• Our friends from the Johto Times are hosting a favorite Pokémon poll - and we'd love for you to participate! Click here for information on how to vote for your favorites!
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.
    Register

The EU Referendum

Frankly even though I'm devastated by the result and it isn't fair, I think we just have to accept it as part of politics.

The Lib Dems seem to have decided to restrict themselves to the electoral wilderness by pledging to fight to keep us in the EU at the next general election.

This will be Labour's fourth leadership election in a decade (including Brown's uncontested one in 2007), surely they have to get it right this time?
 
There's so many ways the motion to leave the EU can be blocked, and so many reasons to block it that it seems hard to believe anyone will even try at this point

I have to imagine public support has collapsed under the calamity that has been the worry about leaving the EU, the reveal that the leave camp had been streaming lies to the public and that there's no actual plan if they were to leave

CarcharOdin said:
Are you brave enough to listen?
Click to expand...

Is that guy still relevant at all? I thought people moved on when they realised he didn't do any research/had little background knowledge on most of the things he ranted about, and after he probably stole all that kickstarter money
 
The referendum was fueled by nativist sentiments, akin to Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric. Both attitudes are in opposition to globalism. The debate over globalism, regionalism, and nativism is really what is at play here. At which unit is one's political identity the most salient at a specific point in time? I would argue that we have multiple levels of political identity that run concurrently. At each level we form cooperative allegiances with those from different local and perhaps regional identities. My main thesis is that we strengthen local identities when we move toward globalist identities, whereas the nation-state weakens. Basically, local individualism is best defined when we are exposed to more ideas and have freedom of choice within that broader array of values.

Here are some rough examples:

Localist identity: Londoner (or a smaller rural city/town)
Regional identity: English
National identity: United Kingdomer
International identity: European
Transatlantic identity: Westerner
Globalist identity: Human

Nativists and nationalists tend to want to limit globalization in order to have more autonomy. Though this is often not achieved through disassociation from long-standing international institutions. The EU has assisted in preserving the ability to engage in multiculturalism and gain perspective from other cultures. Moreover, the EU has assisted in stabilizing country lines in which safe immigration, work, and travel is facilitated. As such, globalization CAN (not always) strengthen local and regional security, but nations must give up some autonomy and be influenced politically, culturally, and economically by international institutions and multicultural cosmopolitan cities. Globalism is consensus building, and I argue that it allows for power to be decentralized to large cosmopolitan cities who interact with immigrants, workers, and travelers while at the same time allows for individuals, with greater freedom to move within that international organization to choose the communities they are most agreeable to and therefore are more likely to live "authentically" rather than be ruled by nationalistic customs.

The EU certainly does not allow for complete freedom of immigration, but did move the region toward that ideal of globalization. Thus why London, Scotland, and Ireland wanted to remain in order to maintain their connective local identities with Europe, and the areas with those who most identified with their English identity voted against multiculturalism. What these "leave" voters failed to see is that English identity only has meaning in so far as it relates to other identities. For instance, is the world was all red, "red" would not possess any meaning. But, when positioned or combined other colors, red has meaning. When we invest in the nation-state as the source of power, we all give up power and individual/collective autonomy when we allow traditions and cultural superiority to drive our behavior. Diversity does scare people, change scares people, individual power scares people, and evidently older voters came out for Brexit to preserve English culture, but failed to understand that English culture is more meaningful when part of a larger enterprise of culture.
 
Last edited:
Democracy won, and I do not believe for a second that the vote was unfair because the leave camp was dishonest. The remain camp was just as bad and if anybody for a second assumed these 'debates' and 'campaigns' to be anything more than mud flinging and extrapolations then, in my humble opinion, that is their own fault.
 
Caaethil said:
Democracy won, and I do not believe for a second that the vote was unfair because the leave camp was dishonest. The remain camp was just as bad and if anybody for a second assumed these 'debates' and 'campaigns' to be anything more than mud flinging and extrapolations then, in my humble opinion, that is their own fault.
Click to expand...

Is voting on false premises really democracy? As much as most of the leave lies can be dispelled from basic research that people just don't tend to do, does that make it more "legitimate"?

I think to claim the stay campaign was "just as bad" really isn't right, it failed in it's goals and succumbed to fear mongering more than actual arguments but the "fear mongering" as such was actually not that embellished, it told vastly fewer lies and didn't whip up anything like the xenophobic fury that the leave camp fostered
 
Aliencommander1245 said:
Is voting on false premises really democracy? As much as most of the leave lies can be dispelled from basic research that people just don't tend to do, does that make it more "legitimate"?

I think to claim the stay campaign was "just as bad" really isn't right, it failed in it's goals and succumbed to fear mongering more than actual arguments but the "fear mongering" as such was actually not that embellished, it told vastly fewer lies and didn't whip up anything like the xenophobic fury that the leave camp fostered
Click to expand...

One side is not suddenly 'better' because it told less lies and was less fear mongering. It succumbed to the exact same evils so to be quite honest I think it's fair game. Nobody was playing fair in their campaigns, every intelligent person knew this as soon as it all started, so I don't see any reason to complain that one side was worse than the other and therefore democracy has failed.

