Brexit thread 2 Electric Boogaloo

[Balinkay]

Indeed rb, there were so many lies on both sides of the campaign. Disgraceful.

I could almos stomach a referendum on an issue like that if the campaign was 2-3 years long, full of debates and the people at large were properly informed. It didn't seem that way to me.

[CCTV]

Obviously by dumb I didn't mean "with low IQ". I meant poorly prepared to judge very complex issues. Yes, people are incredibly dumb in that regard. You are exactly on the slippery slope - there are practical considerations to be made - why do we need parialment in your world? People can just vote on everything. Jesus Christ, do you honestly think the average Briton did their research with regard to Brexit? Wasn't the most googled term the day after the referendum "What is the EU?" or was that just a meme. People don't really vote on specific issues - they vote for candidates or parties who they think will protect their interests. Specific issues and possible solutions are used in usually untruthful election campaigns to convince people you'd do the best for them. The cum rag joke was that, as with most issues, in practice taking a concept it to its most extreme incarnation results in absurdity. Which is what you seem to be doing - "if people are too dumb to vote for one thing, they are too dumb to vote for any thing", kind of strawmanning my position. I just mirrored that. There has to be some cut off point. Even is Switzerland. With Brexit I get the feeling that the citizens didn't really have a problem with the EU per se, but they faced certain issues - like too much immigration or a less then stellar NHS. They were given a way to vote for the solution, not for the issues they found difficult. If we get back to jokes, it's like going to the doctor and not telling them your leg hurts, but rather asking for the bonesaw, since it's your leg and you should be able to make that choice. No, you pay your taxes so that the doctor does that stuff for you. Division of labour and so on.

I've given a few reasons why we have a parliament already, if you care to ignore the reply so be it.

Referendums are put to people when they are asked to vote. The same way every few years typically they are asked to vote for the stewardship of the country via the sum of their votes in a general election. To equate this to voting on everything is a bit of a stretch, dont you think ?

You might suggest the differences of scale in comprehending the complexity of voting for the running of a country via general election and the voting in a referendum on the country and how it is to be run ?
You introduce slippery slopes sloppily imo, so please explain the difference.

Your argument appears to be that they are too uninformed to vote on the direction of how the country is to be run via referendum on the eu, compared with voting on the direction of how the country is to be run via general election within the eu. I dont really see how you can justify such a claim. Where is the requisite complexity to disqualify voters/voting ?

This proposed next general election will likely run on Brexit largely. So will it be too complex for the voters to vote in as you see it ?

Your argument would also seem to be that elections are to be based on who they deem to be the most competent or trustworthy in each circumstance from the respective campaigns or some other combination of qualifiers.
If your case is that they are indeed voting on the appeals of elected officials and prominent citizens then we must surely conclude that in losing an election and in losing a referendum that the fault lies with those campaigners.
The less competent or convincing appeals lost. So thereafter the better campaigners should lead, having proven themselves better at campaigning or more sincere.

A mixture of voting on the issue based on opinion and the people campaigning still has the same results. People voted as best they knew and who they deemed best placed to represent their will.

What were these other issues ? Control of territory/fishing, borders/security, laws, sovereignty, migration, trade deals, free movement of people, a sense of identity, avoiding further federalisation and closer union, being on the hook for future failures in the eurozone.
You ventured the NHS which can (or could) benefit from being outside the eu and in restricting the numbers of people it must serve into the future. It seems obvious to me that voting on leaving the eu was central to addressing those issues listed.

In my experience the more informed voters were brexiteers and suggested you look at the pro remain green MEPs opinion having arrived to the ep as an example at an earlier point iirc.
So in reply to your own presented factoid as a question, I'd suggest it was the actions of remainers behind this meme. It makes sense having lost the referendum. The victor's rejoice and celebrate. Remainers searching for their ammunition refusing to concede.

