I turned off after he implied Brexit was a bad thing and that people were just frightened into voting for it. It's nonsense to suggest that the majority vote was either a bad thing or done out of fear. It happened because politicians didn't listen to voters or do anything about their concerns and money was always the deciding factor in everything they do.
If politicians don't represent the will of the people, a revolution will ensue.
I thought people voted for Brexit because they wanted more autonomy and didn't like the free flow of immigrants, but I guess saying people were "scared shitless" does indeed make more sense.
Well, the point is that Brexit does not guarentee that either of those things will be fixed.
"Scared shitless" might be hyperbole. But it's certainly very fair to say that Brexit was sold on false premises. A lot of the arguments from the Brexit campaign were straight out massive lies.
> It happened because politicians didn't listen to voters or do anything about their concerns and money was always the deciding factor in everything they do.
Yes, and this disenfranchisement led to disingenuous politicians and media scaring people into thinking they were under attack from "The others". Almost every single argument betrays this underlying way of thinking. If immigration is so bad, then why did the places with the most immigration vote the least to leave? I have yet to hear a good example of a 'Bad' EU law, or one without good reasons. The commission is clearly chosen by elected politicians; and is demonstrably no less democratic than the choice of prime or government ministers. The new leader of this country will not have been elected so - which is our system, which is fine - but don't pretend it is any other. (interestingly, since WW2 there have now been as many mid-term changes as there have been elected prime ministers).
We in theory elect politicians effectively as 'Experts' who can take the time to make the right decisions with the knowledge that we don't have time or the interest to accumulate. But we've reached the place where emotional appeals are so easy and effective to spread quickly that as soon as someone starts acting in the long term interest (which is often not so good short term, and short term is much easier to defend) they are swept aside.
> I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn't its main purpose - to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date. That seemed to me to be a manoeuvre too far.
> Ministers were very nervous about the whole thing. For despite Roche's keenness to make her big speech and to be upfront, there was a reluctance elsewhere in government to discuss what increased immigration would mean, above all for Labour's core white working-class vote.
> This shone through even in the published report: the "social outcomes" it talks about are solely those for immigrants.
The politicians knew what easing immigration restrictions would be unpopular, but they did it anyway.
Im not sure what you mean by people with long term interest are swept aside by emotional appeal. If you implying that the person who markets themself better is more powerful, then yes that is true. Solid marketing in a career ment to sell a person to the masses will usually win.
As for long term interest, that truly is up for debate. Some people envision a post scarcity world and want to live it out today. Some believe all groups can live harmoniously togethor. Some people think about progress at any cost. Others relate good behaviour and bad behaviour to demographics. All of these have extremes, upsides and downsides. All have the future and present in mind. Which one is right? Nobody has come up with a discrete plan or vision. We are all so early in evolution, monkeys with really really fancy toys
It's also possible that the ones who don't like the high rate of immigration have simply moved, leaving only those who are comfortable with their changed surroundings.
UK Poll results:
1. British people should be free to live and work anywhere in the EU: [Agree: 52%, Disagree: 26%]
2. All citizens of EU should have the right to live and work in the UK: [Agree: 36%, Disagree: 46%]
I don't think anyone wants to restrict freedom of movement. It's just about abuse of gullible nature of "us vs. them", creating a virtual enemy which you can easily blame for all your problems. The referendum did not represent will of people, it represented the mood - the negative mood towards their own government and way of life, which does not have anything to do with any migrants. I.e.: IBM creates AI replacing 30K internal employees with efficient process automation? Blame H1Bs! Farmers no longer relevant due to highly automated heavy machinery? Blame Mexicans!
When did building borders helped the situation? Even air-tight border separating Northern and Southern Ireland couldn't stop the real IRA terrorists...
At least 20% of the poll respondents were unaware of the cognitive dissonance between their two answers. Or else they believe Britons should have more rights than other EU citizens.
Investors speaking without the chance of rebuttal from people who have significant experience in the subject is pretty useless. Another thing that stand out is presenting Switzerland as a role model, which has been far from problem free. Universal suffrage wasn't fully implemented until 1991 (1971 on a federal level), it's the most expensive country in Europe, have had huge drug problems as a result of public policy and want to stop immigration similarly to the UK.
I assume you're being sarcastic, but while I like Switzerland it is a peculiar place. It's not at all uncommon that visitors experience culture shock, thinking people are unfriendly and not realizing how expensive things are. I wouldn't schedule a longer family vacation without doing some research, especially if you have family members that aren't flexible.
It happened because the majority - the people who voted to leave - are mainly older and roughly speaking don't have to live with the consequences, whereas the minority - the people who voted remain - are mainly young and will live with the consequences for the next 30-40 years.
Middle-aged and older people are not going to study abroad, they don't need an interesting job in a multinational organisation 20 years from now, they cannot imagine a single digital market or a single financial market anyways, and they don't care about it, they don't care about reserving the option of working abroad one day somewhere in Europe and they are not going to befriend or marry any foreigners anyway.
Had you asked the old people in the 1960s whether rock music should be banned, the likely answer would have been "yes".
The median age has increased from 34 in 1974 to 40 in 2015 and older people now constitute a majority. That's not a big issue when you let a parliament decide on political issues, since politicians would usually trade favors. But referendums are a crude form of democracy with no room for political bargaining. Matters are presented as either A or B and the winner takes it all.
> It happened because the majority - the people who voted to leave - are mainly older and roughly speaking don't have to live with the consequences, whereas the minority - the people who voted remain - are mainly young and will live with the consequences for the next 30-40 years.
How is that an explanation? If these surveys are actually true, the reason the vote ended as it did is because younger people didn't care enough to actually vote.
The claim that older voters don't care about the future because it doesn't affect them personally as much is just derogatory. You could say that they have invested decades of their lives in the country and care about it more, they also knew life (in the EEC) before the EU was formed in 1993. Young people are just afraid of changes they cannot anticipate and have nothing to compare the status quo to.
> Young people are just afraid of changes they cannot anticipate and have nothing to compare the status quo to.
Changes with definite, visible negative consequences Versus not having any clue about changes that can not even be guessed at, advertised on explicitly untrue premises?
Younger people have grown up less isolated in a much more connected world, where other ways of thinking have not been so scary and alien. This isn't 1993, and despite the hints from the campaigning, having voted to leave won't make it 1993 again.
> Changes with definite, visible negative consequences
What are you referring to? Nothing is presently known about the outcome of the negotiations with the EU.
> Younger people have grown up less isolated in a much more connected world, where other ways of thinking have not been so scary and alien.
Apparently "not being in the EU" is scary and alien, even though young people from Iceland, Norway and Switzerland also feel very much connected these days.
> What are you referring to? Nothing is presently known about the outcome of the negotiations with the EU
We can estimate likelihoods. