition. I suggest thinking about the nuts-and-bolts of how such things would or could work in practice. Can you think about how you might apply, specifically, advertising-type regulations to political speech?

 

[Orodruin]

My options assume the same information*. Please explain how in today's day and age people can be "systematically exposed to different information" without choosing to be.

This is the entire point, why did they choose to be exposed to different information in the first place? Well, people have different backgrounds and histories (this has nothing a priori to do with values, values are only part of this). Anyone can go look at the CNN or FoxNews webpages, but persons who has grown up in different environments may have radically different views on these two news agencies. They have access to the very same information, sure, but that is only one half of the equation.

Also, given directed advertising and marketing in social media of today, I think it is rather naive to thing that everybody is exposed to the same information.

 

[Orodruin]

Nope. It is shouting and grays out the rest. It says: 'This statement is true!' no matter of context, the rest, and regardless of evidence.

I must say that I also agree with this. Putting bold statements into a text LOOKS MUCH LIKE USING ALL CAPS to me. My preference for emphasis is italics.

 

[russ_watters]

This is the entire point, why did they choose to be exposed to different information in the first place? Well, people have different backgrounds and histories...

Ok...we agree here. But why does this matter? If I say 1+1=3, does it matter if I had a bad math teacher or if I just didn't learn it correctly? Either way, I'm doing the math wrong.

Also, given directed advertising and marketing in social media of today, I think it is rather naive to thing that everybody is exposed to the same information.

You skipped the second half of the quote. And I even toned-it down to italics instead of bold because of a prior complaint. I'll rephrase to combine them, but I'm going back to bold: everyone has access to the same information.

 

[russ_watters]

I must say that I also agree with this. Putting bold statements into a text LOOKS MUCH LIKE USING ALL CAPS to me. My preference for emphasis is italics.

You skipped the second half of the quote. And I even toned-it down to italics instead of bold because of a prior complaint. I'll rephrase to combine them, but I'm going back to bold: everyone has access to the same information.

Lol, cross-posted. Yes, I specifically choose to use bold when I think there is a risk an important piece of a statement will be skipped, as it was in this case. Yes, I am indeed intending it to be louder, like caps.

 

[Orodruin]

Ok...we agree here. But why does this matter? If I say 1+1=3, does it matter if I had a bad math teacher or if I just didn't learn it correctly? Either way, I'm doing the math wrong.

You skipped the second half of the quote. And I even toned-it down to italics instead of bold because of a prior complaint. I'll rephrase to combine them, but I'm going back to bold: everyone has access to the same information.

Politics is not math, there is no ultimate truth. Even if everybody has access to the same information, it is not equivalent in terms of accessibility. Every single time you search on Google you are being presented with biased results. Every time you go to your Facebook feed, you are being presented with biased information. It does not really matter if I could technically access the information if that information is not presented in an equivalent way.

You skipped the second half of the quote.

I read it just fine, I just skipped it in the quote. (Note that I did comment on the relation to values.)

 

[russ_watters]

Politics is not math, there is no ultimate truth.

Respectfully, I don't think you are arguing on the side you think you are here. The prevailing view in this thread is - in my perception - that Brexit is objectively bad -- and if people were less stupid, better educated, less gullible (not my characterizations), they would have made the objectively true/better choice.

I read it just fine, I just skipped it in the quote.

Well you paraphrased it incorrectly, specifically with regard to the part you omitted. The qualifier is critical to the difference between "access" and "exposure". Or to equate them with the qualifier: choosing to access = exposure.

 

[fresh_42]

...but you worded that blandly. It's not just "inform about political decisions", it's pushing people toward correct decisions, isn't it?

No. Providing a data base upon which they can make their decision. I can expect employees to not lie to me, and government consists of employees. Information and facts can be expected.

You believe, in part, that people voted for Brexit because the government didn't properly educate them (directly or indirectly) about it being a poor decision, right?

See the picture of the bus. They lied, and yes, this should be sueable. Coca Cola is not allowed to!

...and then you used a government propaganda campaign as a counterexample. I see that as a contradiction.

Why? That was an example of a regime we do not want to have. Parties can make propaganda, government should not.

