European Union Referendum

[Ian_Wrexham]

Hard Brexit vs. Soft Brexit is kinda "valid" if the discussion is about options. If folk want to argue that an EFTA/EEA deal à la Norway is the best option, that’s fine. And if they want to call it “Soft Brexit”, I’ll let it go (despite some reservations) because I'm not a total shithead and there are more important things to debate than nomenclature.

What grates is when it’s used to justify the (imagine the most annoying whiny child voice in the world) “but we were never told we were getting Hard Brexit” stuff, the implication being that the evil, duplicitous Mrs May is pursuing a course radically different to what most people thought Brexit meant. That's complete bollocks.

There were a fair few prominent Brexiteers who argued that a vote to leave the EU was not the same as a vote to leave the common market. Daniel Hannan probably the most prominent among them. Additionally, Norway and Switzerland were bandied around with sufficient frequency that many people might have concluded that Brexiteers viewed their situations as models.

Yeah, most of them never explicitly said "Britain will remain a member of the single market", but it's not particularly clear that people knew, as they were heading to the polls, that a vote for leaving the EU also meant a vote to leave the EEA. I certainly didn't have much idea what a vote for Brexit would have been, only that the result of the referendum would be viewed as a mandate to be shit to migrants - that's certainly something that's transpired.

Part of the reason referendums in a representative democracy are terrible ideas is they're contested like parliamentary elections and but with none of the political parties having to take any responsibility for the stuff that people promised in the vote. The problem is, I guess, that most of the people now complaining about what Theresa May does and doesn't have a mandate for voted in favour of the bill to have a referendum.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

You are of course assuming that people voted just because of the campaigns of either side. Most people I've spoken to since the vote were so fucked off by both sides they switched off and either went with their conscience or did their own research before coming to a decision.

I think there's merit here. The campaign was (as pretty much anyone of any political persuasion would agree) an utter mess with few if any clear statements, facts, arguments etc on either side. It was a mass mud-slinging contest in which some of each sides' mud stuck to the wall, but with a vast shit heap beneath the wall of desperate soundbites that didn't stick.

Now all that shouldn't be swept under the rug as I think some Leavers wish. Whilst fundamentally I think referendums are a good idea, how future Refs are conducted (Scotland? Voting reform? House of Lords reform?) will need to look carefully at the EU ref and do much, much better. Many more referendums with such poor discourse will kill off the very idea of referendums.

However back to the EU ref, as Laker suggests a conclusion that I came to (and I hear similar when speaking with friends both remain and leave) was that deciding how to vote based on the campaign was near impossible. Facts were so few and far between, gut feeling and opinions, most of which would have been held for years, had a lot to do with people's vote.

I believe, rightly or wrongly, that there's a groundswell of UK feeling that just does not trust Europe. That is why I think Leave won. There's a lot of labels you could give that distrust. Call it a lack of accountability and viability, call it history, call it an Island mentality, call it little England-ism, call it racism as some leavers do. But how did Remain try to address that? Remain didn't address that, they focused on convincing us that leaving would spell economic doom.

Remain being more negative than Leave is something probably inherent in any referendum involving the status quo versus a new direction. It's easier to point out the risks of change rather than the virtues of staying as is. But I think it was a major error for Remain. If Remain can't say anything good about the EU (and much as I voted leave, I admit the EU does some good), instead only shouting about why leaving would be bad, then what message did that give out?

It's more complicated than Boris on a red bus! Dismissing it as such does Remainer's now long term cause for European involvement no good at all.

That was a bit more of a ramble than I anticipated.

 

[Gashead]

Hmmm, I dunno about the 'saying nothing good about the EU'.

A lot of the positives of the EU aren't that interesting/relevant to a lot of people, where as the positives of coming out are. Stronger workers rights, free movement for Britons, opportunities for work, stronger political cohesion, tariff free trade. These things were mentioned loads by the Remain campaigners from all sides of the political spectrum, but the truth is they don't apply to some people on a day to day basis nor do they care (my particular thinking is the older voters). Of course they apply to some in huge ways, but not all. (The suggested) positives of leaving were much more concrete. More money for 'us' (NHS etc.), less free movement into the UK being huge ones.

Therefore, I can see why the Remain lot decided to go for scaremongering, particularly as it worked for Indy ref. That's how they were going to connect with people and their lives.

 

[Abertawe]

Your format style in this section is annoying as fuck but that's probably purposeful.

I doubt you really believe that. If you do, it casts your habitual moaning about Corbyn’s lousy treatment (be it by the press, opposing parties or his enemies in the PLP) in a very odd light.

