Help me understand Briton's exiting the EU.

[RichUK]

It's what happens when you let stupid people vote.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

52% of 72% is ~36%... so democratic.

It's perfectly democratic. The other 28% of people didn't care enough to vote which is their right but they're not counted in the total.

They could have voted and if they did who is to say the would have voted in the same ratio as the 48%/52% split? Why assume they'd vote any differently had they been forced to vote somehow?

It's funny how these criticisms of democracy only come up from people when the vote is not what they want, but had it been a 48/52 split in favour of remain it presumably would have been democratic?

This is really just the 7 stages of grief kicking in and the remain sides inability to accept the loss and move on in a productive way.

 

[sdifox]

It's perfectly democratic. The other 28% of people didn't care enough to vote which is their right but they're not counted in the total.

They could have voted and if they did who is to say the would have voted in the same ratio as the 48%/52% split? Why assume they'd vote any differently had they been forced to vote somehow?

It's funny how these criticisms of democracy only come up from people when the vote is not what they want, but had it been a 48/52 split in favour of remain it presumably would have been democratic?

This is really just the 7 stages of grief kicking in and the remain sides inability to accept the loss and move on in a productive way.

Never understood how something this important is decided on 50% line. Shouod have been two third. Same with the original vote to join.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

Never understood how something this important is decided on 50% line. Shouod have been two third. Same with the original vote to join.

Because the definition of a democracy is doing the will of the majority of the people which is greater than half, not some arbitrary number like 2/3rds, and that's a slippery slope anyway because for every person that say 2/3rd is enough there will be someone else who would always want to make that number higher, and you enter into debate about exactly where that number should be based on opinions.

We all know this is just a reactionary opinion because people didn't get what they wanted, there's probably very few people who hold the belief it should be 2/3rds majority before the referendum was offered and have maintained that opinion, it's just blustering to get what they wanted. If it was moved to 2/3rds for all democratic votes and one lost that didn't meet that 2/3rds standard which you favoured I have no doubt you'd argue the opposite that it should have been 50/50

This is all the bargaining stage of grief.

 

[Balt]

Because the definition of a democracy is doing the will of the majority of the people which is greater than half, not some arbitrary number like 2/3rds, and that's a slippery slope anyway because for every person that say 2/3rd is enough there will be someone else who would always want to make that number higher, and you enter into debate about exactly where that number should be based on opinions.

We all know this is just a reactionary opinion because people didn't get what they wanted, there's probably very few people who hold the belief it should be 2/3rds majority before the referendum was offered and have maintained that opinion, it's just blustering to get what they wanted. If it was moved to 2/3rds for all democratic votes and one lost that didn't meet that 2/3rds standard which you favoured I have no doubt you'd argue the opposite that it should have been 50/50

This is all the bargaining stage of grief.

Erm, yes. That is the definition of democracy, but not how any systems of government that we call democracies actually work. Typically they elect people to represent them, they don't make critical decisions on huge issues by letting every adult in the country go to the polls.

It's a good thing, too. If all it took was 50%+1 to decide every issue, it's quite likely that the rights of minorities (racial, economic, you name it) would be trampled. Even the ancient Greeks knew this.

 

[sdifox]

Because the definition of a democracy is doing the will of the majority of the people which is greater than half, not some arbitrary number like 2/3rds, and that's a slippery slope anyway because for every person that say 2/3rd is enough there will be someone else who would always want to make that number higher, and you enter into debate about exactly where that number should be based on opinions.

We all know this is just a reactionary opinion because people didn't get what they wanted, there's probably very few people who hold the belief it should be 2/3rds majority before the referendum was offered and have maintained that opinion, it's just blustering to get what they wanted. If it was moved to 2/3rds for all democratic votes and one lost that didn't meet that 2/3rds standard which you favoured I have no doubt you'd argue the opposite that it should have been 50/50

This is all the bargaining stage of grief.

First past the post is fine for elected officials, since there is a term limit. But for Referendums such as this (and the original join vote), there has to be a clear majority.

Canadian here so I know a thing or two about referendums.

 

[Staples]

The more important question that needs asking is why are the EU leaders so butthurt?