To be frank, I'm not sure you're seeing the dictatory potential. When it comes to freedom of speech and the press, it's not so much a slippery-slope as an all-or-nothing proposition. I suggest thinking about the nuts-and-bolts of how such things would or could work in practice. Can you apply, specifically, advertising-type regulations to political speech?

Sorry. We prefer to learn from our history and forbid excesses as in the Goebbels video. And, yes, I do not want to see something like the KKK on our streets again. The all part ends where it aims to take away the all part from others. Yes, that is a difference between the US and Europe, or especially Germany. Honestly? I felt far more personal freedom in Russia and do here, than at any moment in the states. I think the free speech thing in the US is folklore. You tend to see a country in the US which doesn't exist. Freedom of expression? That's ideology. As of today: someone sued the NFL for the halftime show. Super freedom that you have there.

 

[russ_watters]

No. Providing a data base upon which they can make their decision.

But you believe that Brexit is objectively bad, don't you? So "their decision" is really just the one declared correct decision, isn't it?

See the picture of the bus. They lied, and yes, this should be sueable. Coca Cola is not allowed to!

Can you cite a specific lie that you would have a government agency quash?
[edit]
I'm going to bed, so I'll put a finer point on it: clear-cut lies are actually not the norm in politics because most of what politicians say, particularly in support of a new policy, is promises and predictions. Promises can be lies, but they can't be proven ahead of time to be lies. Predictions can be found to be wrong later, but they can't be lies and they are hard to be shown ahead of time to be unrealistic.

Why? That was an example of a regime we do not want to have. Parties can make propaganda, government should not.

Because government policing the media to control the message is functionally the same as government-made propaganda. It's modern Russia as opposed to Nazi Germany.

Sorry. We prefer to learn from our history and forbid excesses as in the Goebbels video.

In the US we prefer not to have government interfering in media rather than just having a controlled level of government coercion of the media.

And, yes, I do not want to see something like the KKK on our streets again. The all part ends where it aims to take away the all part from others. Yes, that is a difference between the US and Europe, or especially Germany. Honestly? I felt far more personal freedom in Russia and do here, than at any moment in the states. I think the free speech thing in the US is folklore. You tend to see a country in the US which doesn't exist. Freedom of expression? That's ideology. As of today: someone sued the NFL for the halftime show. Super freedom that you have there.

That is so twisted. You cite specific examples where freedom is restricted in Europe but not in the US and then try to turn it around that the US doesn't have the freedom. No:

• Freedom is freedom.
• Control is control.
• Controlled correct message is not freedom, it's control.

What bothers me most about this view is the lack of self-awareness. It's fine that you think that some messages are too dangerous to be allowed to exist. I get the history and I get the risk of letting it come back. But you should be self-aware enough to recognize that that's a restriction, not a freedom.

 

[Orodruin]

Respectfully, I don't think you are arguing on the side you think you are here. The prevailing view in this thread is - in my perception - that Brexit is objectively bad -- and if people were less stupid, better educated, less gullible (not my characterizations), they would have made the objectively true/better choice.

You are the one who raised a math analogy, not me. The problem is one where you have Brexit voters quoting reasons for their vote where expert opinion and consensus is that Brexit will actually work against that result. If the vote is a correctly informed vote based on opinion, that is a different thing entirely. The problem with democracy is that such a setting is an unachievable ideal. You will always have people who’s opinion matters more simply because of their power to influence others (be that for social, economic, or other reasons) so a true democracy where everybody votes based on their own opinion formed solely from facts is unachievable.

Edit: Also, more specifically, a problem of the Brexit referendum was that nobody could know what they were viting for since the terms of the withdrawal were not set. While ”staying in” was a well defined option (status quo), ”leaving” was mixture of all possible manners of leaving. Information wise, this also provided the Brexit campaign with the advantage of tailoring their message to the audience, which they did with great success.

 

[fresh_42]

But you believe that Brexit is objectively bad, don't you?

