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

[mheslep]

According to : https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...6/23/brexit-exit-polls-dont-hold-your-breath/
there were no exit polls, so what polls are you referring to?

The several polls held frequently and regularly long before the election, some posted in this thread. There should be no (real) shock, at least not for poll watchers.

 

[mheslep]

I was listening to various interviews on the broadcast news. I'll see if I can find references in print.

More than anecdotes. They are testimonies of those who voted to leave and now regret that vote.

Apparently, many were angered after "Nigel Farage admitted on Good Morning Britain it was a "mistake" for the Leave campaign to claim the £350 million reportedly given to the EU each week would go to the NHS instead."

Meanwhile a sampling -

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/24/12024634/brexit-supporters-regret-vote
http://metro.co.uk/2016/06/24/peopl...leave-the-eu-heres-what-they-told-us-5965067/
http://www.people.com/article/brexit-voters-regret-uk-leave-eu

The petition for all those with second thoughts quickly flew past the 100,000 signatures needed to force a debate in Parliament. How many of those are those who voted to Leave vs those who voted to Remain, I don't know. Perhaps Cameron should have taken it more seriously and started negotiating on the Open Borders matter.

http://www.newsweek.com/brexit-leave-voters-wish-vote-remain-regret-eu-referendum-474306

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...extraordinary-moment-brexit-voter-changes-he/

And one which claims - more than a million regret voting to leave,
http://metro.co.uk/2016/06/26/more-than-a-million-people-regret-voting-leave-poll-shows-5968048/
but nearly 700,000 regret voting to remain.

There is no actual fair count of "nearly 700,000", as you well know there can not be a couple days later. There's been a poll by a polster who claims some 1000 people polled, a pollster who BTW was wrong on the referendum outcome, and who found a few dozen people expressed regret about leave.

"Apparently many were angered"? According to talking heads as guys on the street? I was angry Harry Reid was Leader of the Senate but that didn't get me on TV nor achieve a recount.

What possible conclusion do you draw from a petition collection in a country where 16 some million voters were on the losing side of a vote? Shall we poll Oakland, CA as to whether the good folks there think there should be redo of the NBA finals?

 

[jim hardy]

Good or bad it's got them talking in the halls of powerhttp://www.cfr.org/eu/media-call-brexit/p38089

[CFR President Richard Hass' opening remarks}
I think for the United States what this shows is the potential breadth and depth of disaffection against Washington. And we’ve seen it. We’ve seen a lot of this in the strength of the Sanders and Trump campaigns. We’re seeing opposition to quote-unquote traditional politicians. We’re seeing rejection of what had been decades of bipartisan support for free trade. We’re seeing, again, a streak of anti-establishmentism in our politics. So I think what this does is show that what is happening in the United States is by no means unique. I think Mr. Trump will probably take some satisfaction from today’s vote, not simply because he favored Brexit, but because the forces, the political and social and economic forces that put Brexit over the top, that put leave over the top, he will see as forces that are very close to his and Bernie Sanders’ base.

And I would think that Hillary Clinton’s campaign this is something of a warning not to underestimate the disaffection, not to underestimate also the political and economic nationalism, because the issues motivating Brexit were not just economic but they were also linked to society and they were also linked to immigration, and the real and perceive—or, more specifically, the perceived threats or dangers that stem from immigration. And the challenge for the Clinton campaign is going to be how to—how to deal effectively with those kind of populist and nationalist concerns. And I think that the next four and a half months in the United States are going, to some extent, be informed by the perceived lessons and the perceived messages coming out of the Brexit vote......
..........
[Haass's closing summation]
I’d also add one other thing, at the risk of being controversial. But I do believe that the Brexit vote raises and puts front and center the entire question of the role of referenda in democratic societies. And if you go back to the founding of the United States and you read the Federalist Papers, there was a lot of conversation about, if you will, direct democracy versus representative democracy. And the bias of the founders was towards representative democracy—hence the Senate, hence also the electoral college and so forth. And what I believe Brexit shows, to some extent, is the danger of deciding truly consequential, even historic issues through referenda.

