Brexit - The UK leaves the EU
- Thread starter Touring Mars
- 6,870 comments
- 301,454 views
There isn't anything wrong with holding referendums from time to time. They are simply a feature/tool of the democratic process.
The failing in this instance, is fairly unique, in that Leave, lied, repeatedly to the public and elements of the press, propagated these lies. Two Leave campaigns have been found guilty of breaking electoral law. Not only that, but the way in which the referendum was designed, meant that there was no threshold required for it to go one way or the other, something incredibly irresponsible and dangerous, as our very own former Brexit **** DD pointed out a few years back.
Democracies work in tandem with a free and independent press, we've lost some of that and in the process gained career politicians who's only goal is power and personal success, it's why idiots like Corbyn even get a look in (because they actually have real opinions on things).
So I reject the notion that Brexit is a failing of democracy. For me it's a failure of the press to be free, honest and critical of the government.
- 17,316
- United Kingdom
I'd prefer we set about making our democracy less incompetent by educating the population properly and placing harsher restrictions on media influence of all kinds, and in order to achieve this we need our government to rule MIT EINE EISENFAUST!!!!
Yeah, I feel so bad for Rupert Murdoch in all of this.
Not.
You misunderstand, people like Rupert Murdoch are responsible for spreading lies, fear and misinformation. People like him, ARE the problem.
The Daily Mail has been aggressively attacking Europe and the EU for decades, it's no wonder that it's confused readership where so ready to lap up it's pro-Brexit garbage.
BBC are another fine example, they made Nigel a celebratory in his own right, he appeared on Have I Got News For You countless times, and, despite running a part with **** all actual MP's got insane coverage to push his racist, xenophobic message of hate and fear. Jacob Reese-Mogg another fine example of a charlatan given coverage for no actual reason than to push this idiotic notion of Brexit.
Last edited:
- 13,907
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Is it a failing of the press to provide the people with accurate information, or is it a failing of the people to take responsibility for their own education?
I prefer the idea of individual responsibility for one's own education. It's nice to have sources of information on which one can rely, but relying upon them is an individual choice. If they turn out to be unreliable, then I view that as part of an individual's choice to accept that information at face value.
I prefer to assign people agency and responsibility for their own choices, rather than label everyone as sheep who were misled by the powers-that-be. If people choose not to make any effort to utilise their agency well, then that's a valid democratic choice as well. Albeit one that has profound impacts on the well-being of the democracy in question, as we are seeing now.
Democracy isn't a joke, and one cannot take information from the Daily Mail and expect accuracy. That's not the fault of the Daily Mail, that's the fault of idiots who think it paints a true picture of the world. You could remove the Daily Mail and that wouldn't change a thing, because there will always be some demagogue out there to pander to people who are uncritical of their political opinions. The solution is to make it clear that political choices matter, and that people should attempt to apply a little common sense to the information they receive and the choices that they make.
I think you're being a bit too unfair. While I don't disagree with the notion that people should be to blame for their own uncritical thoughts, you have to be reasonable and realistic.
But it's difficult to assign blame to individuals, when every level of trust was broken.
The written press, to a large extent lied, perpetuated other peoples lies and grew mistrust and anger.
Politicians, at every level, lied.
Campaigns, where found to have broken the law.
If the establishment and the anti-establishment are both lying and the press has been pushing this same lie for the past 30-odd years, what hope does the average person, who isn't really interested in politics have?
I agree education in the UK is dismal and the fact people take state education as the 'standard' level of a child's education is terrifying to me. But that is the world we live in.
When we are fed so much information all the time, how do you expect the average person to figure it all out? I know I spend a decent amount of time having to read up on stories because they are, for the most part, overblown.
- 13,907
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Only if those levels of trust were reasonable.
Which written press? There were plenty of outlets with information about how leaving the EU would at best be a step down for the UK.
No, really? You don't say.
Seriously, if this is a surprise to anyone then they have no business voting.
This is a problem.
30-odd years you say? The 1975 referendum wasn't long before that, and it turned out so differently. So the lies all started in the 80's?
Personally I don't think it takes much, if any, knowledge of politics to form a basic opinion on the EU and the UK's relationship with it. If it's clear that everyone has been lying for the last 30 years, why listen at all? Flip a coin and you'll have as good a chance of coming up with a "good" decision.