Well no it doesn't. Smearing has been the most efficient political tool since time began. To deny it's importance would be deny there are whole institutions & press holdings dedicated to providing a platform for said spin/smear/propaganda. Don't be so arrogant as to assume a position telling me what I do or don't believe in. There are several variants to political smear occupying their own positions on the proverbial moral compass. From the blatant to half truths to outright lies. It's up you to decide how to interpret it but it can't be denied no matter how far back you go.

“Van Buren is as opposite to General Jackson as dung is to a diamond…He is what the English call a ‘dandy’. When he enters the Senate chamber in the morning, he struts and swaggers like a crow in the gutter. He is laced up in corsets, such as women in town wear, and, if possible, tighter than the best of them. It would be difficult to say, from his personal appearance, whether he was man or woman, but for his large…whiskers.” – Davy Crockett, U.S. Representative from Tennessee, on then-Vice President Martin Van Buren, 1835

What happened to Corbyn wasn't a smear campaign, it was many many levels above that. It was a systematic take down attempt by the establishment of various persuasions closing on rank and utilizing anything & everything at their disposal to topple him. I speak in past tense but it's still happening. When the figures that decide how peasants live put aside their differences to unhinge an individual forefronting a movement that should tell you all you need to know. Exposing that treachery is fundamental to the rights & living standards of future generations.

There’s certainly more to politics than mud-slinging when dealing with something as seismic as Brexit. At the moment debate about Brexit needs to focus on the process, on the best way to get it done. Things like VAT and NHS funding are questions of domestic policy. I’m not suggesting these be put on hold until Brexit is achieved; on the contrary, I think they’re ongoing debates that Labour should be at the centre of. But there’s a time and place, isn’t there? The recent parliamentary debate on Brexit was not it. What you suggested (see post 2706) is silly six-former politics. It would make the Labour Party look like petty amateurs who don’t appreciate the magnitude of the situation.

Yeah you don't suggest an awful lot tbh, rather speak vaguely about broad issues and then tell other people what they're suggesting. If you were to read what I've wrote on this issue you'd see I've said various times that Brexit shouldn't be disrupted by Labour or any other party and that Corbyn was right to go with a three line whip. I was advocating Labour adopt a clear PR line in relation to the £350m. The reality of it is Labour could demand all they like they couldn't do shit it the commons. You know this which is why I find it strange you would take it literal. Then I read a snidey little line and it's clear you're just being your usual pompous self.


While the £350m pledge is associated with the Leave campaign, Mrs May is not. I think most people – Leave or Remain, Tory or non-Tory – understand she’s inherited a very challenging situation, one largely created by others. It’s a strange, dissatisfying situation for many reasons, but one that gives her a certain amount of leeway. Your suggestion is to take bad Vote Leave arguments and re-imagine them as promises made by someone (May) who had nothing to do with Vote Leave. That’s idiotic and very easily countered. Mud-slinging is only effective if people think it's a fair cop.

Yeah. Bringing in prominent leavers into your cabinet and deciding the best option is to cosy up with Farage's biggest political ally means that any mud-slinging isn't fair cop at all... You may wanna rethink that buddy.

Agreed. Parliament’s role is to scrutinise the process of withdrawal. The opposition has an important role in that respect. My point was not that Labour should blindly acquiesce to whatever Mrs May wants; it was that criticisms of the Brexit process/plan ought to be focused on the Brexit process/plan. What you suggested was something quite different, namely using an important constitutional debate to indulge in cheap grandstanding.

You're just repeating what you've already said, which is to speak vaguely and attempt to interpret someones mind for them in order to boost your perceived sense of pompousness.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

I said a few weeks back that you’re impossible to have a constructive debate with. You had a chance to prove me wrong. Predictably you didn’t.

I know from watching your ‘debates’ with Max (a much better person than me) that trying to progress this is a waste of time. He persevered with impeccable patience and measured argument. All he got back was dim-witted abuse. I’m not going to waste my free time on something similar. In the past I’ve advised others to ignore you. From here on I’ll heed my own advice.

I’ll respond to Ian Wrexham in due course. Characteristically, he’s written something worth responding to.

Pompously yours,

Scumbag

 

[Abertawe]

I said a few weeks back that you’re impossible to have a constructive debate with. You had a chance to prove me wrong. Predictably you didn’t.

I know from watching your ‘debates’ with Max (a much better person than me) that trying to progress this is a waste of time. He persevered with impeccable patience and measured argument. All he got back was dim-witted abuse. I’m not going to waste my free time on something similar. In the past I’ve advised others to ignore you. From here on I’ll heed my own advice.