And it’s one of the lessons that I hope is taken—it may not be—but it’s one of the lessons that I hope that is taken, that this ought not to be the way here in the United States that we take really big decisions. But I also understand that in saying that, that puts greater pressure on our existing representative institutions, above all our Congress, to act in a much more bipartisan, effective way. And the danger is if we continue the sort of gridlock we’ve seen in the last couple of days—be I the Supreme Court unable to act on immigration issues or the Congress unable to act on gun control issues—then I think it will simply increase popular frustration and people will look for alternatives to the traditional political process. Referenda are one such alternative. And what Brexit should do is warn us about the potential risks of going down that path.

Translation: The peasants are angry.. Beware of the ballot box .

At least they've noticed.

 

[russ_watters]

http://metro.co.uk/2016/06/26/more-than-a-million-people-regret-voting-leave-poll-shows-5968048/

That's funny (pathetically misleading) because it focuses on the number regretting voting to leave while waiting till the end of the article to point out that a lot also regret their votes to stay, making the outcome of the poll not implying a change in the result if the re-vote were today! Lol!

I don't have a chicken in this fight, but I must say I do enjoy watching people (journalists, especially) squirm to try to rationalize their way out of a reality they don't like!

 

[russ_watters]

...anecdotes. They are testimonies of people...

You just said the same thing twice.

 

[Pepper Mint]

In all of the elections worldwide, I find it amusing and amazing as to why the resulted percentage of votes usually falls into either 48% vs 52% or 49% vs 51%. I always expect it to be 10% vs 90% or 20%,40% vs 80%,60%. Such a number isn't persuasive enough for me as I never believe in true randomness, particularly when it concerns money, power and authorities.

 

[Buckleymanor]

So who is going to be obliged to trigger the article 50 divorce process then?, a referendum in the UK is not legally binding, it's considered as 'advisory', a govt still has to declare it as being the official policy of the govt.
Until such time as a new pm is appointed who announces this, nothing actually has changed.
For some reason I have not yet fathomed, the loudest proponents for 'leave', are now arguing that there is no rush to set the actual mechanism for departure in motion.

It is a question that could have some interesting outcomes.
Here is a commentators opinion on why nothing has changed and reminds me of the children's story about who is going to put the bell around the cat's neck.
I quote.
If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realizes that he has lost.

Perhaps many Brexiters do not realize it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.

With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.

How?

Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.

And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.

The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.

The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?

Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?

Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.

If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.

The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.

When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was “never”. When Michael Gove went on and on about “informal negotiations” ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.

All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.

Looks increasing likely the only person capable is George.

 

[EnumaElish]

Globally stock market lost about $2tn on the day following brexit. World market capitalization is in the order of $70tn. So it was an ~3% loss not adjusted for expectations. If brexit was expected with 33% probability then it's a 4.5% loss. If it was 50/50 it's a 6% loss. Either way it's significant but not (yet?) catastrophic.

 

[Vanadium 50]

There are two articles that I think people unhappy with the outcome should read. One is Megan McArdle's, where she says:

The inability of those elites to grapple with the rich world’s populist moment was in full display on social media last night. Journalists and academics seemed to feel that they had not made it sufficiently clear that people who oppose open borders are a bunch of racist rubes who couldn’t count to 20 with their shoes on, and hence will believe any daft thing they’re told...the dominant tone framed this as a blow against the enlightened “us” and the beautiful world we are building, struck by a plague of morlocks who had crawled out of their hellish subterranean world to attack our impending utopia.

Both Progressive movements, at the start of the 20th and 21st centuries, have had an anti-democratic streak: the masses should be ruled by a wise and benevolent technocracy. You are seeing a rebellion against this - the masses don't want to be ruled by this wise and benevolent technocracy (and for that matter, the wise and benevolent technocracy doesn't want the masses standing in the way of Progress) You are going to see more of this, and if Remain manages to swindle Leave out of their victory (e.g. having parliament refuse to leave), things will get ugly: Remain will have told Leave, "you have the right to vote - but only if you vote the way we tell you."