Because you don't really need much external information to come to a rational conclusion about something like Brexit. There's a group of countries that have come together to make trade, migration and a bunch of other things easier amongst themselves. The UK wants to leave that, and somehow thinks that it can get a better deal by doing so.
This ignores that the whole point of the EU is that countries inside the EU have an easier time integrating with other EU countries.
So clearly then the trade off is freedom for the UK to choose it's own path with regards to the rest of the world versus favourable deals with the EU. That's a valid choice, if a little bit short sighted. Spiting your neighbours for the chance of a favourable deal with those on the other side of the world isn't super smart. But hey, democracy.
And that's largely enough right there to make a moderately informed decision. You don't really need to know any specifics about the pros and cons of EU membership, or what's being offered internationally, although it helps. Anyone who has twenty minutes to sit down and think rationally is capable of coming to at least a moderately sensible conclusion without any outside input other than basic primary school geography and some elementary knowledge of how groups of people work.
And what conclusion they come to largely depends to what extent they're willing to accept EU membership with some distasteful elements versus their need for nationalism and control. See the US, they chose a leader that embodies many of the same principles as Brexit; primarily isolationism even at the expense of relationships with other countries or favourable economics. It is apparently the style of the times, at least in western societies.
Like I said before, I don’t disagree. But you need to have reasonable expectations of people. I can’t quote and retort everything because of iOS11 and because I don’t really disagree. But;
The Daily Mail
The Express
The Sun
The Telegraph
The Times
These makeup the biggest papers in the country.
I agree, you can read up. But the problem is that the conversation is so toxic, ration papers or news outlets are called out for being lefties and attacked. The Leave campaign made up so many lies that they couldn’t be corrected, Trump did exactly the same in the US.
And when you put the constant, never ending lies they print into the context of Farage and friends getting huge press on the BBC and other nation TV debates, it gives them credit and weight.
It’s easy to be cynical, but people trust(ed) these politicians. People believe immigrants are coming and taking houses meant for Brits, taking jobs from nationals and getting an easy free ride, running our NHS. They believed that the NHS could get £350m back, because these lies ‘made sense’ and that the EU was undemocratic.
Labour and the Tories came (in parts) together and told the country we’d be better off if we leave. That is incredibly powerful.
The Daily Mail
The Express
The Sun
The Telegraph
The Times
These makeup the biggest papers in the country.
I agree, you can read up. But the problem is that the conversation is so toxic, ration papers or news outlets are called out for being lefties and attacked. The Leave campaign made up so many lies that they couldn’t be corrected, Trump did exactly the same in the US.
And when you put the constant, never ending lies they print into the context of Farage and friends getting huge press on the BBC and other nation TV debates, it gives them credit and weight.
It’s easy to be cynical, but people trust(ed) these politicians. People believe immigrants are coming and taking houses meant for Brits, taking jobs from nationals and getting an easy free ride, running our NHS. They believed that the NHS could get £350m back, because these lies ‘made sense’ and that the EU was undemocratic.
Labour and the Tories came (in parts) together and told the country we’d be better off if we leave. That is incredibly powerful.
- 17,316
- United Kingdom
The failure there as I see it is the honest bit. The press is free, and free to be critical of the government, sadly, the press has too much power so they can be critical of the government in a way that furthers their own agenda....
... to me the failure of the press is to report without a bias towards its own interests, and something serious needs to be done about this.
Tired Tyres
Premium
- 12,600
- West Yorkshire
- Tired_Tyres
- Tired Tyres
Who pays attention to newspapers? I learned as a boy that they don't do anything other than promote the beliefs of their owner. If I knew that then, I sure as hell should know it now.
All people do when they find, so called, balanced news services is finding a source that simply validates the view they themselves already hold.
All people do when they find, so called, balanced news services is finding a source that simply validates the view they themselves already hold.
If the press are beholden to their billionaire owners then they really aren't free either.
Tired Tyres
Premium
- 12,600
- West Yorkshire
- Tired_Tyres
- Tired Tyres
So millions of people directly reading newspapers.
Newspapers are also good at propagating stories that filter through into other news outlets.
They are still, despite falling circulation numbers very powerful.
- 17,316
- United Kingdom
I think you'd be tremendously naive to think this applies to everyone, and also only applies to Newspapers.
To a point I don't doubt this is true if it comes to editorial opinions, but as issues in the world arise, how a media outlet reports it contributes to how people form their views in the first place.