I think it's hard to suggest the people had no interest in it, I can't take this suggestion seriously when euroscepticism is an associated attribute of the British within the EU caricaturing of nations. Euroscepticism is not confined to the UK either, nor should it, when foreign rule lies outside the nation. It's been expressed in other countries, a review of trends across the eu nations is a good metric for the vote. Imo the referendum result supports the data, leave. I'm not impartial on the matter.

The UK has a parliament that has defaulted on its obligation and commitments to the people. Mandated, article 50 - then voided, extended, extended and another extension.

You have SNP and lib dems openly declaring their remain position, the lib dem leader saying she'd refuse to accept the results of a second referendum if it didnt suit her wishes, so I guess shed want to vote till she gets her way. Labour representative Emily Thornberry was mocked having been summarised as saying they'll go and renegotiate the deal if elected and thereafter she'll campaign for remain against the deal they would have just negotiated. She wants to be elected to get a deal she wants to then defeat !! Having stood on the respect and deliver line getting elected in 2017.

The eu might well look at the data and decline an extension ! Unlikely though as they rarely give up that easily and it seems they were dealing with the opposition who may have acted illegally.

While politicians and ardent remainers become evermore entrenched I think many just want it done and dusted. We lost, move on and get over it.

Corbyn has proved himself to be an utter fool imo. He should have fought for a Brexit and also taken on Blair, but hes lost that battle imo now. He needs to be out of the eu to do what he wants politically as I see it and whilst hammering on about the no deal predicted economic outcomes (see new boe stance) he has put forward the case that argues even harder against him being prime minister.
No deal Brexit prior to the revised assessment was deemed less of a threat to the economy than Corbyn as pm. Now no deal Brexit is deemed even less of a threat to the economy than before. Largely due to the last governments attempt to frustrate preparations and Brexit. The last government is under serious scrutiny for being like the labour rep, getting a deal they want to defeat and not delivering on leaving the eu.

I wonder if the Brexit party will swing back as the biggest party if the deadline date does not see the deliverance of Brexit. Imagine if by refusing to respect and deliver the result they get Farage elected as PM.
How would the eu/remainers like them apples ?

Bojo if refused an extension by the eu and given a no deal might be preferable to the eu than an election after the deadline date that could return Farage as PM and a likely no deal Brexit anyway. Brexiteers might worry about more tory remainers hampering Brexit.

The next election at present would seem to suggest a Tory major and Brexit minor majority. After the deadline date that could flip.

Theres time for the lib dems and labour to act. But essentially they have leaders where the lib dem refuses to accept Brexit even if voted on in a second referendum, while labour's Corbyn has been a EU skeptic now campaigning for a second referendum and screaming about the data which would also scream most against him as PM.

Who knows what will happen though, so much at play and changes by the day.

[Balinkay]

The only argument I've seen you bring forth for parliament other than voting is debating the issues. Which I handwaved away by saying that can effectively happen online. A bit facetious, yes, but not entirely implausible, especially if people can supposedly effectively be informed about things like the effects of the EU via campaign.

I'm not really looking forward to debating the current situation in depth - I understand too little about it to have a particularly strong opinion either way.

Regarding slippery slopes: A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is a logical fallacy in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.

In this case the first step was me saying people are too dumb to vote on extremely complex issues and you claiming that's tantamount to claiming they're too dumb to vote on anything. Which is, of course, nonsense.

[CCTV]

The only argument I've seen you bring forth for parliament other than voting is debating the issues. Which I handwaved away by saying that can effectively happen online. A bit facetious, yes, but not entirely implausible, especially if people can supposedly effectively be informed about things like the effects of the EU via campaign.

I'm not really looking forward to debating the current situation in depth - I understand too little about it to have a particularly strong opinion either way.

Regarding slippery slopes: A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is a logical fallacy in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.

In this case the first step was me saying people are too dumb to vote on extremely complex issues and you claiming that's tantamount to claiming they're too dumb to vote on anything. Which is, of course, nonsense.

I accused you of going down a dangerous path of justifying the removal of voting rights from people. Which has been made by remainers who've called for the older in their society to not be permitted to vote in a proposed peoples vote. If you could answer some questions it would be helpful I'm establishing your opinions.