They DEMAND that the UK gets out as fast as possible.

Reading reports now that Angela Merkal is trying to keep the peace among the EU leaders.

 

[poofyhairguy]

The lopsided distribution of the benefits of globalization isn't a problem with globalization, it's a problem with distribution of the benefits. Want to stick it to the "elites?" Vote for fiscal policies that address that and the people willing to implement them.

The problem is that common person doesn't see a way to get there when the same elites are the only options when you get to the ballot box.

Plus there is the whole fact that the elites have to agree to accept these "policies" and not just offshore their lives (aka move to the Caymans or New Zealand) like they have offshored blue collar jobs for decades.

Trump and Brexit is a "burn it down" political position, and people only want to burn it down when they don't see hope for reform or a chance for improvement. You burn it down when you believe the other guy has more to lose and the only way to make him lose anything is to burn down what you have too.

Once Biden or whoever snuffs out the campaign of Elizabeth Warren or whoever is Bernie 2.0 in the next election even the left will be willing to embrace the cleansing purity of the torch just as the far right did this year.

This is just the start. Globalization was step 1. Automation is step 2. It will take huge changes IN THE ACTIONS OF THE ELITE (and only the elites) for society's stability to survive in a era when 60%+ of people are unemployed.

 

[stlc8tr]

The more important question that needs asking is why are the EU leaders so butthurt?

They DEMAND that the UK gets out as fast as possible.

Reading reports now that Angela Merkal is trying to keep the peace among the EU leaders.

Because uncertainty is bad for business. There is no precedent for leaving the EU so the longer they drag this out, the worst it is for all involved.

 

[sdifox]

The more important question that needs asking is why are the EU leaders so butthurt?

They DEMAND that the UK gets out as fast as possible.

Reading reports now that Angela Merkal is trying to keep the peace among the EU leaders.

They are trying to preempt the dominos effect.

 

[werepossum]

A democratic nation took a democratic vote on the issue of EU membership and the majority vote was to leave the EU. The parliament are respecting the will of the people as is so in correctly run democratic nation and government is setting itself up to elect a new Prime Minister who is in favour of leaving the EU and can best represent the will of the people.

That Prime Minister will enact article 50 which starts a minimum 2 year process to leave the EU and negotiate deals with other EU countries.

Some people voting on both sides may not have understood the issues or voted the way they did based on false promises, there's no reason to believe that this occurred significantly more on the leave side as on the remain side. There's no evidence that people googling what is the EU after the referendum were old enough to vote nor does it tell us which way they voted, there's an underlying assumption that only the leave camp are mis-informed when there's no evidence I've seen that supports this.

In a democracy each persons vote is worth the same whether you're educated on the issue or not. And we have a 72% turnout which is incredibly high, higher than the last general election so we're very sure that this vote represents the majority will of the people.

The Prime Minister has clarified there will be no 2nd referendum and that the governments intentions are to follow through with the will of the people, I respect him taking democracy seriously despite the outcome not aligning with his own personal preferences, it's a shame that the rest of the losers of the referendum can't accept this and move on.

Well said, Sam. There's just a lot of people who get severely butthurt any time anyone rejects ever-larger government. You guys will be fine - good luck with the transition.

The lopsided distribution of the benefits of globalization isn't a problem with globalization, it's a problem with distribution of the benefits. Want to stick it to the "elites?" Vote for fiscal policies that address that and the people willing to implement them.

lol Hope springs eternal that THIS bunch of elites will be the ones to stick it to the elites.

The more important question that needs asking is why are the EU leaders so butthurt?

They DEMAND that the UK gets out as fast as possible.

Reading reports now that Angela Merkal is trying to keep the peace among the EU leaders.

They are butthurt because the UK is one of very few member nations which gives back way more than it gets - they are the third largest funder if memory serves. If the UK exit spawns a similar exit in, say, France, then the EU either falls or must become Greater Germany. Ergo they need Brexit to be very painful for the UK.

EDIT: stlc8tr made a better point - the uncertainty is bad for business.

 

[werepossum]

The problem is that common person doesn't see a way to get there when the same elites are the only options when you get to the ballot box.