The other is Walter Russell Mead's, where he says

The torpid bureaucracies and dysfunctional political organizations of Brussels can’t deliver real solutions to Europe’s problems, but European nation states have given so many of their powers to the EU that in many cases they lack the ability to act when Brussels fails.

Mead brings up a very important point - the EU wants a totalitarian superstate (totalitarian in the descriptive sense - one in which the EU feels they can regulate anything they want to) but truth be told, they are not very good at it. It's not just that they are busybodies - it's that they are inept busybodies.

I write this as someone who doesn't have a dog in this hunt, but nevertheless think Remain would have been the wiser option.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

During the campaigns, the Vote Leave side never clearly stated what they meant by "Leave", and from recent reports in the news it's beginning to look as if they didn't even know, or deliberately promoted self-contradictory views.

For example, their position that it would save a significant amount of money would be valid if the UK also opted out of the single market. However, at the same time they were saying that the down side of leaving the EU could be minimised by remaining a member of the single market, for example like Norway, but Norway has to pay EU fees to be a member of the market. The same applies to various other areas, such as immigration, where they effectively claimed that the "right" people could still be allowed to move around freely while the "wrong" people would be stopped, yet examples demonstrated totally overlapping definitions of "right" and "wrong", essentially amounting to racism.

Anyway, when a Vote Leave MP was asked what the next step would be, the answer is "there is no plan. Leave campaign don't have a post Brexit plan, Number 10 should have had one".

http://metro.co.uk/2016/06/26/revealed-vote-leaves-exit-plan-after-eu-referendum-5968106/

I'm upset about the referendum because I'm convinced that most people who voted Leave did not do so for any realistic reason. Both from local conversations and reports in the news, people are saying "Well, I voted leave because of ..." for many different reasons, but the vast majority of those reasons seem to be spurious or basically unacceptable (amounting to racism or refusing to accept the UK's global responsibilities). There are quite a few reasons which seem perfectly valid (for example the fact that the UK has been legally powerless to make sensible decisions in some specific cases because of apparently misapplied human rights law), and if enough people felt strongly enough about that type of reason, I'd feel it was valid to vote Leave, although to me they are not strong enough to overcome the positive aspects of EU membership. However, the only form in which I've heard that sort of issue mentioned is in the slogan "take back control", which seems to be used more in the context of somehow recapturing the glory days of the British Empire!

 

[jim hardy]

am i hearing a theme in the halls of power ?

The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.

Remain will have told Leave, "you have the right to vote - but only if you vote the way we tell you."

...if you will, direct democracy versus representative democracy. And the bias of the founders was towards representative democracy—hence the Senate, hence also the electoral college and so forth. And what I believe Brexit shows, to some extent, is the danger of deciding truly consequential, even historic issues through referenda.

Governing would sure be a lot easier if we pesky commoners would just stay out of it and leave things to our betters, eh ?

The sentiment is nothing new.

Your people, sir, is nothing but a great beast!
Attributed to ALEXANDER HAMILTON, in a political argument with Thomas Jefferson.

EDIT: Quotes above are not what the PF members said themselves, but from quotes cited by them. .
I used the 'quote' button so it'd be easy to get back to the relavent posts.
No intent to mis-represent what anybody actually said. I hope nobody took offense.

Just I'm amazed at the political scrambling for position and media frenzy .


.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

The newspapers have been trying to comfort us by pointing out some of the EU rules we can escape from. I must admit that at least one of those sounds good.

EU legislation meant we can no longer buy the normal old incandescent light bulbs ("pearl" or "clear" finish 100W and 60W) in the UK, supposedly because they "waste" energy as heat (despite the fact that in the UK most of the time any light is on the heating is on as well, so if the heating is controlled by a thermostat, there is very little waste). Instead, we had to resort to CFLs which are much more expensive, contain mercury (requiring disposal as hazardous materials), often don't fit existing light fittings because of the bulky electronic part, don't come on immediately and are much dimmer than the incandescent "equivalent" bulbs, as the manufacturers deviously managed to get the ratings compared with "soft light" incandescent bulbs that effectively have a layer of something like paint on them! They are supposed to last much longer than incandescent, but even across many different makes we've had a lot of failures, including bulbs spontaneously cracking, presumably releasing the mercury vapour. This whole scheme was devised by manufacturers of CFL bulbs and accepted into EU law. At least LED-based lighting is making progress, but usually provides a very harsh light which gives weird colour effects. It's very good that lower energy bulbs are available, and in many contexts they are a good idea, but banning the old cheap and powerful incandescent bulbs from being sold is extremely unhelpful, and the primary reason for it was simply to help the profits of the CFL manufacturers.

Another weird law is that vacuum cleaners over 1600W are no longer allowed.

They tried to suggest that electric kettles might be limited in power as well to save energy (!), but nothing came of that. Perhaps someone managed to explain the physics to them.

 

[jim hardy]

EU legislation meant we can no longer buy the normal old incandescent light bulbs ("pearl" or "clear" finish 100W and 60W) in the UK, supposedly because they "waste" energy as heat (despite the fact that in the UK most of the time any light is on the heating is on as well, so if the heating is controlled by a thermostat, there is very little waste).

Another weird law is that vacuum cleaners over 1600W are no longer allowed.

They tried to suggest that electric kettles might be limited in power as well to save energy (!), but nothing came of that. Perhaps someone managed to explain the physics to them.

Bureaucrats.
Were their business worth minding
they'd mind theirs instead of yours.

It's no better in US.
Our EPA funded a student competition to find ways to reduce particulates from backyard barbecues.
A politician from Missouri, a part of our country that retains a modicum of common sense, got wind of it.
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2015...against-epa-pollution-emissions-for-backyard/

A Missouri state legislator wants the Environmental Protection Agency to back off of people’s backyard barbecues.
On Monday, State Senator Eric Schmitt (R) from St. Louis kicked off a #porksteakrebellion after he discovered the EPA is funding a study on propane grill emissions that suggest pit masters use a special tray to catch grease drippings and a "catalytic" filtration system to reduce air pollution, reports Fox News KTVI.

He and several others publicly ridiculed them so harshly they reversed course on that one.

Of course the idea came from ... California (where else? ) ..

The competition is called the “P3 Awards:A National Student Design Competition for Sustainability Focusing on People, Prosperity and the Planet.” The specific project was proposed by students at the University of California, Riverside; they received a $15,000 grant from the EPA in August 2014 that lasts about one more month.

https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstract...isplay.abstractDetail/abstract/10266/report/0

You Brits gave us C N Parkinson whom i read in my formative years
surely he is proud of you now.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

There's a big difference between being enabled, encouraged and given incentives to do something in a better way (which is positive) and being banned from doing it in what someone considers the wrong way (which tends to create a back-reaction). Sometimes bans seem justifiable on health grounds (e.g. indoor smoking) or environmental grounds (certain nasty chemicals) but most of the time it's not black and white. The EU needs to learn to use the carrot rather than the stick!

 

[mheslep]

...At least LED-based lighting is making progress, but usually provides a very harsh light which gives weird colour effects...

I have no time for light bulb fiats from Brussels, however:

Harsh (cold blue 4500k) light LEDs are so five years ago.
2700 Kelvin WarmWhite - 2 Pack
https://www.1000bulbs.com/category/2700k-60-watt-equal-led-light-bulbs/
Lasts 10-20 times longer than, and uses 1/5 the energy of incandecents.