I’ll respond to Ian Wrexham in due course. Characteristically, he’s written something worth responding to.

Pompously yours,

Scumbag

If you say so. You can act as honorable as you like, I've not actually done owt wrong in my engagement with you in this thread. It's you who has used phrases like "stupid" "sixth form politics" "idiotic" to reinforce your point of view yet when you get a fairly calm, well mannered response you spit your dummy out. Practice what you preach my boy. I may have been too brash in my to & throws with Max but in this instance you're the one doing the offences you accuse me of.

 

[Veggie Legs]

I think what people object to, with regards to a hard Brexit and the leave campaigners, is the path it'll lead us down in order to to be competitive. So legislating against workers rights, environmental/work place protections, opening up the country to products banned by the EU due to safety reasons etc.

I don't recall this being something the leave campaign were telling us would happen. Some in the remain camp did, but given it was being driven mainly by Dave and co, it was not a narrative they wanted to push.

I think you mean 'cutting red tape'...

 

[Captain Scumbag]

There were a fair few prominent Brexiteers who argued that a vote to leave the EU was not the same as a vote to leave the common market. Daniel Hannan probably the most prominent among them..

I wrote earlier that some Leave campaigners were a bit “equivocal and fudgy” on the single market. Hannan is definitely one. I won’t argue that. Whether this duped thousands of now-regretful voters into voting Leave (which seems the implication when people gripe about this) is another matter, but I’ll cover that below.

Additionally, Norway and Switzerland were bandied around with sufficient frequency that many people might have concluded that Brexiteers viewed their situations as models.

Norway and Switzerland are typically used as counterexamples. The establishment narrative, repeated ad nauseam, is that Brexit will lead to economic ruin. Norway and Switzerland show that European countries (including those with lower populations, smaller GDP, less soft power, etc.) can prosper outside the EU. They’re useful in that sense. They can also be useful points of reference in debates about specific policy areas. I can’t, however, recall anyone presenting them as the ideal model to emulate or the best blueprint to follow. As has been pointed out (and conceded) many times, the official Leave campaign tried to avoid that level of detail.

Yeah, most of them never explicitly said "Britain will remain a member of the single market", but it's not particularly clear that people knew, as they were heading to the polls, that a vote for leaving the EU also meant a vote to leave the EEA.

If the basic charge is that the Leave campaign didn’t rally around a consistent, coherent post-referendum plan vis-à-vis the single market, I have no counter. It didn’t. I actually conceded this point (several times) in this thread during the campaign. I genuinely thought this would cause Leave to lose.

My argument now is that both sides by and large argued their case in a way that presupposed single market withdrawal. Remain relied heavily on economic doom-mongering, making arguments that smuggled in the assumption of single market withdrawal. Leave relied heavily on a “Take Back Control” message that is simply incompatible with continued membership of the EEA.

I suspect most (if not all) voters with anxieties about the single market voted Remain, while those with other priorities voted Leave. Therefore, the people most likely to feel duped/betrayed by Mrs May’s “Hard Brexit” approach are Leave voters who thought a Leave vote posed no threat to continued single market membership and participation. How many people fit that description? Not many, I venture. I certainly haven’t seen too many Leave voters complaining.

Part of the reason referendums in a representative democracy are terrible ideas is they're contested like parliamentary elections and but with none of the political parties having to take any responsibility for the stuff that people promised in the vote. The problem is, I guess, that most of the people now complaining about what Theresa May does and doesn't have a mandate for voted in favour of the bill to have a referendum.

I think referendums are wonderful in principle (the purest expression of popular democracy) and especially good for settling big constitutional questions. I doubt I’ll ever change my mind on that. I will, however, concede they’re hugely problematic when (a) they’re initiated by a government that lacks enthusiasm for the most radical option put forward, and (b) people choose the most radical option.

A Scottish independence referendum will only happen when the SNP is in office. In that case the most radical option on the ballot paper will be secession, which of course the SNP supports. Therefore, in any Scottish referendum the government will campaign for the most radical option. If they win, the same government will be assigned responsibility for delivering on the result. Their performance can be judged against their promises. That’s obviously better than what we have vis-à-vis Brexit. Much better.