Plus there is the whole fact that the elites have to agree to accept these "policies" and not just offshore their lives (aka move to the Caymans or New Zealand) like they have offshored blue collar jobs for decades.

Trump and Brexit is a "burn it down" political position, and people only want to burn it down when they don't see hope for reform or a chance for improvement. You burn it down when you believe the other guy has more to lose and the only way to make him lose anything is to burn down what you have too.

Once Biden or whoever snuffs out the campaign of Elizabeth Warren or whoever is Bernie 2.0 in the next election even the left will be willing to embrace the cleansing purity of the torch just as the far right did this year.

This is just the start. Globalization was step 1. Automation is step 2. It will take huge changes IN THE ACTIONS OF THE ELITE (and only the elites) for society's stability to survive in a era when 60%+ of people are unemployed.

Well said.

Because uncertainly is bad for business. There is no precedent for leaving the EU so the longer they drag this out, the worst it is for all involved.

Excellent point.

 

[Triloby]

This is just the start. Globalization was step 1. Automation is step 2. It will take huge changes IN THE ACTIONS OF THE ELITE (and only the elites) for society's stability to survive in a era when 60%+ of people are unemployed.

Sounds like to me that people are more fearful of automation in this day and age than globalization. Then again, it's easy to see how the masses of the unemployed are fearful of both.

 

[agent00f]

Because uncertainly is bad for business. There is no precedent for leaving the EU so the longer they drag this out, the worst it is for all involved.

England is now essentially taking these economies hostage, because as much as it hurts GB it also hurts the other guy. This gives them leverage in negotiations, particularly for staying. However, if the EU concedes anything it sets a precedent for others to leave, so the EU will look for ways to force them out, which will give leverage back since England needs the EU more than EU needs England.

The problem is that common person doesn't see a way to get there when the same elites are the only options when you get to the ballot box.

Plus there is the whole fact that the elites have to agree to accept these "policies" and not just offshore their lives (aka move to the Caymans or New Zealand) like they have offshored blue collar jobs for decades.

Trump and Brexit is a "burn it down" political position, and people only want to burn it down when they don't see hope for reform or a chance for improvement. You burn it down when you believe the other guy has more to lose and the only way to make him lose anything is to burn down what you have too.

Once Biden or whoever snuffs out the campaign of Elizabeth Warren or whoever is Bernie 2.0 in the next election even the left will be willing to embrace the cleansing purity of the torch just as the far right did this year.

This is just the start. Globalization was step 1. Automation is step 2. It will take huge changes IN THE ACTIONS OF THE ELITE (and only the elites) for society's stability to survive in a era when 60%+ of people are unemployed.

These were the same people who supported the kind of capitalist system that is merely running its course. Much like Brexit they were for it before they realize the consequences, and then it's time to weasel back.

 

[flexy]

IIt's funny how these criticisms of democracy only come up from people when the vote is not what they want, but had it been a 48/52 split in favour of remain it presumably would have been democratic?

Lol. Except we KNOW that the Nigel fascist already BEFORE the outcome, in the belief they would lose, announced they would fight an outcome that was close. YOU know that, I know that, everyone knows that.

If "out" would have lost by 3%, all hell would be lose now.

Yours and other's argument about how "undemocratic" a 2nd or 3rd referendum would be doesn't count. The demand that with such enormous decisions there would need to be a SIGNIFICANT margin, say, 60% is entirely legit...each referendum will still allow BOTH sides to vote, democratically.

You also conveniently ignore the fact that this petition about the 2nd referendum was made by a BREXITER....for the exact reason that this guy,. before the outcome was even clear, wanted to push for a 2nd ref. in case the outcome would be UNDER 60%.

It's disgusting to see all those people on websites commenting, and NOT.ONE.SINGLE.ONE of those asses acknowledging that they and the Nigel fascist would have pushed and fought for a 2nd ref if it was them now.

I see 2, 5, 10 or 20 referendums ok when 19 of them don't meet a certain percentage and only the 20th would push one side, say, over 60%. The democratic principle still applies with every single referendum.