 

[wrobel]

From outside it approximately looks like that EU=USSR-Gulag :)

 

[Jonathan Scott]

I have no time for light bulb fiats from Brussels, however:

Harsh (cold blue 4500k) light LEDs are so five years ago.
2700 Kelvin WarmWhite - 2 Pack
https://www.1000bulbs.com/category/2700k-60-watt-equal-led-light-bulbs/
Lasts 10-20 times longer than, and uses 1/5 the energy of incandecents.

Please don't tempt me to derail this EU topic by exploding about light bulbs! I'll just say that even with "warm white" I find colours look odd under LED light, and they don't do a good 100W yet. I watch out for developments and try things out but so far the results are far inferior to what I already had. In a hot climate, I'm sure that it's good to push energy-efficient lighting, but here it seems completely spurious. Anyway, if leaving the EU let's us have some pearl-style incandescent bulbs back, that would at least be a small comfort.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

The newspapers are pointing out that Boris Johnson is in a bit of a trap now, in that he can't answer obvious questions such as for example whether he thinks we should remain part of the EEA (European Economic Area), because either way he will alienate a large share of the Vote Leave supporters!

 

[Jonathan Scott]

I see that Boris Johnson has backed out of standing for the vacant position of UK PM.

 

[mister mishka]

Yeah, oddly enough that is not so shocking news. I am more curious to see how the UK will pull themselves out of this one, though this fracture will seem to lead to further fractures within the UK itself. I hope the people who lead / voted for Brexit take the responisibility, talk is cheap.

 

[rootone]

That Teresa May seems to be about the only potential brexit PM with at least some integrity and consistency, although I don't like her as such.
I can see here an argument for a new general election to endorse a government with a clear mandate, (or not) to exit the EU.
Trouble is the tories are divided on the issue, and the opposition is in meltdown.
It could come down to new parties having to be formed, one focused on UKIP voters and the more right wing Tories urging for out, versus a center/left/green alliance with a 'stay in' pledge.

One thing that's become clear to me is that many of the out voters in the referendum actually believed that 'Brexit' meant expulsion of 'foreigners' from the UK, most of whom are legitimate residents and are not there for any reason connected to the EU.

 

[Buckleymanor]

I see that Boris Johnson has backed out of standing for the vacant position of UK PM.

Not a surprise Gove stabbing him in the back or did he ask for it .What fun when thieves fall out.Gove is now insisting that he won't be pushed or intimidated into signing Article 50 if he is elected would seem he has the same problem as Boris it's probably just taking a little more time to sink in.Teresa May as the likely candidate now George has also backed out.Heseltine is really annoyed at Boris abandoning the field after creating the mess in the first place who can blame him.
Shame on him double shame on Gove.

 

[Buckleymanor]

am i hearing a theme in the halls of power ?

Governing would sure be a lot easier if we pesky commoners would just stay out of it and leave things to our betters, eh ?

The sentiment is nothing new.EDIT: Quotes above are not what the PF members said themselves, but from quotes cited by them. .
I used the 'quote' button so it'd be easy to get back to the relavent posts.
No intent to mis-represent what anybody actually said. I hope nobody took offense.

Just I'm amazed at the political scrambling for position and media frenzy . .

It is not so much a question of leaving things to our betters but a question of preventing self harm.Irrespective of who won or lost if you saw someone about to injure themselves you would try and prevent it no matter what democracy dictated.
I am an atheist but if I had the vote to nail JC to the cross I would not .
Just because it's democracy it does not mean it is automatically right.
Pesky commoners get it wrong as much as our betters.

 

[jim hardy]

ust because it's democracy it does not mean it is automatically right.

That's the genius of the US constitution
the balance they built in between "we the people" and "our betters" whom we democratically elect to run the republic

Our "betters " run the republic
but we pick them, even if to some offices indirectly ,
and the machinery of government is made cumbersome enough that should we botch the choice they can do only limited damage over an election cycle.

So a mistake by either the commoners or by the betters isn't irrecoverable .

Monday when the results were fresh
the reaction in "better" circles was disbelief and denial .
indicating they'd become disconnected from the man on the street
and misjudged the public mood
That was the point of my post .