The problem was entirely foreseeable, though. The Leave campaign was not a prospective government standing for election. It was a rag-tag bunch united by a common desire, not an intellectually cohesive unit with a common post-Brexit vision. Only a couple of its most prominent figures (Gove and Boris) were likely to be anywhere near the reins of power afterwards. The post-referendum cabinet was never going to include Matthew Elliot, Dominic Cummings, Nigel Farage, Aaron Banks, et al. A good friend of mine – a dyed in the wool EU-sceptic – voted Remain for this reason. Perhaps more would have been dissuaded if Remain had honed in on this problem, i.e. shifted the debate from the why to the how, pointed to the likelihood of a post-referendum power vacuum, etc.

 

[johnnytodd]

i voted leave so Scotland would fuck off and we could tax Salty to the brink

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

I think referendums are wonderful in principle (the purest expression of popular democracy) and especially good for settling big constitutional questions. I doubt I’ll ever change my mind on that. I will, however, concede they’re hugely problematic when (a) they’re initiated by a government that lacks enthusiasm for the most radical option put forward, and (b) people choose the most radical option.

A Scottish independence referendum will only happen when the SNP is in office. In that case the most radical option on the ballot paper will be secession, which of course the SNP supports. Therefore, in any Scottish referendum the government will campaign for the most radical option. If they win, the same government will be assigned responsibility for delivering on the result. Their performance can be judged against their promises. That’s obviously better than what we have vis-à-vis Brexit. Much better.

I think referendums in representative democracy are bad in principle as well as in practice. In a representative democracy, we empower elected representatives to make decisions and to be accountable to the voters for those decisions - largely cos we view governance of a country as beyond the ken of ordinary people.

But in referendums, the electorate has the power to steer a course that no-one is accountable for carrying out. It's like getting your kids to set your household budget and then having to muddle through when they've not accounted for gas and telephone bills. At their very best, they, as you say, provide a popular mandate for radical change that the government wants to carry out. But even this is not unproblematic - demagogues everywhere realise that referendums are a great way to stir up nationalist sentiment.

I think popular democracy is a good idea in theory, but holding referendums is not a way to achieve this. Direct democracy has to involve the democratising of accountability, as well as power.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

In France on holiday at the moment, so will probably take a few days to reply. In the meantime, would you mind elaborating on your last sentence? It might be that my brain isn't working properly due to the shock of the double-digit temperatures over here, but I'm not sure what you mean by "democratising of accountability". Can you clarify, please?

 

[Red]

Hmmm, I dunno about the 'saying nothing good about the EU'.

A lot of the positives of the EU aren't that interesting/relevant to a lot of people, where as the positives of coming out are. Stronger workers rights, free movement for Britons, opportunities for work, stronger political cohesion, tariff free trade. These things were mentioned loads by the Remain campaigners from all sides of the political spectrum, but the truth is they don't apply to some people on a day to day basis nor do they care (my particular thinking is the older voters). Of course they apply to some in huge ways, but not all. (The suggested) positives of leaving were much more concrete. More money for 'us' (NHS etc.), less free movement into the UK being huge ones.

Therefore, I can see why the Remain lot decided to go for scaremongering, particularly as it worked for Indy ref. That's how they were going to connect with people and their lives.

I'll probably get some opprobrium for this, not that I care, but I will say that I think a substantial proportion of the Brexit votes came from un-educated working class people who do not understand politics or ever even engage in politics.

That is not homogenising the working class, I'm working class myself. The referendum gave these people who have become so exercised over Johnny foreigner 'taking our jobs, women, houses and hospital beds', an opportunity to feel like they have some say in something. I've discussed before how I think these simpletons, who unfortunately in a democracy have a direct opportunity to make a difference haven't the intellectual capacity to understand how other factors impact on social provision. However, what a lot of them do not realise is that in areas of social and economic deprivation many community organisations that offered community regeneration programmes will no longer be able to do so because they were funded by the ESF.

I'm sure I've said all this before. I think I'm in the early stages of dementia.

 

[Abertawe]

I'll probably get some opprobrium for this, not that I care, but I will say that I think a substantial proportion of the Brexit votes came from un-educated working class people who do not understand politics or ever even engage in politics.

That is not homogenising the working class, I'm working class myself. The referendum gave these people who have become so exercised over Johnny foreigner 'taking our jobs, women, houses and hospital beds', an opportunity to feel like they have some say in something. I've discussed before how I think these simpletons, who unfortunately in a democracy have a direct opportunity to make a difference haven't the intellectual capacity to understand how other factors impact on social provision. However, what a lot of them do not realise is that in areas of social and economic deprivation many community organisations that offered community regeneration programmes will no longer be able to do so because they were funded by the ESF.

I'm sure I've said all this before. I think I'm in the early stages of dementia.

But that's like saying the 'educated' understand politics which I don't think is the case.

How the EU evolved was to make the populace of the 500m more even so given that we were top of the tree compared to other states we were only losing. People just need to vote accordingly and we won't have areas dependent on ESF grants. Now we're seemingly coming out we have a chance to make it really good or really shit. Calling people thick is more likely to spur them into voting UKIP/Tories and making it very very shit.

 

[Red]

But that's like saying the 'educated' understand politics which I don't think is the case.

How the EU evolved was to make the populace of the 500m more even so given that we were top of the tree compared to other states we were only losing. People just need to vote accordingly and we won't have areas dependent on ESF grants. Now we're seemingly coming out we have a chance to make it really good or really shit. Calling people thick is more likely to spur them into voting UKIP/Tories and making it very very shit.

Hmm I don't think what I said about uneducated working class people equates with all educated people understanding politics, I'm sure there's many who also don't understand. What I mean by educated though is not in a general sense, but a political sense - like understanding that factors other than immigration impact on social provision.. You say people need to vote accordingly so we won't have areas of social deprivation, but as I'm seeing it at the moment this country seems to have an increasing acceptance of right wing politics. I honestly think if some people who voted to leave on the basis of immigration had been presented with a scenario whereby their ESF community regeneration funding dried up, they'd still have voted to leave because immigration was what they perceive as being the biggest problem.

I wouldn't call someone thick if I was discussing this with them, but for a lot of people, no matter what factual evidence you present to them, their learned xenophobia takes precedence over logic and reason and for that reason the fact remains they are thick.

 

[Abertawe]

Hmm I don't think what I said about uneducated working class people equates with all educated people understanding politics, I'm sure there's many who also don't understand. What I mean by educated though is not in a general sense, but a political sense - like understanding that factors other than immigration impact on social provision.. You say people need to vote accordingly so we won't have areas of social deprivation, but as I'm seeing it at the moment this country seems to have an increasing acceptance of right wing politics. I honestly think if some people who voted to leave on the basis of immigration had been presented with a scenario whereby their ESF community regeneration funding dried up, they'd still have voted to leave because immigration was what they perceive as being the biggest problem.

I wouldn't call someone thick if I was discussing this with them, but for a lot of people, no matter what factual evidence you present to them, their learned xenophobia takes precedence over logic and reason and for that reason the fact remains they are thick.

What chance do people have to be politically educated when the press run agenda's that don't pertain to the reality of the situation or don't even report real news? The Royal Society of Medicine has linked 30,000 excess deaths to disinvestment yet if you scan the front pages of both the BBC & Sky News it doesn't even feature.

Edit - Story is actually on Sky albeit further down but absent on BBC.

 

[markwwfc1992]

Ah, Tony Blair is back in the news, the man who should have been tried for war crimes at the Hague years ago. Lovely.

 

[Abertawe]

Big advocate of fake news was Tony.

 

[Red]

Ah, Tony Blair is back in the news, the man who should have been tried for war crimes at the Hague years ago. Lovely.

B.liar is saying that people who voted Brexit did so based on 'imperfect knowledge'. Basing a decision on imperfect knowledge eh? Three letters - WMD.

 

[Red]

What chance do people have to be politically educated when the press run agenda's that don't pertain to the reality of the situation or don't even report real news? The Royal Society of Medicine has linked 30,000 excess deaths to disinvestment yet if you scan the front pages of both the BBC & Sky News it doesn't even feature.

Edit - Story is actually on Sky albeit further down but absent on BBC.

Well, it's a matter of whether or not you want to want to become politically educated isn't it? If you want to become educated then you'll endeavour to be so. I know it's democracy and all that but when you get people that sit on their arse's all day watching the fucking Kardashians and Kyle,, people who before have never been within a mile of a voting booth in their sorry lives, exerting power it irks because they neither know nor care about the ramifications of their actions.

 

[Abertawe]

Well, it's a matter of whether or not you want to want to become politically educated isn't it? If you want to become educated then you'll endeavour to be so. I know it's democracy and all that but when you get people that sit on their arse's all day watching the fucking Kardashians and Kyle,, people who before have never been within a mile of a voting booth in their sorry lives, exerting power it irks because they neither know nor care about the ramifications of their actions.

Those running the show don't want people to be politically informed hence why it's not taught in schools and dumbing down TV shows like the Kardashians & Jeremy Kyle are so prevalent. The society & world in which we live in isn't an accident, it was planned to be like it is. I don't think the subjects of this planning are to blame, what chance do they have. When you've got generations on generations fed on processed lab food, IQ lowering TV programming, an education system that purposely allows white working class boys to fail and viscounts & non doms dictating how you think and assess the world you end up with Johnny T & Carver. They're not to blame for a system they were born into but given they're the biggest patriots on this forum that should tell you all you need to know.