No. In my opinion it is wrong, i.e. according to my values. However, I claim that the British public wasn't optimal informed and the Brexiteers told a lot of lies. The decisions have been made by feelings, so my impression, not by reasons. Who failed? Of course the pro fraction as they seemingly didn't succeed in displaying those lies. In the end too many people simply relied on the polls and thought nothing would happen since the others would have gone voting. As a consequence, not enough pro people voted. This is a common phenomenon in our democracies.

Can you cite a specific lie that you would have a government agency quash?

I don't think so. The lies came from those who were allowed to. That they haven't been contradicted was the failure, i.e. a lack of information, not a wrong information from the government side. People fell for those lies. And that is a failure of education in my mind - school education.

Because government policing the media to control the message is functionally the same as government-made propaganda.

Agreed. So? I want governments to inform correctly, not to control the media. And this is what usually happens in our democracies:

• laws have to be published
• governments run statistic offices
• treaties and contracts are public
• big donations have to be announced
• parliament sessions are public

In the US we prefer not to have government interfering in media rather than just having a controlled level of government coercion of the media.

And again you assume something I haven't said at all! The media can pretty much print whatever they want here, with a few exceptions concerning the Third Reich. Yes, that is a restriction. You should be fine with that, since it is a measurement to ensure the sacrifice of those who fought for our freedom of today wasn't in vain.

But you should be self-aware enough to recognize that that's a restriction, not a freedom.

We are. And we have independent courts. It is the price we have to pay. And it's cheap. Some idiots aren't allowed to publicly claim idiotic statements in case they intend to manipulate the masses. I consider this as a rule of respect, not as a restriction of freedom. Yes, it is a restriction for some idiots. I don't mind. Better than the alternative.

You cite specific examples where freedom is restricted in Europe but not in the US ...

One example.

... and then try to turn it around that the US doesn't have the freedom.

So? This is not a contradiction. In the US you just ban other subjects. And in my mind more than we do here. It's a problem to be a Nazi in Germany - not as much as I would prefer, but a bit - whereas it is obviously not in the US. But your song about free speech is ridiculous: ask Kaepernick, Fonda and the tribes living in the Standing Rock Indian Reservation. It might have a different color and different reasons, but the result is even worse in my opinion.

 

[WWGD]

Yes, explicitly and implicitly:No there isn't. It's a very thin hair to split. And here's why:

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.

I don't know if you're including me here. All I can say is that my informal sample of both led me to the impression that Brexiters were overall less informed , not dumber. Wht? Because I saw many of their claims repeatedly effectively rebutted, from the claim of saving £350 million in healthcare costs by leaving ,that the EU was undemocratic and claims that their ( British) interests were not represented to claims that the EU was forcing immigrants upon the UK. In addition to not addressing at least the possibility that the EU may have been at least part of the glue that kept Europeans from going at war with each other periodically. Or that they would not, with 66 million population , likely be able to negotiate deals as good as if they were part of a block of some 500 million and $20T GDP. Or see them claim the EU had been a complete failure. I can't guarantee my judgement was completely unbiased but I think my point is defensible, whether leavers benefit or not. I never claimed nor believed they were dumb.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

As I mentioned previously, there's a strong selection effect that people accept evidence that supports their own preconceptions and ignore the opposing evidence. In this case the preconceptions were amplified by influences such as nationalist and racist propaganda, and much of the evidence was at best misleading and in many cases outright lies (on both sides). One of the big problems is that if someone gives the appearance of having a lot of authority, then the truth of their statements is less likely to be questioned.

One thing that does appear to be generally true is that people who are more likely to be concerned about potential issues and to ask questions were also more likely to vote Remain. I have noted that if you ask those who vote Leave about many of the more controversial issues, such as Northern Ireland, they either simply don't care or they assume that the politicians will sort it out.

The referendum was totally non-specific about what it meant to "leave" the EU, so it was in effect more like a poll on customer satisfaction with what we were getting from the EU with only two options "fine" and "not fine". The referendum was clearly described in advance as "advisory, not binding", so people felt free to express their frustrations. It should never have been taken as the last word based on such a marginal result.

