You think you've got problems America...

[dimreepr]

we got Brexit…

survive, being the operative word...

[Ten oz]

The U.S. and the U.K. basically have the same problem. We are both allow Russia propaganda to influence our political systems. The Parliament has release reports outlining the problem.
 

Quote

 

160.The speed of technological development has coincided with a crisis of confidence in institutions and the media in the West. There is a global phenomenon of foreign countries wanting to influence public opinion through disinformation. A report from the University of Oxford published in July 2018 identified evidence of formally-organised social media manipulation campaigns in 48 countries, up from 28 countries last year.191 The evidence led us to the role of Russia specifically, in supporting organisations that create and disseminate disinformation, false and hyper-partisan content, with the purpose of undermining public confidence and of destabilising democratic states. This activity we are describing as ‘disinformation’ and it is an active threat.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcumeds/363/36308.htm

 

Sadly in the U.K. as in the U.S. many people simply do not believe the influence have had enough of an impact to effect anything. I think it is a complex psychologically problem. Once a person develops an opinion and has committed emotional energy to that opinion it is extremely difficult to let it go. So despite knowing Russia propaganda played a role in Brexit many basically don't care and just want to power through this and get it done. It is unfortunate. One won't fix what one doesn't release is broken.

[iNow]

If Brexit proceeds, either plan to do so will bring significant losses for both Britain and EMEA, and the issue with the Ireland border is really ugly. 

Given that the initial vote was done under false pretenses, how much the public has learned about the way this is gonna shakeout since that initial vote, and the fact that parliament cannot come to an amicable agreement, I think it should be put up again for a vote and see where the people land now. 

Edited January 21, 2019 by iNow

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Given that the initial vote was done under false pretenses, how much the public has learned about the way this is gonna shakeout since that initial vote, and the fact that parliament cannot come to an amicable agreement, I think it should be put up again for a vote and see where the people land now. 

1

hope springs eternal.

[rangerx]

We're far from perfect, but every day I thank my lucky stars I'm Canadian.

[dimreepr]

29 minutes ago, iNow said:

I think it should be put up again for a vote and see where the people land now. 

 

But, somehow, that invalidates democracy. 

Edited January 21, 2019 by dimreepr

[iNow]

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

But, somehow, that invalidates democracy. 

I understand and sympathize with that argument, though.

The people already voted. A choice was made. Now, just because some people don’t like it, they want to try voting again, have a do over... take a mulligan.

It would nullify the original democratically chosen path. I get it. That’d piss me off too if I were in favor of the split. 

However, now that parliament cannot agree, it seems the only remaining path is to ask the people for an updated view. 

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

I understand and sympathize with that argument, though.

time changes everything.

[StringJunky]

33 minutes ago, iNow said:

I understand and sympathize with that argument, though.

The people already voted. A choice was made. Now, just because some people don’t like it, they want to try voting again, have a do over... take a mulligan.

It would nullify the original democratically chosen path. I get it. That’d piss me off too if I were in favor of the split. 

However, now that parliament cannot agree, it seems the only remaining path is to ask the people for an updated view. 

If we have a second referendum, subsequent ones will mean little. I voted to stay but lost. Given we voted to leave, I would vote leave to honour the first vote. I feel the consequences of a second vote will hurt the UK far longer than leaving Europe. Our global reputation depends on being actively democratic and consistent...it's a matter of honour.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

If Brexit proceeds, either plan to do so will bring significant losses for both Britain and EMEA, and the issue with the Ireland border is really ugly. 

Given that the initial vote was done under false pretenses, how much the public has learned about the way this is gonna shakeout since that initial vote, and the fact that parliament cannot come to an amicable agreement, I think it should be put up again for a vote and see where the people land now. 

Unfortunately, I'm not sure how much the public has learned. For example, I saw the results of a survey where 26% of the people asked thought that "no deal" means maintaining the status quo.

If a significant proportion are going to vote for the most damaging option because they think it will leave thing as they are, then I'm not sure another vote will be any more meaningful.

47 minutes ago, iNow said:

The people already voted. A choice was made. Now, just because some people don’t like it, they want to try voting again, have a do over... take a mulligan.

But that isn't the argument being made. 