Topple those responsible not harangue those who essentially don't even think for themselves.

 

[Red]

Those running the show don't want people to be politically informed hence why it's not taught in schools and dumbing down TV shows like the Kardashians & Jeremy Kyle are so prevalent. The society & world in which we live in isn't an accident, it was planned to be like it is. I don't think the subjects of this planning are to blame, what chance do they have. When you've got generations on generations fed on processed lab food, IQ lowering TV programming, an education system that purposely allows white working class boys to fail and viscounts & non doms dictating how you think and assess the world you end up with Johnny T & Carver. They're not to blame for a system they were born into but given they're the biggest patriots on this forum that should tell you all you need to know.

Topple those responsible not harangue those who essentially don't even think for themselves.

I totally get where you're coming from - that people are inculcated with rubbish that rots their brains, but you know as well as I do that no struggle has ever been won by the elite rolling over and giving us what we want. Such is the level of apathy and ignorance in this country now I only see things getting worse.. I've not felt as despondent as I do now since Thatcher.

 

[sl1k]

To topple the responsible (of what's essentially a class-system preservation thing) you need the intellectually-disengaged to start engaging. That should be the next course of action as a society - getting people more involved and enlighten them to the influences they are capable of exerting on their realities.

People hold grievances for all kinds of life situations, but it's the feeling of being powerless to change trajectory which invokes the darker natures in us. Add to that the vultures waiting in the wings to pounce given any opportunity to misdirect and channel all that emotion towards irrational trains of thought. BOOM. It's a madness.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

In France on holiday at the moment, so will probably take a few days to reply. In the meantime, would you mind elaborating on your last sentence? It might be that my brain isn't working properly due to the shock of the double-digit temperatures over here, but I'm not sure what you mean by "democratising of accountability". Can you clarify, please?

Yes. I waved my hands a bit there, because to actually explain what I meant would require a lot of words.

In my previous post, I made an analogy of a referendum being like kids deciding a household budget. In a representative system, the parents both have the decision-making power, and accountability for those decisions. In the "referendum" case, the kids can vote to spend 50% of the household budget on sweets and the parents have to work out what implementing "the will of the children" means. In a truly democratic system, all members of the family would sit down together and go through where and how the family budget should be spent. The implications of individual decisions could be weighed up against one another and collectively a decision could be reached.

My analogy breaks down because voters aren't actually children - but representative systems limit and stifle political engagement. Referendums in the context of limited political engagement, often act as an outlet for powerlessness and alienation and to kick out (either at "the establishment" or at the designated enemies of the state - the Brexit vote can be viewed through either lens imo).

Could a collective decision about the EU have been reached in this way? It's difficult to imagine how direct democracy could be applied to our current existing political culture. But it is possible to imagine relatively small groups of people (maybe on a council ward level) meeting together over several months to discuss whether to leave the EU but also what Britain post-Brexit/non-Brexit would should look like. Those groups could federate (maybe initially on a constituency level, and then nationally) each time with delegates feeding back to local groups - particularly on the points of disagreement - and revising and moderating their positions accordingly.

This sounds fanciful (and a lot of effort) but it does so because we promote an adversarial and top-down political culture which has very little meaningful political engagement. Brexit means brexit. You won, we lost. The politicians are left staring at bird entrails to establish what "the will of the people" actually means (or rather they assert that the will of the people matches what they politically want to happen) and people on both sides are crying that they have been or are being betrayed.

What sort of political culture would allow for this? IMO one where people are used to having control over the decisions that impact their everyday lives - for example, where tenants have collective control of their housing estate, workers have collective control of their workplaces, service users have collective control over public services - would create an atmosphere of collective accountability and consensus building that would equip people with the tools to deal with a question like "should we leave the EU". It would also leave people equipped to better steer (and correct) the course (once a decision had been made) in a way that best represents "the will of the people".

 

[Captain Scumbag]

I made an analogy of a referendum being like kids deciding a household budget. In a representative system, the parents both have the decision-making power, and accountability for those decisions. In the "referendum" case, the kids can vote to spend 50% of the household budget on sweets and the parents have to work out what implementing "the will of the children" means..

Haribo. Buckets and buckets of Haribo.

Serious answer to follow when I get home.

