Brexit: the referendum

[Darat]

Thanks. I was just trying to expose your disgusting racism to those who may not have seen your previous "contributions" to the forum.

And of course he doesn't seem to understand that the only immigration that will be altered by this is potentially that of "white" Europeans... it's not just racism it is sheer ignorance.

 

[Craig B]

Scotland hasn't felt near as much of the impact of diversity's blessings. It is very easy to be very naive about it there.

We know about diversity. And we know about ignorant racism. Here's an example of it.

Scotland's UKIP leader is today facing calls to resign after he compared the country’s only Muslim minister to the convicted terrorist Abu Hamza. In conversation with the Scottish Daily Mail, David Coburn, who was elected as an MEP last year, referred to ‘Humza Yousaf, or as I call him, Abu Hamza’.
Mr Yousaf, the SNP’s Minister for Europe and International Development, said the ‘Islamophobic’ comment was one of the worst insults he had ever received.​

Scottish muslims are part of the structure and support base of all the main parties in Scotland. That is not because of naïveté, but because racism has not taken hold here.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

We know about diversity. And we know about ignorant racism. Here's an example of it.

Scotland's UKIP leader is today facing calls to resign after he compared the country’s only Muslim minister to the convicted terrorist Abu Hamza. In conversation with the Scottish Daily Mail, David Coburn, who was elected as an MEP last year, referred to ‘Humza Yousaf, or as I call him, Abu Hamza’.
Mr Yousaf, the SNP’s Minister for Europe and International Development, said the ‘Islamophobic’ comment was one of the worst insults he had ever received.​

Scottish muslims are part of the structure and support base of all the main parties in Scotland. That is not because of naïveté, but because racism has not taken hold here.

It will.

 

[Lothian]

If Scotland ends up breaking away from the UK and staying part of the EU, or rejoining the EU, they will probably end up doing this exact same thing some number of years down the line after they actually start dealing with the invading hordes in a more significant way than they are now.

Hopefully not. The 'invading hordes' are here to work. UK unemployment has been on a downward trend people come because the economy is thriving and jobs are being created. The key is to use that increase in revenue to increase social services. The Uk's 'mistake' was to use the money to pay for the banking crisis.

Then again perhaps I have it wrong and southern Europeans will flock to Scotland to take advantage of the fine weather and cuisine.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Thatcher:

"Uniting Europe, she once said, was 'a classic utopian project, a monument to the vanity of intellectuals, a program whose inevitable destiny is failure: only the scale of the final damage done is in doubt.'"

Deeply patriotic, she once said that "national pride offers people a genuine identity in a world of cardboard cut-outs."

Oh, really, Marge? Tell Homer Nigel this is why we are no longer speaking after you slammed the table and walked out:

Dividing Europe is a classic nativist failure, a monument to the many wars nationalism has loosed upon the people of Europe and the world, a tribal outlook whose inevitable destiny is to be associated with the widespread death and destruction that are the fruits of its anti-reason, and whose damage can easily scale up to global thermonuclear war.

Peace in Europe is, in the end, a duty to all humankind. Enough, after all, is enough (see 20th c. and prior).

National pride offers people a dangerously simple, arbitrarily partisan and merely partial identity in a complex world requiring far more awareness of systemic interconnections than ever before in history, an essential understanding if we are to overcome the challenges we face together as a species. Recourse to the self-destructive folly of national truculence is the province of knaves and bullies.

 

[The Don]

That could be the case, then again the lack of a jubilant response may be the results of Remain supporters not wanting to antagonise their neighbours and/or it's a reflection of people having made a difficult decision with what they considered negatives on both sides. Rather like, say, putting an animal out of its misery - it's an unpleasant job that needed doing so no need to be jubilant afterwards.

That said, I really do hope that some Remain supporters look at the "facts" on which they made their decision and subject them to some scrutiny. If they still stack up then fair enough.

As another poster kindly pointed out by PM, in my sleep-deprived state* I got leave and remain wrong


* - these are interesting times for both me and my business and its employees. So far contracts will run to their conclusion. We'll see what happens when they come up for renewal

 

[catsmate]

Might I suggest this thread be locked and posts on the consequences of the referendum be moved to the Now What? thread

 

[catsmate]

Who is "we"???

Not brown people.

 

[cullennz]

Thatcher:


Oh, really, Marge? Tell Homer Nigel this is why we are no longer speaking after you slammed the table and walked out:

Dividing Europe is a classic nativist failure, a monument to the many wars nationalism has loosed upon the people of Europe and the world, a tribal outlook whose inevitable destiny is to be associated with the widespread death and destruction that are the fruits of its anti-reason, and whose damage can easily scale up to global thermonuclear war.

Peace in Europe is, in the end, a duty to all humankind. Enough, after all, is enough (see 20th c. and prior).