And nobody voted on false premises. If you voted, you saw the voting card. It was pretty simple. Stay in the EU or leave the EU. The voting card didn't say "and make Britain great again". We still put it to the vote in the end and nobody was forced to vote for either side. All extra information was separate, all it said was stay or leave the EU. It is up to everybody to do their own research and if that doesn't end up with the side you like getting the vote that's tough because that's how democracy works.
 
Caaethil said:
One side is not suddenly 'better' because it told less lies and was less fear mongering. It succumbed to the exact same evils so to be quite honest I think it's fair game. Nobody was playing fair in their campaigns, every intelligent person knew this as soon as it all started, so I don't see any reason to complain that one side was worse than the other and therefore democracy has failed.
Click to expand...

It's not that democracy has failed per-say, just that can a vote done on the premise of lies still be considered democracy? And on top of that, should a (non-binding mind you) democratic vote done on those premises even be accepted if it's the objective worst thing for the country? The UK is functionally a representative democracy either way, supposedly with informed elected representatives acting out the will of their constituents and for their own betterment

Caaethil said:
And nobody voted on false premises. If you voted, you saw the voting card. It was pretty simple. Stay in the EU or leave the EU. The voting card didn't say "and make Britain great again". We still put it to the vote in the end and nobody was forced to vote for either side. All extra information was separate, all it said was stay or leave the EU. It is up to everybody to do their own research and if that doesn't end up with the side you like getting the vote that's tough because that's how democracy works.
Click to expand...

Isn't that inherently on false promises? If the vote itself is so simple without any mention of the ramifications or consequences of the vote, and REQUIRES outside information to make an informed decision, then definitely the public face of each campaign matters very much as to what the average voter is being told. If one side is lying constantly, then they ARE very much worse than the other because they're supplying false information, while fear mongering is simply playing up things that are likely
 
I'm just going to comment on a few key things here because I don't really want to turn this into a debate, I don't have the energy for it at the moment and I don't think anybody will convince anybody anyway.

Aliencommander1245 said:
It's not that democracy has failed per-say, just that can a vote done on the premise of lies still be considered democracy?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you heard on BBC news about what Farage said would happen if we voted leave counts as a 'premise'.

Aliencommander1245 said:
Isn't that inherently on false promises?
Click to expand...

Woah woah woah. When did this turn into a discussion on false promises? I'm confused.

Aliencommander1245 said:
And on top of that, should a (non-binding mind you) democratic vote done on those premises even be accepted if it's the objective worst thing for the country?
Click to expand...

If it's the what now? So what, are 52% of the country just the biggest morons ever for voting for the objectively worst thing? I don't think you understand that people are voting on principle here. People don't want laws to be made by people they didn't vote for that still apply to them. Many see the EU as a sinking ship and while there may be short term consequences of leaving there are also long term consequences of staying. I'm still not sure what the best choice was but I can respect that there are valid reasons to vote leave and it is by no means the 'objectively worst thing'.

Aliencommander1245 said:
If the vote itself is so simple without any mention of the ramifications or consequences of the vote, and REQUIRES outside information to make an informed decision, then definitely the public face of each campaign matters very much as to what the average voter is being told. If one side is lying constantly, then they ARE very much worse than the other because they're supplying false information, while fear mongering is simply playing up things that are likely
Click to expand...

The remain camp told lies too, sounds like fair game to me.
 
I want to point out that when Remain warned that leaving could cause the pound to collapse, Scotland to quit the UK, stocks to crash, companies to shift their factories out, city financial services to flee to Paris shedding thousands of jobs along the way, investments to be hold off, property prices to nosedive and a recession to appear while the rest of the EU negotiates as the rejected partners they are, they weren't "lying" to scare people out. The fact that the reality of leaving is downright terrifying doesn't make it an hyperbolic exaggeration or a scary lie.

Incidentally, there is a quite amazing Guardian comment summing up on why the Tory leadership contest matters in so many more ways than just picking a PM: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...cy-meetings-eu-uk-leave-vote#comment-77205935

Teebs
3d ago
Guardian Pick
1126 1127

If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.

Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.

With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.

How?

Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.

And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.

The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.

The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?

Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?

Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.

If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.

The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.

When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.

All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Boris has bailed, May is now gunning for PM.

Fear.
 
I can't say I'm so enthusiastic about May, honestly. :\ Yes Boris was a complete idiot, but I'm worried that May has a better head on her shoulders despite being no better in terms of opinions and ideas. She's far less embarrassing for sure but possibly equally as dangerous, if not more so due to the fact that she's actually a serious politician. Boris was scary because of how useless and irresponsible he was, but Theresa May strikes me as someone who could go into a whole league of her own in actually making seriously damaging changes.

But then, I'm prone to say this kinda stuff about any Tory, so take it with a pinch of salt I guess. One redeeming factor at least is that she'll hopefully be more sympathetic towards those who've been screwed over by Brexit, although you obviously can't judge her based on that.
 
All I know about May is that she was responsibility for women's right and equality despite voting down gay marriage and a half dozen other equality bills.

All of the Tory leaders are huge disasters. There's no good choice.
 
I'm really not sure who I dislike more at this stage. Gove was relentless in his determination to fuck up the education system, but at the same time I can't help but feel that a May-led government would only lead to more invasions on privacy and worse Internet regulations in general. Definition of being stuck between a rock and a hard place.
 
What about Andrea Leadsom? She might be little known, but she exists, too! And is third on the polls, next to, um, Stephen... Crabb I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top