A retrospective attempt to get the referendum nullified and re-run because of illegal violations of campaign spending limits by the Leave campaign failed specifically because the referendum was only "advisory":
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44856992

Recent statements by Boris Johnson (and Dominic Raab) have revealed a new aspect of what he personally meant by "Leave". Despite having previously agreed with the EU position that trade without tariff and quotas requires a "level playing field", Boris has reportedly recently said the following:

"There is no need for a free trade agreement to involve accepting EU rules on competition policy, subsidies, social protection, the environment, or anything similar any more than the EU should be obliged to accept UK rules"

This is from:
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-close-alignment-eu-rules-boris-johnson-trade

As the EU has always stressed that free trade within the EU and with existing partners requires alignment with the existing standards and rules, this statement seems to make it impossible to reach agreement. It also makes very little sense; if the EU were to try to export anything to the UK that did not comply with UK standards, I'm sure that we would insist on them accepting our rules.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Has anybody else referenced "too dumb to vote

Yes, explicitly and implicitly:

Strictly speaking that's not true. I think the proposed remedy - certainly the one proposed by the Liberal Democrats (a major political party, or at least they were before the last elections) was to vote again, presumably until they got the right answer. Then they could stop.

There is some precedent to this - Ireland in 2008.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

I'm less concerned about gullible voters than about blatant misinformation. That statement on the side of the bus saying we send the EU £350 million a week was never anywhere near true, and the government's own statistics proved it. That would have been our cost of membership before substantial rebates (which are applied before sending anything) and totally ignoring any benefits which we received in return, including EU financial subsidies, even before counting the indirect benefits in free trade, shared resources and so on.

 

[PeroK]

I think the proposed remedy - certainly the one proposed by the Liberal Democrats (a major political party, or at least they were before the last elections) was to vote again, presumably until they got the right answer. Then they could stop.

The idea was more to confirm that the country wanted the Brexit that was on offer. In some ways it was no different from any two-stage process like selling your house (putting it on the market does not commit you to accept the first or even the best and final offer). I thought it was logical and democratic to throw it back to the people to decide. The idea, however, never seemed to gain any momentum. The Labour Party put this in their manifesto. I.e. a second referendum.

The Liberal Democrats proposed simply to cancel Brexit (by revoking article 50).

The mood of the country generally seemed to be: we had the referendum on Brexit and it was then up to Parliament to determine how to do Brexit, with no more referendums. When eventually Parliament was deadlocked, there was a General Election. Then it was back to Parliament, although this time with a decidely pro-Brexit Government (which we hadn't had before).

In this respect, I would say, Parliament has eventually fallen in line with the Brexit majority:

2016: All major parties opposed Brexit

201`7: A previously Remain Prime Minister and a divided Government and divided Parliament

2020: A Brexit PM, Brexit Government and Brexit-supporing Parliament.

That's why there is no going back now.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

The Brexit-supporting parliament is largely another manifestation of Boris's excessive power. If it had not been for Tory MPs joining the vote against Boris, we would already have had the chaos of an unprepared hard Brexit back in October. And he expelled them from the Tory party for that! Some of them were re-admitted after supporting his Brexit withdrawal deal, and others stood down as MPs.

 

[Orodruin]

I think the proposed remedy - certainly the one proposed by the Liberal Democrats (a major political party, or at least they were before the last elections) was to vote again, presumably until they got the right answer. Then they could stop.

My emphasis.
This was never the idea as far as I understand. The entire point was to have a confirmatory vote on the final withdrawal agreement precisely because "Brexit" was not well defined in the referendum. The vote would (unlike the referendum) be binding and pre-approved by parliament (but subject to a positive outcome of the confirmatory vote).

 

[epenguin]

And the smaller political subdivisions mean that the constituents are much closer to the politicians who represent them.
I can empathize with the UK farmers who struggled with the mountains of regulations that came from the faceless bureaucrats in Brussels. Furthermore, the EU Constitution is problematic, both in its length and its complexity. Per this article, https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/hard-look-european-constitution, the EU constitution is 70,000 words, or 15 times as long as the US Constitution, which fits in a small booklet that can easily fit in one's shirt pocket. The complexity arises in its murky delineation of powers vested in the Union versus those of the individual countries. Quoting from the EU Constitution, it also states that
From the linked article, "That sentence suggests that Brussels might exercise some competence outside its exclusive authority if some undefined body decides that the EU could do it better than a member state."