 

[Blitzballer]

Tony Blair = War criminal c***

 

[Abertawe]

I totally get where you're coming from - that people are inculcated with rubbish that rots their brains, but you know as well as I do that no struggle has ever been won by the elite rolling over and giving us what we want. Such is the level of apathy and ignorance in this country now I only see things getting worse.. I've not felt as despondent as I do now since Thatcher.

Being apathetic yourself only serves to churn out a self fulfilling prophecy though mate. If someone as intellectually aware as yourself is feeling despondent & disengaged then what is the hope for the rest? As Sick excellently put it the way to achieve the world you want is to be engaged and show people in your day to day that a different way is both possible and desirable. We have a system where only two parties can win power but one of them is representing the actual change that you hold dear & desire. To see someone like you throwing in the towel and saying a 'centrist' is required to win paints the impression the same forces have imparted you with subliminal too. No amount of bias from establishment media or establishment serving 'opinion polls' should dissuade you from staying true to your values and having the confidence show others that a better way is achievable. Despite what they tell us there is no plausible reason as to why Labour can't win the next election under the current leadership. A 'centrist' isn't the alternative nor should it be desired when it represents what's already there albeit slightly less shit. Don't kill me now kill me tomorrow sort of logic.

To topple the responsible (of what's essentially a class-system preservation thing) you need the intellectually-disengaged to start engaging. That should be the next course of action as a society - getting people more involved and enlighten them to the influences they are capable of exerting on their realities.

People hold grievances for all kinds of life situations, but it's the feeling of being powerless to change trajectory which invokes the darker natures in us. Add to that the vultures waiting in the wings to pounce given any opportunity to misdirect and channel all that emotion towards irrational trains of thought. BOOM. It's a madness.

Agree very lots.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

I think referendums in representative democracy are bad in principle as well as in practice. In a representative democracy, we empower elected representatives to make decisions and to be accountable to the voters for those decisions - largely cos we view governance of a country as beyond the ken of ordinary people.

“Beyond the ken of ordinary people" strikes me as giving soft expression to the view that ‘ordinary’ people are too pig-ignorant and stupid to understand political matters. That’s not a justification for representative democracy I favour.

I don’t want a referendum for everything, but that’s for practical rather than ideological reasons. Direct democracy with heavy reliance on referenda is a very cumbersome form of political decision-making. Governing a modern nation state is not like governing a Greek polis in 5th century BC. We need more efficient and flexible processes. Also, a direct system along classical lines would require a degree of participation that most ‘ordinary’ people are unable to give.

On certain questions, though, I think a more classical/direct approach is appropriate. This is particularly so for the really big constitutional questions (e.g. Scottish independence, UK membership of the EU, Australia becoming a republic, etc.) because they are as much existential questions as they are political ones. I’m struggling to pinpoint why (which is never good!) but I think it's wrong for politicians to make that type of decision without first gaining clear majority approval from the voting public. Politicians elected via FPTP don’t have that. PR would alleviate the problem somewhat, but ultimately a direct plebiscite is the best indication of where majority public opinion lies.

I know the recent EU referendum was a piss poor advert for referendums. It was promised for shallow and cynical party-political reasons rather than on democratic principle; and, as discussed, the government wasn’t keen on (or prepared for) the most radical option. I would, however, encourage people to view that as a damning indictment of the Cameron-led government, not an indictment of referendums generally.

But in referendums, the electorate has the power to steer a course that no-one is accountable for carrying out.

I disagree. The present government is accountable for carrying out the decision. If they make an arse of it, they will likely be replaced. If subsequent governments try and fail, and if the impression grows that these repeated failures are attributable to the course's fundamental unsoundness, people will eventually elect a government proposing a different course. That’s how democratic politics should work.

It's like getting your kids to set your household budget and then having to muddle through when they've not accounted for gas and telephone bills. In a representative system, the parents both have the decision-making power, and accountability for those decisions. In the "referendum" case, the kids can vote to spend 50% of the household budget on sweets and the parents have to work out what implementing "the will of the children" means. In a truly democratic system, all members of the family would sit down together and go through where and how the family budget should be spent. The implications of individual decisions could be weighed up against one another and collectively a decision could be reached.

I don’t like this analogy for various reasons. You’ve already been gracious and self-critical enough to acknowledge the main one (see the third paragraph of post 2,783), so I shan’t dwell on that. Let me tackle it another way.

On a basic level it’s very clear what “the will of the children” means: it means spending 50% of the household budget on sweets. The concern is that children, left to their own devices, won’t consider the negative consequences of budgeting that way. But why assume they’d decide unaided? Is that how a national plebiscite works?