Let's say you agree with some friends that you are going to go out for a meal. So you follow one friend who takes you to a restaurant which is filthy but really expensive. You remember seeing news stories about people getting food poisoning there regularly.

Do you:

a) Ask you friends if that is really where you want to eat, or would they prefer that nice place next door?

Or

b) Say, "well we decided to go out to eat, so we have to eat this disgusting place, whether we want to or not." After all, it would be betraying the original decision if we voted on where to eat now we have seen the options.

 

11 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

If we have a second referendum, subsequent ones will mean little.

We should never have had the first one. They are a really bad idea. And if you are going to have one for a major constitutional change, then there should be a requirement for a 65% (or whatever) majority to change things.

12 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I voted to stay but lost. Given we voted to leave, I would vote leave to honour the first vote.

That doesn't make much sense. In a general election would you vote for the party that won last time, even if you voted against them "to honour the first result"?

You should vote for what you think is right.

13 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I feel the consequences of a second vote will hurt the UK far longer than leaving Europe. Our global reputation depends on being actively democratic and consistent...it's a matter of honour.

That ship has sailed. We have lost any credibility or honour we had. People's trust in politicians (never high) has been destroyed. 

I think having the referendum was a monumentally stupid idea. I don't think a second one would make things any better. But with neither the government nor parliament able to make any sort of decision, it may be the only option.

 

[dimreepr]

18 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

it's a matter of honour.

betraying the family.

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

betraying the family.

Brexit as an honour killing.

[Ten oz]

21 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

If we have a second referendum, subsequent ones will mean little. I voted to stay but lost. Given we voted to leave, I would vote leave to honour the first vote. I feel the consequences of a second vote will hurt the UK far longer than leaving Europe. Our global reputation depends on being actively democratic and consistent...it's a matter of honour.

Putin certainly thinks the will of UK voters is being disrespected.

Quote

 

Russia's President Vladimir Putin has accused the UK and US political classes of "disrespecting" the public by questioning the Brexit referendum and Donald Trump's election.

Link

 

In my opinion if there is even a small chance that the Brexit vote succeeded due to Russia Cyber Attacks against U.K.'s democracy officials have an obligation to stop moving forward, improve their election process to include how media disseminates information, and hold another vote. If not the U.K. is potentially allowing itself to be played by an adversarial nation.

[StringJunky]

16 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

betraying the family.

wtf are you on about?

[Strange]

Theresa May has just announced Plan B !

Very exciting.

It is, in a nutshell: carry on as if nothing had happened. Ignore the fact that she has lost a vote by the largest margin in, like, forever. No change. It's her deal or no deal.

Although I think Brexit is a bad idea and there are no benefits to leaving, if you want to leave, then just agree the deal: it is only temporary; a way to buy some time to negotiate the future relationship and a deal. (It probably won't be enough time, given that it has taken 2 years to come up with an agreement that says "lets maintain the status quo for a couple more years".)

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

wtf are you on about?

I assumed it was a Mafia reference.

[StringJunky]

42 minutes ago, Strange said:

Unfortunately, I'm not sure how much the public has learned. For example, I saw the results of a survey where 26% of the people asked thought that "no deal" means maintaining the status quo.

If a significant proportion are going to vote for the most damaging option because they think it will leave thing as they are, then I'm not sure another vote will be any more meaningful.

But that isn't the argument being made. 

Let's say you agree with some friends that you are going to go out for a meal. So you follow one friend who takes you to a restaurant which is filthy but really expensive. You remember seeing news stories about people getting food poisoning there regularly.

Do you:

a) Ask you friends if that is really where you want to eat, or would they prefer that nice place next door?

Or

b) Say, "well we decided to go out to eat, so we have to eat this disgusting place, whether we want to or not." After all, it would be betraying the original decision if we voted on where to eat now we have seen the options.

 

We should never have had the first one. They are a really bad idea. And if you are going to have one for a major constitutional change, then there should be a requirement for a 65% (or whatever) majority to change things.

That doesn't make much sense. In a general election would you vote for the party that won last time, even if you voted against them "to honour the first result"?

You should vote for what you think is right.

That ship has sailed. We have lost any credibility or honour we had. People's trust in politicians (never high) has been destroyed. 

I think having the referendum was a monumentally stupid idea. I don't think a second one would make things any better. But with neither the government nor parliament able to make any sort of decision, it may be the only option.