For information, the principle you quote here is known as 'subsidiarity'. There had been indeed objections to what was perceived as an arrogation of powers to 'Brussels'.

You cannot contest that there are perfectly good reasons for tackling many problems at the level of the European Union. Climate and other environmental issues for instance or fisheries. Climate does not stop at national barriers, nor do fish. Talking about fish, in today's world individual European countries are little fish in the field of trade agreements, currency, and indeed foreign and defence policy - and science. It makes sense that it can act as a Union in such fields and a long list of others. In some of these fields it has been undoubted success story e.g. trade and science. (though of course as soon as you say anything like that there is somebody who comes along to say they object to this thing, that thing is not perfect, the other thing was done wrong. Apparently when you run the affairs of whole continent some things are not perfect, or at least not everybody agrees they are. Whaddayaknow?)

Anyway because of these objections or fears, the principle of subsidiarity, that only things that need to be run/decided at European level and not lower level are to be so run/decided was introduced. Every piece of European legislation or regulation now contains paragraphs setting out the reasons for which European level is appropriate.Every judgement of the European Court of Justice contains a paragraph setting out why it is the competent court. (In most cases this is pretty obvious. From time to time they rule that they are not the competent court for the issue brought before them.)

We seem however to be set for explosions to take place in some of the above-mentioned fields e.g. fisheries and trade as the two sides UK and EU now square off before a a maybe final agreement in a year or so's time.

If you find the European Constitution 'murky' that may be because there isn't one! There was an attempt to create one but it did not get through referendums (your citation is previous to that) and in its place there are treaties which are indeed (and deliberately) murky for the non-lawyer. However the setup contains plenty of perfectly clear elements (well apparently! ) such as the European Charter of Rights https://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf

I have heard before your holding up as an example the American Constitution, e.g. an article in the Economist when the EU Constitution was being discussed held up the US one as model to be followed. Johnson is saying the same thing around now (We don't need no Constitushun!). He was arguing the other day we don't need EU rules and standards on environment, maternity leave or whatever because 'ours are better than yours '. I don't think there is a chance of persuading 27 different nationalities of legalistic-minded continentals to do without written rules, prescriptions and binding undertakings just because of Johnson's pretty face.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Back to the bus for a moment.

Why didn't Remain just paint their own buses with "It's more like 170M GBP, and we get a bunch of swell stuff for it?" In most elections in most countries I've seen, when one side says something misleading, the other side calls them on it, so the voters have heard both positions. What usually doesn't happen is that the other side holds on to it in their pocket to use later as a reason to doubt the election's legitimacy.

But suppose the 350 number were correct. Would a reasonable position by "At 170 Remaining makes sense but at 350 Remaining is too expensive?" If the answer is "no", then why complain about the bus message? If the answer is "yes", how can one then say that the position "At 100 Remaining makes sense but at 170 Remaining is too expensive, therefore I will vote Leave" is unreasonable and unjustifiable?

 

[Jonathan Scott]

Why didn't Remain just paint their own buses with "It's more like 170M GBP, and we get a bunch of swell stuff for it?"

The amount was not the issue. The whole idea of being able to just redirect our whole EU contribution to the NHS is so far from reality that attempting to argue with the detail is pointless. But the quoted fact was blatantly wrong, and even some of the Leave people were clearly embarrassed about it from the start.

 

[PeroK]

At least some of the money ought to go to Welsh farmers who voted leave and are now concerned they will lose their EU subsidies!

I saw an interview with some and it was priceless. They said they'd vote leave again tomorrow, but wanted assurances the UK governmebt would pay them equivalent EU subsidies.

 

[Orodruin]

I saw an interview with some and it was priceless. They said they'd vote leave again tomorrow, but wanted assurances the UK governmebt would pay them equivalent EU subsidies.

This reminds me of an interview with an elderly couple in a coal mining town in the US. They were happy that coal mining was going to come back with lots of jobs and that medicare was going to be removed. The man suffered severe chronic lung problems after working in the coal mine for all his life and was highly dependent on medicare for the medicines he needed to live.