You outlined your opinion as the vote was too complex for people to vote on. I disagree.

Do you think voting for a national government is not as or rather similarly complex?
In the case where leaving the eu is contested in a general election is it too complex ?

1 referendum and voting in elections is not voting on everything ?

[Balinkay]

1. Not really, especially as you'll get to vote that government out of power in four or so years if you're unhappy. You don't get to do that with the referendum. I do agree it's a very complex issue in its own right and people are far too complacent to read up on it properly.

It is simpler in the sense that you have some grasp of what each party will do once you put it in power and what issues it will address, since it's happened a thousand times before. In the case of Brexit that seemed to be kind of unclear, as it's not obvious what exactly they're fighting for in the exit negotiations.

2. It's rather tough one, but a layer of complexity is removed, as you vote for someone to protect your interest, rather than protecting your own interest. Kind of like hiring a lawyer. As I said, a referendum like this would be a bit less tough to swallow if the positions and desires of both sides were clearly laid out beforehand. They weren't, as apparently "Leave means leave" rings quite hollow, as evidenced by Bojo's attempts to cobble together some deal with the EU.

3. What?

[CCTV]

1. Not really, especially as you'll get to vote that government out of power in four or so years if you're unhappy. You don't get to do that with the referendum. I do agree it's a very complex issue in its own right and people are far too complacent to read up on it properly.

It is simpler in the sense that you have some grasp of what each party will do once you put it in power and what issues it will address, since it's happened a thousand times before. In the case of Brexit that seemed to be kind of unclear, as it's not obvious what exactly they're fighting for in the exit negotiations.

2. It's rather tough one, but a layer of complexity is removed, as you vote for someone to protect your interest, rather than protecting your own interest. Kind of like hiring a lawyer. As I said, a referendum like this would be a bit less tough to swallow if the positions and desires of both sides were clearly laid out beforehand. They weren't, as apparently "Leave means leave" rings quite hollow, as evidenced by Bojo's attempts to cobble together some deal with the EU.

3. What?

1 What does the interval difference have to do with comprehending the voting topic and vote ?
I can see no relevance to your point.

How are the electorate by your opinion supposed to be informed enough for voting in a government within the eu when you say they are incapable of comprehending the eu?
If they cannot comprehend the eu, how could they possibly pick a government to operate within it ?

2 I suggest you reaquaint yourself with what the leave vote meant prior to the vote. It is quite clear what the vote to leave meant, the only discrepancy was whether a trade deal would be negotiated or not and whether that would be simple or difficult given their own negotiators and the will of the eu appointed officials. Who I'll remind you have been on video detailing their potential ability to bribe MPs to reverse the will of the people.
While the boe improved forecast even under a no deal Brexit is made largely as the previous negotiators had done a poor job in comparison with the current one. A stitch up as many would agree.

3 you accused me of slippery sloping, yet you have gone to a far greater extreme in suggesting that perhaps parliament should be abolished on account of the people being afforded a once in a lifetime opportunity to vote in a referendum on whether to leave or remain in the eu.

You are also imo being a bit evasive in declaring how you are to defend yourself against the charge of providing a means to remove the right to vote away from people?
Putting a qualification on a persons right to vote.

Imo people are entitled to vote on any issue, having the expertise to fully comprehend the matters at hand is not exactly a requisite feature.
If people want to vote labour or Tory they are not required to be expert and fully informed. Their natural sentiments and intuition are enough. I'd argue the more informed voters voted leave.

[Balinkay]

1. A vote is less meaningful, even if it is still very complex, when it can be reversed soon. So for example if you get to vote on something infinitely complex, but you get to change your mind quite often, while still unhappy, I'd be more willing to accept that than voting on something very complex with a long change cooldown.

Like I said numerous times - the electorate has to vote on something. I think an average person is more capable of judging wether or not someone else has the character to protect their interests as a representative whose sole job is to study laws and stuff, rather than studying the laws and stuff themselves.

2. Pre Brexit there was no trade deal in place. Bojo (I think, it was either him or one of Gove and Farage) said that leaving the trade zone would be lunacy, or something to that effect. That seems likely now. Brexit leaders seemed conviced a trade deal will be made with the EU. That looks like bollocks now.

3. I don't understand? If you get to say "well if you can't vote on one thing, you can't vote on anything", by the same token I get to say "well if you can vote on one thing, you get to vote on every single thing".


I'm not removing the right to vote on things from people. People do vote on everything, when voting for representatives. Who do everything, because it's their job.

Imo people are entitled to vote on any issue, having the expertise to fully comprehend the matters at hand is not exactly a requisite feature.
If people want to vote labour or Tory they are not required to be expert and fully informed. Their natural sentiments and intuition are enough. I'd argue the more informed voters voted leave.

That's a fine opinion. I think you wildly overestimate people's ability to inform themselves on complex issues while still maintaining a personal and professional life. The bit where it's not a requisite to be informed - clearly it's not. But it should be. Otherwise you might just end up with some nasty consequences.

[CCTV]

1. A vote is less meaningful, even if it is still very complex, when it can be reversed soon. So for example if you get to vote on something infinitely complex, but you get to change your mind quite often, while still unhappy, I'd be more willing to accept that than voting on something very complex with a long change cooldown.

Like I said numerous times - the electorate has to vote on something. I think an average person is more capable of judging wether or not someone else has the character to protect their interests as a representative whose sole job is to study laws and stuff, rather than studying the laws and stuff themselves.

2. Pre Brexit there was no trade deal in place. Bojo (I think, it was either him or one of Gove and Farage) said that leaving the trade zone would be lunacy, or something to that effect. That seems likely now. Brexit leaders seemed conviced a trade deal will be made with the EU. That looks like bollocks now.

3. I don't understand? If you get to say "well if you can't vote on one thing, you can't vote on anything", by the same token I get to say "well if you can vote on one thing, you get to vote on every single thing".


I'm not removing the right to vote on things from people. People do vote on everything, when voting for representatives. Who do everything, because it's their job.



That's a fine opinion. I think you wildly overestimate people's ability to inform themselves on complex issues while still maintaining a personal and professional life. The bit where it's not a requisite to be informed - clearly it's not. But it should be. Otherwise you might just end up with some nasty consequences.

1 I think the time intervals make good sense. General election 4-7 years, referendums 15 years minimum, generational or lifetime mostly. They best fit the nature of the votes.

That applies to the Brexit vote though. Mainly political personalities led the campaigns.
Had remain won would you advocate for a referendum/vote every 5 years, or it be an election topic in every general election ?
I think its plain to see that with referendums and the topics concerned the issue needs to be put to bed for a generation. I'd hold that view where referendums I'd have like to see win were defeated or defeated that won.

Overall this argument you put forward has very little to do with understanding or comprehending the issues at play, as I see it.

2 think you'll have to provide some evidence, I think what you're referring to is that they said it wouldnt end trade with the EU. They are willing to pay a large fee for a trade deal but they have to leave the EU also.
The negotiations have to be taken for what they were, a remainer negotiating and an eu hoping to stress the UK into submission = a recipe for disaster. Again look at the boe and their revised prediction of a no deal brexit after just a few weeks of a pro-Brexit government.
The parliament itself has very little legitimacy now. It was voted in under manifestos that they didnt deliver, they voted for article 50 only to retract their commitments and a huge number of MPs have switched parties or left their parties. As high as 13% of MPs no longer stand in the party they were voted in on.
Parliament needs renewal, a few remain voting MPs acknowledge this too.
The negotiations failed as they were unwilling to use a no deal Brexit as a bargaining position and failed to have contingency plans in place for the arrival of a no deal Brexit. To negotiate successfully one must be willing to walk away.

3 I dont think that's what is being said.

I'm saying where people can vote their vote should be respected and the argument you seem to have put forward against the referendum is weak and dangerous. Me saying peope can vote on something doesnt mean they should vote on everything and they don't, yet you present this as an argument with little basis in reality and equate it to calls for people to vote on every single detail of governance and an abolition of parliament entirely.

You seem to have said that the people voting on the referendum was say criminal/daft as it was too complex to be understood. Whereas my charge against you is that holding such a view in itself is dangerous and if that is the point you're making then where do you draw the line. To date you've offered little in the way of offering any real detail.
I've offered some questions for consideration and you've avoided answering them with clarity as I see it.
You again seem to offer up a consequnetial argument against a debate about understanding.

By your posts I infer you as saying that when people vote in a ge politicians are employed to deliver their mandate.
Whereas you seem to suggest that where politicians are mandated by the people via referendum that there is a difference between this and a ge. Yet representatives are bound to deliver the peoples will in both circumstances.
This is a weak argument imo.

4 it is a fine opinion and one that is logically valid.

As you have purported in other threads if we could calculate all statistics and the interactions of variables there might be no mystery at all as we'd have an utterly complete data set and a full understanding of the impacts of anything. In such a scenario voting would be an unnecessary function as the best possible outcomes would be understood, or at least thered be only one party rule or voting results of 100 to 0 %.

However this is a notional concept, complete understanding, and one that in lacanian theory would be the phallus or in traditional theory a God.
So for us to have a few men/women akin to God to guide the development of humanity would be a fine thing. The philosopher kings. However to date any such movements tend towards disaster.

Similarly the idea of a perfect data set as a static thing in itself is questionable. As under such an argument the idea of perfection is somewhat static and removes the potential for further perfecting.
So a perfect chocolate bar, might replenish itself and taste better every day. As such it wouldn't hold a static position. Or in an infinite series of possibilities how do you test all the infinite possibilities. This is a word jam of sorts but I think it's sensible

Anyway back to the real world in simpler ways. The opinions of expert should be heeded but not deified. The humble simpletons intuitive senses are imo as valid as the expertise of the scholar. Many problems stem from the intellectual realms and as such they are to be refined as no greater than their singular vote. If they cannot teach, convey and convince people from their intuitions then it is their failures. A philosopher king with a true understanding would not encounter such issues.

Life is dangerous, if we had perfect people with perfect knowledge and understanding then life would be far less dangerous if not at all. Until such time as we have such perfected humans we will have to struggle along with our imperfections.

[Balinkay]

Sorry CC, this is getting a bit tedious now. I have no particular interest in digging though the webs to find whatever nonsensical promise Bojo (or one of the others) made regarding a trade deal before the referendum but I do remember one of them saying "we will stay in the single market no matter what" or words to that effect.

This is the first result on google:
https://fullfact.org/europe/what-was-promised-about-customs-union-referendum/
At best it supports the idea that it was utterly unclear what would happen, though I don't know how reliable this site is.

Regarding if remain had won - I assume leaving the EU is always an option, and as such something the UK could do at any time, meaning that implicitly it is kind of voted on every time there's an election, no? By which I mean a party is free to campaign on the idea at any time.

Absolutely agree it was daft of parliament to split in this way. Absurd they would rule out a no-deal. Weakens the UK's position greatly I think, which as an EU citizen makes me happy… but still, not a good move imo.

I'll be honest, I don't understand what you mean in point 3. I do think that once you've had the referendum, you have to respect what the people have voted for, otherwise what's the point of voting. I just don't think it was a good idea to have it in the first place. I'm not offering any details, as I don't know much about running a country, so I couldn't tell you exactly which issues I think the general populace can reasonably understand and which - not. The EU, I think, falls into the latter category.

I think I wasn't clear in my previous post, which caused you to… come up with… point 4. I didn't mean people should need to pass a test in political theory in order to vote, just that they shouldn't be burdened with doing things beyond their level of understanding. I don't think it's practical or constructive at this point in time to even think about "philosopher kings" as you put it.