 

There's no equivalence because this is a one-time (supposedly) referendum about one issue that has been decided... and should be honoured.

[Ten oz]

9 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

There's no equivalence because this is a one-time (supposedly) referendum about one issue that has been decided... and should be honoured.

In a Democracy I don't see how holding vote ever fails to honor the process. In lieu of what's been learned I feel holding another shows quite a lot of respect for the initial vote. 

Edited January 21, 2019 by Ten oz

[StringJunky]

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

In a Democracy I don't see how holding vote ever fails to honor the process. In lieu of what's been learned I feel holding another shows quite a lot of respect for the initial vote. 

How do you work that one out?

[Ten oz]

Just now, StringJunky said:

How do you work that one out?

I am not sure what you mean. I think you are asking why I feel it shows respect for the initial vote to hold another? 

My answer to that question, assuming that's the question, is Russia intelligence did work to influence the Brexit vote. That is a fact. We can debate to what degree it played a role but it is a fact they did play a role.  So the result of the vote is tainted and there are arguments which can be made it was illegitimate outright. Holding a second vote avoids tossing the first one aside automatically on principle. It give people a chance to say that they still feel the same way 2yrs on or they feel differently 2yrs on. Those who want Brexit can still get it if support for it is still in place. 

Compare it, as the thread's title does, to the U.S.. Many call Trump illegitimate and want him impeached. There is a contingent of people who aren't interested in another election. They want Trump gone and all his cronies thrown in prison.  

[StringJunky]

30 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I am not sure what you mean. I think you are asking why I feel it shows respect for the initial vote to hold another? 

My answer to that question, assuming that's the question, is Russia intelligence did work to influence the Brexit vote. That is a fact. We can debate to what degree it played a role but it is a fact they did play a role.  So the result of the vote is tainted and there are arguments which can be made it was illegitimate outright. Holding a second vote avoids tossing the first one aside automatically on principle. It give people a chance to say that they still feel the same way 2yrs on or they feel differently 2yrs on. Those who want Brexit can still get it if support for it is still in place. 

Compare it, as the thread's title does, to the U.S.. Many call Trump illegitimate and want him impeached. There is a contingent of people who aren't interested in another election. They want Trump gone and all his cronies thrown in prison.  

You are assuming the Russians had a significant enough effect, which I doubt. Regardless of my own feelings at the time, there was a very strong current for leaving.

Edited January 21, 2019 by StringJunky

[Ten oz]

9 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

You are assuming the Russians had a significant enough effect, which I doubt. Regardless of my own feelings at the time, there was a very strong current for leaving.

I did say in my that the degree to which Russia impacted the election can be debated.

The fact that the vote went the way Russia had hope and against U.K. Allies should give everyone in the U.K. serious pause in my opinion. You may doubt Russia played much of a role but how are you quantifying that? 

That question is to challenge that I think you are wrong. It is just to ask how you know that you are right. I don't think, for sure, you can. The situation is unprecedented. A second vote would be prudent in my opinion. This is a big deal. Playing it safe just makes sense to me. 

 

[Strange]

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

There's no equivalence because this is a one-time (supposedly) referendum about one issue that has been decided... and should be honoured.

So "the people" are never allowed to change their minds? Either because there is more information now? Or because the population has changed (stistcically, it is likely that more leavers than retainers will have died, and more retainers than leavers will have entered voting age)? Or because the vote is extended to all those affected (EU27 nationals in the UK, UK residents in the EU27)?

But, more importantly, it will not be asking the same question. So saying you will vote based on the previous result doesn't make much sense.

Referendum 1: Do you want to eat out? YES / NO

Referendum 2: What do you want to eat? INDIAN / CHINESE 

How do you vote in referendum 2 to "honour" the result of 1? 

Admittedly, Referendum 2 might have the option "Actually, I don't fancy either of those. I might just stay home". So you could say that you wouldn't choose that because you want to support the people you disagreed with before. That's up to you. It just seems irrational to me. You should still vote for what you want or think is best, not for what other people want. It would be more logical to abstain in that case. That is effectively the "I'll go with whatever everyone else wants" vote.

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

You are assuming the Russians had a significant enough effect, which I doubt.

Maybe you doubt that because you never saw the targeted advertising, because it wasn't targeted at you.