This is not a game show where you win a dishwasher. This is the UK's and EU future and a decision that will affect the next several decades. 75% min voter turnout and 60% min threshold for a valid vote = More than for it.

 

[stlc8tr]

England is now essentially taking these economies hostage, because as much as it hurts GB it also hurts the other guy. This gives them leverage in negotiations, particularly for staying. However, if the EU concedes anything it sets a precedent for others to leave, so the EU will look for ways to force them out, which will give leverage back since England needs the EU more than EU needs England.

It's a giant game of chicken now.

Britain was the 3rd largest economy in the EU and a member of NATO so it's not like the EU can just cut Britain out entirely. Both parties will need to trade with each other in the future. We'll have to see whose negotiators are better.

 

[werepossum]

It's a giant game of chicken now.

Britain was the 3rd largest economy in the EU and a member of NATO so it's not like the EU can just cut Britain out entirely. Both parties will need to trade with each other in the future. We'll have to see whose negotiators are better.

Pretty much. Add to that military force - every time the EU wants some dictator smacked, only Great Britain can really do the smacking. And only Great Britain can reliably bring in America.

 

[WackyDan]

So, basically, a bunch of people voted for things they don't understand on false promises and basically now no one knows what to do?

Seems about right?

They voted for something they were told would impact the pound and world markets.

When what they were told actually happened, they decided they weren't up for it anymore.

Pretty simple. Long term, probably a good thing but I'm not a Brit. If anything the impact the vote has the EU leadership in a panic to find ways to prevent other nations from leaving. This exit vote was the wake up call that was needed. The EU is suddenly interested in tackling the security concerns and immigration concerns that the EU was previously ignoring.

 

[agent00f]

When what they were told actually happened, they decided they weren't up for it anymore.

Pretty simple. Long term, probably a good thing but I'm not a Brit. If anything the impact the vote has the EU leadership in a panic to find ways to prevent other nations from leaving.

Others would only leave if EU gives Britain a better deal for it. Guess what won't happen.

 

[DrPizza]

Because the definition of a democracy is doing the will of the majority of the people which is greater than half

What you said is true. What happened is not what you said. 52% of 72% turnout is not the "will of the majority of the people." It's the will of the majority of those who turned out to vote. Apparently, the Brexit people couldn't get 50% of the people to vote to exit the EU. Correct? If you want a majority of 50% of "the people," then you need 50% +1 of the people to come out and vote to exit. You didn't get that.


And, to the OP, basically, it's a bunch of people who have been getting screwed over by the ruling elite who made a decision, because apparently they don't realize that the ruling elite will continue to be the ruling elite - and the decision will screw over the bunch of people even worse with the Brexit.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

I think the tipping point and driving force was immigration.

The fact that any EU citizen can freely enter the UK and reside there pissed the English off.

There's a huge movement against immigration of "unwanteds" which they consider leeches to their social services, perpetually unemployed, lazy to integrate and learn the language, cultural agitants, and fear perpetrated by terrorism and increased crime.

More than one Brit will blame Merkel for initiating the Syrian refugee crisis and forcing other member EU nations to "absorb" what many consider her mess. But as members of the EU, you're Brussels HQ bitch and what they say goes. But Brits don't like to think of themselves as anyone's bitch.

Brits are proud and only had one leg in the EU anyways. They wouldn't even give up their currency.

The immigration issue is just the straw that broke the camel's back.

A big issue has always been the NHS. Which the government has never been willing to reform.

If you are in the UK part of your taxes go to the NHS, which provides free healthcare to all. And that also means that if you go there and check into a hospital with a costly disease the first day they are forced to treat you free of cost. As they couldn't dismiss people or deport them during the treatment it would also mean they'd have to get an allowance to live on.

Block that and it's already much harder for people to abuse the system, the costs go down and people have to find something else to whine about. For example not speaking English:
http://content2.skoften.net/images/54648/dumperdepump_(27)__800.jpg

 

[mikeymikec]

Rich got screwed, poor people still poor.

IMO, everyone except a few opportunistic investors will get screwed.

But I'd expect the UK's exports and domestic industries to be better over the long term, even if there is short term pain.