Assuming the children are of or above a certain age, couldn’t the parents explain the likely negative consequences prior to decision time? It wouldn't need to be very technical. There'll be no TV or Xbox because we won’t have enough money for electricity. Cold showers from hereon because we won’t have enough money for heating. You’ll have to walk everywhere because we won’t be able to fill up the car with petrol. No more swimming club (or whatever) as we’ll have no money left for the entry fee. The beloved family Labrador? He’ll have to go as we won’t be able to feed him. Don't worry. We'll turn him into curry or a nice stew, thus improving your new diabetes-inducing diet with some much needed protein. At this point the more precocious children might mutter something about "Project Fear", but you get the idea.

Children too dense to understand the problem in theory would quickly learn through experience; and while I don’t care much for analogies that reimagine the voting public as flighty dim-witted kids, perhaps I can co-opt yours for my own purpose here. In a national referendum the political class (the parents) don’t just delegate the decision to the electorate (the children) and leave them to it. They try to inform and influence the decision-making process. The British political establishment spent 4 months trying to convince the voting public that leaving the EU would be a disaster. The majority chose not to listen to them. If that decision was foolish then it will eventually become apparent, and public opinion will change.

Taking the long view, would that be a terrible thing? In most aspects of life we learn valuable lessons by fucking up. Why not in national politics?

At their very best, they, as you say, provide a popular mandate for radical change that the government wants to carry out. But even this is not unproblematic - demagogues everywhere realise that referendums are a great way to stir up nationalist sentiment.

I don’t think “nationalist sentiment” is axiomatically a bad thing. I appreciate that you do, and I suspect our disagreement on this is rooted in a more fundamental disagreement about what nationalism means in a political context. For me it’s basically favouring political independence for your country; given this and my political priorities, I have no problem with it being stirred up. For you it’s probably more synonymous with things like racism, xenophobia and military aggression; given this and your political priorities, you’d rather keep a lid on it.

That’s a tangential (and possibly irreconcilable) argument, though. I don’t favour referendums for big constitutional questions because they’re more likely to produce my desired outcomes (or less likely to deliver undesired ones). A “yes” vote in a future Scottish independence referendum is one of the worst political outcomes I can imagine – one that would disturb me emotionally as much as it would trouble me intellectually. I still think it’s the sort of political question that needs to be asked via a national referendum.

If referendums were more likely to produce your desired outcomes, would you be more amenable to them?

I think popular democracy is a good idea in theory, but holding referendums is not a way to achieve this. Direct democracy has to involve the democratising of accountability, as well as power.

Hopefully the above waffle covers this. If not, please say.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

I'm not going to reply to the individual points there but I agree with chunks of it. I think if a Cameron-led government had won a general election promising, in the manifesto, to negotiate terms in which the UK could exit the EU, and then, having done so, put those terms to the electorate to ratify, I would have no problem with a referendum being used in that way*.

That feels like a reasonable role for referendums to play in representative democracy - as ratification for major constitutional changes the government wants to make.

The EU referendum was different, in that very few people understood what a Brexit vote would actually mean. Part of that was the level of engagement (I think possibly I made too much of that in my earlier post - but I do think political engagement is the key to direct democracy), but also the terms of the vote were so ill-defined. Does Brexit mean leaving the EU, the EEA, the Customs Union, the Single Market? Who knew the distinctions between all of these prior to the vote (hands up, I didn't, and am still pretty vague on them).

I think referendums on open-ended, broad-brushed stuff that might involve massive constitutional changes but in ways which are really poorly defined are ill-suited to being answered by referendums and necessarily lead to the sort of mudslinging, fear-mongering and outright lying that characterised the EU referendum**. The same was true of the Scottish referendum - no-one knew what sort of Independence they were voting for - border fences on the banks of the Tweed, or currency-union and all of the North Sea Oil. As such, the vacuum of knowledge was filled by promises/threats that no-one had much intention of keeping.

And of course, the other thing that seeps into the vacuum is xenophobia and racism, not to mention paranoia and bitterness about dirty tricks from the other side.. In both cases, the political culture, as a whole, felt less healthy after the referendum.

If we're to put broad-brush questions to an electorate, we need to have a vastly different political culture to the one we now have.

* Of course, as you acknowledge, this is on Cameron not necessarily on the "leave the EU" crowd.
** Another reason for my analogy being poor was that "Spend 50% of the household budget on sweets" is pretty understandable - and it's easy to see the consequences.

 

[johnnytodd]

Just to confirm we voted out just to wind you bell ends up.

Its been fun thus far.

 

[Abertawe]

Can't decide whether he was once good but became a devil worshiper or was always an opportunistic ratbag.