National pride offers people a dangerously simple, arbitrarily partisan and merely partial identity in a complex world requiring far more awareness of systemic interconnections than ever before in history, an essential understanding if we are to overcome the challenges we face together as a species. Recourse to the self-destructive folly of national truculence is the province of knaves and bullies.

Awesome. But I think you should concentrate on working the best from the exit

 

[LondonJohn]

The only vote which could be seen as properly informed and reasoned, with contextual understanding, was a vote to remain. Interesting.

Ah no - that's a false corollary.

What I'm arguing is that a significant proportion of those who voted "Leave" did so without a proper understanding of the issues. That is not to say (or even imply) that anyone with a proper understanding of the issues should have voted "Remain". A lot of people with proper understanding chose to vote "Leave", but I strongly suspect that the proportion of "Leave" voters who didn't really understand the issues a) outweighed the proportion of "Leave" voters who did make a properly-informed choice, and b) were effectively responsible for the ultimate outcome.

And on top of that, I suspect it's likely that a lot of "Remain" voters also voted without understanding the issues properly - it's just that a) I think a lot more "Leave" voters than "Remain" voters didn't fully understand the implications of their voting choice, and b) it was always much easier for "Remain" voters to understand the implications of their choice anyhow, since it's pretty easy to conceptualise the preservation of the status quo.

 

[catsmate]

Am I the only one who's reminded of Roderick Spode by the antics of BJ and Farage.

 

[LondonJohn]

This would logically result in a 2-tier citizenry, correct?

Those who can score greater than X on some kind of metric (test or education or income) who are eligible to vote, to serve on juries, etc.
Then there would be the others... who would be permitted to vote on 'Britain's Got Talent'.

Whilst undoubtedly meritocratic, it also sounds terribly dystopian.

I know - and that's why I think it's incompatible in practice with any reasonable definition of democracy.

I suppose that the obvious solution is to leave complex decisions with highly-impactful outcomes to parliaments to decide. On the whole, we elect representatives to parliament to represent us precisely for this reason. It's interesting, for example, that there will never be a UK public referendum on something such as the Death Penalty.

The problem with the EU issue was that the UK Parliament got itself tied up in knots with the "ceding of sovereignty" aspect of the EU debate. And it decided that Parliament shouldn't have the sole right to determine if/how/when/where the UK cedes elements of sovereignty to the EU (even though, ironically, where one might expect a national parliament to instinctively dislike the idea of "surrendering" some of its powers to another, higher entity, all the main parties in the UK Parliament were broadly in favour of doing so).

In my view, the whole sovereignty issue should have been more than counterweighed by the complexity and implications of the decision. The UK Parliament alone should have decided the nature of our relationship with the EU.

 

[catsmate]

How about the plural vote system proposed (IIRR) by Creasey and others?

 

[jimbob]

How about the plural vote system proposed (IIRR) by Creasey and others?

Giz has it right

ETA: He wasn't at this moment talking about a plural vote system, but the same arguments hold

How would you limit it? IQ? Education? Economic status?

I'm not saying that universal suffrage is perfect, but to paraphrase Churchill: 'Universal suffrage is the worst form of suffrage, except for all the others.'

Regardless of fairness*, giving some voters more votes than others for the same election would be begging for abuse.




*Which is a very strong argument.

 

[Francesca R]

I realise this could sound incredibly arrogant, condescending and "sour loser"-ish.

Pretty much.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Giz has it right

ETA: He wasn't at this moment talking about a plural vote system, but the same arguments hold



Regardless of fairness*, giving some voters more votes than others for the same election would be begging for abuse.




*Which is a very strong argument.

With regards to voting in elections I think everyone is capable of deciding who they want to represent them regardless if we agree or not. When it comes to specific complex issues I think it's fair to say most, maybe even all, of the public don't have enough information to make sound decisions and that's a good argument for not having referenda on pretty much anything.

Mind you, some politicians also don't seem well informed enough to make sound decisions on complex issues either.

 

[Francesca R]

[ . . . ] that's a good argument for not having referenda on pretty much anything.

Like Scottish independence for example??

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Like Scottish independence for example??

Yes. Exactly like that.

My view has always been that the SNP should just put it in their manifesto and implement it if they get a majority in the Parliament to do so.

I'm thoroughly sick of referenda and have no real appetite to go through another year of the same Yes/No debate that we just had.

Unfortunately it looks like that is what we are going to get.

 

[Ashorn]

So just a vote in the Scottish parliament? Nicola could live with that

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

So just a vote in the Scottish parliament? Nicola could live with that

At this stage, no.

There would have to be a Scottish election first with 'we will negotiate independence from the UK' as a manifesto pledge from the SNP. Then they could have the vote in Parliament.

Independence is not currently in the SNP manifesto even though its the stated aim of the party. The pledged policy is to hold a referendum. Actually in this case it wasn't even that explicit in the latest election.

There's no guarantee that an SNP standing on an actual independence ticket would get elected. Hence why they don't promise it.