When you say "perfect" dataset, you don't really define what that word means. If perfect means "best possible" we need to discuss what "best" means. Which is far from trivial and extremely use case dependent. For example, I'd much prefer a chocolate bar that gives blowjobs to one that just tastes better every day.

I do, however, agree that an oracle that tells us exactly what happens when we vote for something would be very handy. It won't eliminate the need for elections, because "best possible outcome" is a notion reliant on the objective function / reality quality measure of the person expressing it. Meaning that if different people have a different view of what is best possible, they might disagree with the machine and wish to do things differently.

I do not agree with your penultimate paragraph. The humble simpleton is a humble simpleton for a reason - they're simple. Yes, experts can be wrong and a huge deal is made of it whenever they are. But they usually aren't which is why they're experts. That's not to say their vote should count more than yours or mine, but rather that their opinion should be heeded and not deified, as you so rightly said. The humble simpleton's intuitive senses can be a useful tool when nothing better is available and might even outperform the expert sometimes, but I'd wager it's not often. Otherwise you'd see people other than mathematicians / scholars doing extremely well at blackjack for example.

I do agree that conveying your expert knowledge to the populace is an extremely important skill and, as you said, if you fail to do so, you should have done better. It doesn't help when the media constantly lies to the people and we really really like to hear nice things are more likely to accept them as truth.

Yes, life is tough. And pointless. Ah well, at least there's footie this weekend, no?

[CCTV]

Sorry CC, this is getting a bit tedious now. I have no particular interest in digging though the webs to find whatever nonsensical promise Bojo (or one of the others) made regarding a trade deal before the referendum but I do remember one of them saying "we will stay in the single market no matter what" or words to that effect.

This is the first result on google:
https://fullfact.org/europe/what-was-promised-about-customs-union-referendum/
At best it supports the idea that it was utterly unclear what would happen, though I don't know how reliable this site is.

Regarding if remain had won - I assume leaving the EU is always an option, and as such something the UK could do at any time, meaning that implicitly it is kind of voted on every time there's an election, no? By which I mean a party is free to campaign on the idea at any time.

Absolutely agree it was daft of parliament to split in this way. Absurd they would rule out a no-deal. Weakens the UK's position greatly I think, which as an EU citizen makes me happy… but still, not a good move imo.

I'll be honest, I don't understand what you mean in point 3. I do think that once you've had the referendum, you have to respect what the people have voted for, otherwise what's the point of voting. I just don't think it was a good idea to have it in the first place. I'm not offering any details, as I don't know much about running a country, so I couldn't tell you exactly which issues I think the general populace can reasonably understand and which - not. The EU, I think, falls into the latter category.

I think I wasn't clear in my previous post, which caused you to… come up with… point 4. I didn't mean people should need to pass a test in political theory in order to vote, just that they shouldn't be burdened with doing things beyond their level of understanding. I don't think it's practical or constructive at this point in time to even think about "philosopher kings" as you put it.

When you say "perfect" dataset, you don't really define what that word means. If perfect means "best possible" we need to discuss what "best" means. Which is far from trivial and extremely use case dependent. For example, I'd much prefer a chocolate bar that gives blowjobs to one that just tastes better every day.

I do, however, agree that an oracle that tells us exactly what happens when we vote for something would be very handy. It won't eliminate the need for elections, because "best possible outcome" is a notion reliant on the objective function / reality quality measure of the person expressing it. Meaning that if different people have a different view of what is best possible, they might disagree with the machine and wish to do things differently.

I do not agree with your penultimate paragraph. The humble simpleton is a humble simpleton for a reason - they're simple. Yes, experts can be wrong and a huge deal is made of it whenever they are. But they usually aren't which is why they're experts. That's not to say their vote should count more than yours or mine, but rather that their opinion should be heeded and not deified, as you so rightly said. The humble simpleton's intuitive senses can be a useful tool when nothing better is available and might even outperform the expert sometimes, but I'd wager it's not often. Otherwise you'd see people other than mathematicians / scholars doing extremely well at blackjack for example.