Average folks want government that's fair but firm.
Even Machiavelli knew that...

A prince, therefore, must not mind incurring the charge of cruelty for the purpose of keeping his subjects united and confident; for, with a very few examples, he will be more merciful than those who, from excess of tenderness, allow disorders to arise, from whence spring murders and rapine; for these as a rule injure the whole community,

Not bad for 1513, eh ?

What little news i see of recent events in Europe suggests their perhaps excessively tender-hearted asylum policy is re-teaching Machiavelli.
Riots ? No-Go Zones? Roving gangs ?

Danish Minister for Cultural Affairs Brian Mikkelsen ...
...stated that, "In Denmark we have seen the appearance of a parallel society in which minorities practice their own medieval values and undemocratic views,

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=34cbfbb7-eb95-4e77-a155-3904297e45de&k=87376

"The notion of multiculturalism has fallen apart," [Merkel] said prior to her election. "Anyone coming here must respect our constitution and tolerate our Western and Christian roots."

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=34cbfbb7-eb95-4e77-a155-3904297e45de&k=87376

All things in moderation, tolerance included. There have to be boundaries . Good fences make good neighbors.
Brexit is the commoners' calling for good fences .

A decision is like a golf swing - its rightness or wrongness is determined by the follow through.
Let's see how they do with it.

old jim

 

[mister mishka]

I think "turning ones back" to the issue at hand, doesn't actually solve the problem. Reality is hard to face sometimes, especially when the root of the issue is more of a global one than nationalistic.

 

[rootone]

The backstabbing has already begun as regards who will be a new PM willing to actually implement article 50, and sound convincing about it.
There is that Gove guy, but personally I would rather vote for my local second-hand car dealer, (tho a new general election is apparently not on the table).
If the answer is Gove then it must have been a comedic trick question (imo).

As UK born now living in another EU country I am in fact an economic migrant, Probably I can get some kind of dual citizenship though.

 

[Vanadium 50]

.Irrespective of who won or lost if you saw someone about to injure themselves you would try and prevent it no matter what democracy dictated.

So people can vote, so long as they don't vote the wrong way - and then they must be stopped. Does it surprise you that some people bristle at this?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

So people can vote, so long as they don't vote the wrong way - and then they must be stopped. Does it surprise you that some people bristle at this?

If this was a general election, or one side won by a considerable margin, then I would completely agree with the sentiment. But it wasn't, it was a non-binding advisory referendum in which the margin was very close. If people didn't understand it was non-binding before then they have no one to blame but themselves rather than wailing about this being a breach of democracy.

It's rather moot though anyway, in all likelihood once the hot potato finally lands in someone's lap A50 will be called. If it's not, well then the government gets even more unstable.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Technically sure, the referendum was nonbinding. But if you hold a referendum, and then ignore the outcome, it sends the message to the populace that their opinion matters, but only if it's the right opinion.

Buckleymanor was right to call this anti-democratic. This is the same anti-democratic thread that runs through Progressivism (both instances). It replaces governmental legitimacy via the consent of the governed with government by the smartest - to protect the masses from the consequences of their own bad ideas. This is the benevolent technocracy I mentioned before. And for those who think that government by the smartest sounds like a pretty good idea, history shows it is quickly replaced by government by the strongest.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

The only thing that's clear from the outcome is that a majority of the UK population are unhappy about the EU, and that includes many like myself who voted Remain.
As the specific meaning of the "Leave" option was never clarified, Boris Johnson was able to "have his cake and eat it" by interpreting it in different ways for different purposes, despite the fact that such interpretations are mutually exclusive.
The problem is that to put "Leave" into practice, a specific interpretation is needed, but I'm certain that no interpretation can be found for which there would be majority support in the UK, especially as Scotland and Northern Ireland are against any form of Leave.
So basically many people have democratically voted for imaginary fictitious options, and the real options are far less attractive.