The ads were very cleverly targeted so people who were concerned about immigration would see lies about how being in the EU meant that more illegal immigrants came into the country. Or how Turkey would join the EU soon. People who were concerned about animal welfare would see lies about how the EU was bad for that and so on.

The vote was so close that it would only have need a small percentage of people to be "nudged" for the effects to be significant. Remember, before the campaign started, most people didn't really care that much. They might get a bit annoyed when they saw another (dishonest) Daily Mail headline about the evils of the EU, but it wasn't something that would influence their votes in a general election, for example. Surveys before the referendum showed that "membership of the EU" was really, really low down the list of most people's concerns. Now, of course, it seems that everyone has been radicalised and is strongly pro or anti (and probably believe they always have been).

 

 

Anyway, I have given up caring. It is pretty clear now that the PM wants the UK to leave with no deal. It will have some pretty bad effects for me, personally, (eg. losing my source of income) but I will just have to work through that. I suspect that there will be a lot of people in the UK, especially the poorer areas, who will be much worse off.

[Ken Fabian]

Maybe it should have been the best out of 3 elections, just to be sure. Too important for a single, simple majority vote, especially when the campaigning was so devoid of substance on what the likely consequences would be - and was almost entirely based on hype rather than substance. No-one knew what they were really voting for. It will upset the Brexiters who think they are still getting what they want, but not those who realise they aren't - and whichever way it goes there will be a significant lot of unhappiness and resentment. I can't imagine voting for something I think is bad for my nation, just to make a point about a prior vote.

As for Vlad - if his nation's cyberwar efforts made the difference between Leave and Stay, and left the UK with intractable internal problems he certainly got his money's worth.

I tend to view politicians turning up the nationalistic foreigner blaming as an indicator of lack of policy depth and political desperation - pressing peoples hot-issue buttons in order to short-circuit their thinking things through; if the UK is anything like Australia they can reliably count on a quarter to a third of voters to unthinkingly choose nationalistic hype over well thought out policy. Having another vote on something this important - when the initial choice was in ignorance, with results have been so problematic - seems better than pushing ahead with it and not allowing any opportunity to reconsider. It's not like Britons can't still blame the EU for all their problems, whether they Leave or Stay.

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, StringJunky said:

There's no equivalence because this is a one-time (supposedly) referendum about one issue that has been decided... and should be honoured.

1

it makes me wonder why we fought so hard to join... shouldn't that decision be honoured? 

[StringJunky]

43 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

it makes me wonder why we fought so hard to join... shouldn't that decision be honoured? 

There is much lamenting the skullduggery of the Leave campaign but consider the same in how we were conned into it:

Quote

Three years later, when the foul and repulsive Ted Heath got into Number 10 Downing Street he began negotiations again, and a treaty was agreed in January 1972. This was the infamous treaty in which the treasonous Heath lied to everyone and betrayed his country. 

In the months prior to Heath's betrayal the British public had not been convinced that they wanted their country to enter the EEC. Many, perhaps, simply didn't trust the politicians' claims that membership would be merely a commercial convenience. One opinion poll in early 1971 showed that the British people were against entry by the astonishing ratio of three to one. This opposition came despite the expenditure by the European Commission Information Service of around £10 million on trying to persuade opinion formers of the benefits of membership of the EEC.

With it looking as though joining the EEC might be political suicide the Government became desperate. Heath's Government paid for the distribution of propaganda extolling the virtues of membership, and produced a White Paper which was full of unsubstantiated claims for the EEC and which deliberately omitted any mention of the costs of membership or the fact that joining the EEC was the first step towards a federal states of Europe.

Heath only got away with his Great Betrayal because the press had decided that entry was a `good thing' (for them and their proprietors), and so did not question any of the claims made by Heath's Government.

Editors and columnists slavishly obeyed the dictates of their proprietors. If the press had done its job properly (and had investigated and analysed the purpose and value of the Common Market) Britain would have almost certainly never joined the EEC and would now be a considerably wealthier and more powerful nation. 
http://www.vernoncoleman.com/howthebritishmedia.htm

So, if one is to honour the original desires of the great majority of the populace of the day, we should leave. Some politicians fought hard to join; it was not the prevailing sentiment of the population.

Edited January 22, 2019 by StringJunky