Tired Tyres
Premium
- 12,600
- West Yorkshire
- Tired_Tyres
- Tired Tyres
My post was exclusively about newspapers. Not anything else at all. Clearly I wouldn't make a claim like that for any anti social media source.
- 29,366
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Trump is speaking at a press conference at the NATO summit and he is being asked (among other things) about his views on Brexit - he said that it is not up to him, but that he believes that Brexit is a result of immigration. There was a hilarious moment, however, when a journalist said something like 'Do you want a Hard Brexit?' but Trump replied 'Is it heart-breaking?!'... 
Last edited:
- 29,366
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
The UK government's white paper on EU withdrawal has now been published...
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Unfortunately it wasn't handed out in time for today's Parliamentary discussion. Efforts to distribute the document in the chamber from cardboard boxes were met with ire and a suspension-of-session by the Speaker
- 29,366
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
This is a sobering read:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...t-hard-brexit-no-commons-majority-theresa-may
Theresa May faces the prospect that no Brexit deal can command a parliamentary majority, but neither can a 'no deal' exit. On the face of it, that would leave the UK either abandoning Brexit altogether (against the will of the British people) or begging the EU for an extension of the Article 50 process - something that they are under no obligation to do. By my reckoning, this puts the EU negotiators in an enormously strong position - they can basically demand whatever concessions they want in return for an extension to the Article 50 process, and force the UK down the 'worst of all worlds' route, which is full compliance with EU rules and jurisdiction and the loss of all voting rights and their veto.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...t-hard-brexit-no-commons-majority-theresa-may
Theresa May faces the prospect that no Brexit deal can command a parliamentary majority, but neither can a 'no deal' exit. On the face of it, that would leave the UK either abandoning Brexit altogether (against the will of the British people) or begging the EU for an extension of the Article 50 process - something that they are under no obligation to do. By my reckoning, this puts the EU negotiators in an enormously strong position - they can basically demand whatever concessions they want in return for an extension to the Article 50 process, and force the UK down the 'worst of all worlds' route, which is full compliance with EU rules and jurisdiction and the loss of all voting rights and their veto.
And this, ladies and gentleman, is what Leavers voted for.
- 29,366
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
If anything, all this really shows is that referendums are a really bad idea.
Referendums only have two outcomes - change everything or change nothing. 'Change nothing' is fine because the country just goes back to what it was doing and that's that, but the trouble starts when the 'Change everything' option is selected - as is the case in Brexit.
The government have made a rod for their own back - ironically, it is also a problem for the opposition... if it were not such a problem for Labour then at least there would be a possible out - but Labour have also committed to 'delivering Brexit' as well. Great.
Theresa May did have one option available - to call a snap election and hope that the Great British public deliver her the majority that she needs to get Brexit through... that failed miserably, and now she is in the disastrous position that even a large majority would not help, because the divisions within her own party are now too deep.
Referendums only have two outcomes - change everything or change nothing. 'Change nothing' is fine because the country just goes back to what it was doing and that's that, but the trouble starts when the 'Change everything' option is selected - as is the case in Brexit.
The government have made a rod for their own back - ironically, it is also a problem for the opposition... if it were not such a problem for Labour then at least there would be a possible out - but Labour have also committed to 'delivering Brexit' as well. Great.
Theresa May did have one option available - to call a snap election and hope that the Great British public deliver her the majority that she needs to get Brexit through... that failed miserably, and now she is in the disastrous position that even a large majority would not help, because the divisions within her own party are now too deep.
I kinda agree, but this was flagged up before the election. Its generally recommended that you need a ~70% vote for the 'new' stance to be carried through, meaning the VAST majority need to be behind what ever change you want to vote for.
This never happened with Brexit because it was never about leaving Europe.
The only intelligent option May had, was to call Leave's bluff and make a plan for leaving, before enacting Art.50.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Your government may not be entirely dysfunctional, but it is certainly dilatory. In general, from the libertarian view, this is not a bad thing. A deal will be invoked just short of the last yawning moment before "an accidental exit next March on World Trade Organisation terms."
- 528
- United Kingdom
- PD_ApexPredator
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
I see no reason to assume that history is a one-way journey up the ladder of progress. Do you realistically think it is?
- 528
- United Kingdom
- PD_ApexPredator