I don't see how. Most estimates have UK exports to the EU at 40% of its total exports. Those are going to get tariffed punitively by the EU for the UK leaving, so either those companies are able to swallow those heavy tariffs (unlikely in a global economy), or they manage to find someone else to sell to (existing product in an established market, a tough sell), or they go under. The EU on the other hand stands to lose a lot less in this respect as EU only exports about 5% of its total to the UK.

P.S. The media slant blaming "old people" for the Brexit is utterly retarded.

No, not really. Mostly older people voted leave. Lots of other people too, the poor, the gullible, people angry with the tories and thinking that this is a valid way to protest, people who hate immigrants, people angry with the tories trashing the NHS as a prelude to sell it off for a nickel to their friends.

Only the older folks who were adults pre-EU would truly be able to make a comparison pre-EU and post-EU in relation to how it impacted them.

No, not really. After torching our primary and secondary industries*, Thatcher went to the EU, cap in hand. After entering the EU, our prospects improved considerably. Anyone looking back at that era with a nostalgic twinkle in their eye needs to pick up a history book and educate themselves. Also, the world has changed drastically since the UK entered the EU. Thinking the two are comparable is like thinking that a Core i7 and a Motorola 68000 are comparable.

* - of course, it's more complicated than that, but IMO that's a reasonably accurate simple version.

 

[K1052]

I don't see how. Most estimates have UK exports to the EU at 40% of its total exports. Those are going to get tariffed punitively by the EU for the UK leaving, so either those companies are able to swallow those heavy tariffs (unlikely in a global economy), or they manage to find someone else to sell to (existing product in an established market, a tough sell), or they go under. The EU on the other hand stands to lose a lot less in this respect as EU only exports about 5% of its total to the UK.

This is what makes the least sense from the Leave argument. I don't see how the UK can realistically secure trade deals with the EU that basically preserve all the benefits of being a member without giving anything back (abide by regulations/laws, pay into structural fund, etc). The EU will want to prevent any body else from thinking about leaving or threatening to in order to shirk obligations.

 

[agent00f]

People sometimes believe things emotionally, where the reasons they give aren't the same kind of thing as the reasoning behind a sound argument. What I mean is the syntax of the sentences in each "reason" look similar, but "making sense" of the former isn't an applicable process.

More specifically, people behind brexit generally want to feel a sense of camaraderie with fellow "country"men. They don't feel camaraderie with other europeans, or immigrants & different cultures in general. That's an entirely different kind of motivation than doing economic cost/benefit analysis.

What happens is the former common folks get put down by the latter "experts", so what they do is make sentences (ie reasons) that kind of look the same. But just as facades of nice houses in North Korea aren't really houses, doing architectural analysis of propped up cardboard isn't particularly meaningful in itself.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

The problem is that common person doesn't see a way to get there when the same elites are the only options when you get to the ballot box.

Plus there is the whole fact that the elites have to agree to accept these "policies" and not just offshore their lives (aka move to the Caymans or New Zealand) like they have offshored blue collar jobs for decades.

Trump and Brexit is a "burn it down" political position, and people only want to burn it down when they don't see hope for reform or a chance for improvement. You burn it down when you believe the other guy has more to lose and the only way to make him lose anything is to burn down what you have too.

Once Biden or whoever snuffs out the campaign of Elizabeth Warren or whoever is Bernie 2.0 in the next election even the left will be willing to embrace the cleansing purity of the torch just as the far right did this year.

"Elites" are always going to be the only options at the ballot box. But the policy matters more than the politician. Warren & Sanders have and are continuing to push policy in the right direction, whether either gets in the white house at this point or not, and that has pulled HRC right along with them. Is HRC a less than ideal driver for that policy? Yes. Is she still better than "burn it down?" Yes.

This is just the start. Globalization was step 1. Automation is step 2. It will take huge changes IN THE ACTIONS OF THE ELITE (and only the elites) for society's stability to survive in a era when 60%+ of people are unemployed.

You're right, but a strictly "burn it down" approach without any reward for movements in the right policy directions doesn't get us there. "Elites" will be on top either during stability or strife. And you don't want a world where they are more invested in strife than stability. Or even one any more than they already are.