I do agree that conveying your expert knowledge to the populace is an extremely important skill and, as you said, if you fail to do so, you should have done better. It doesn't help when the media constantly lies to the people and we really really like to hear nice things are more likely to accept them as truth.

Yes, life is tough. And pointless. Ah well, at least there's footie this weekend, no?

Not read your link yet,will do, but agree it's a tedious discussion at this point.
The referendum was detailed as a once in a lifetime vote iirc, which shows how the government at that time saw the time interval neccesary around the issue.

Maybe the more perfect bar would give you a linx effect attracting women to you rather than developing a pervert food fetish etc

The point I was simply trying to make in a round about way was to show how void we are of such experts and how wishful such a position still is to this day. You can have experts in different fields but they are often as poor as the humble commoner at foretelling the future or picking an option in large scale political contests.

Needless to say much was made of the consequences of the uneducated and unwashed persons votes in Brexit and Trump v Clinton and hitherto the expert opinion and predictions have been rather unfounded.

For many of the remainer experts or academics they still cannot understand the Brexit vote. In their folly they like to think it's a purely economic issue and if only they hadn't left those people behind. Their neoliberal obsession for material wealth is projected onto the other.
This just shows how shortsighted they are at questioning their own values. They cannot comprehend there is anything wrong with their values.

The misinformation and poor status of the media and others is the result of people (neoliberals mostly) using it to their own advantage rather than for it's own purpose. When they realise that they are offensive to many many people perhaps they'll go back to standing for decent ethics and valuable journalism.
The academy needs gutting too.

[Balinkay]

It's a good point you make that the government viewed the vote as a once in a life time thing. Like I said, I don't think it's illegitimate in any way, just that it's a bad idea. But if the people elected said government, it's kind of the people's idea. Good point.

I don't think we're void of experts, CC, I just think every time an expert gets something wrong it's sensationalised. For example, that spacecraft that crashed on Mars some years back was huge news, but noone talks about the hundreds of missions that go ideally every year. Perhaps it has to do with normal folk like us feeling empowered "Hurr durr, see that smart guy made a mistake, therefore I'm entitled to my opinion that vaccines cause autism". People are pretty awful like that, no doubt in my mind about it.

You can claim the expert opinion was unfounded regarding the vote, and that is very much the case for some experts (or even most), but not all. The people behind Trump and Leave's wins are also experts in their own fields. Apparently just better than their opponents.

I do agree that the detachedness of the "elites" from the common people is painful to see at this point. I sometimes see it in my colleagues at uni (and I'm not even studying some bla-bla-humanitarian subject!). Just how detached some of them are of some of the issues facing the average Joe and Jill, preaching some supposedly higher morals with no regard for the practical cost. One of my best friends almost disowned me because I kept insisting that if a country decides to close its borders and disallow immigration, it is entitled to do so!

The depressing bit is that I'm probably just as blind to other issues, but can't necessarily see it.

[fiordearg]

Didn't a study show that Liverpool and Merseyside voted remain due to the fact that the Pro EU "Daily Mirror" replaced the anti EU "The Sun" after the Hillsborough Disaster?
Seemingly wealthy, older English people voted overwhelmingly for Brexit, including retired wealthy English people in Wales who swung the vote to leave in the Principality. So it was an English vote to leave - Engxit would be more accurate

[Balinkay]

Well tbf England is considerably larger than the other contries in the UK.

[RedNoodle]

Didn't a study show that Liverpool and Merseyside voted remain due to the fact that the Pro EU "Daily Mirror" replaced the anti EU "The Sun" after the Hillsborough Disaster?
Seemingly wealthy, older English people voted overwhelmingly for Brexit, including retired wealthy English people in Wales who swung the vote to leave in the Principality. So it was an English vote to leave - Engxit would be more accurate

Amongst other reasons, a large part of why Liverpool and Merseyside voted remain was/is because of the money they are/were getting from the EU.

[Balinkay]

So is Bojo resigning now or what? This whole thing is such a mess, it'd be hilarious, if weren't so detrimental to the EU and UK.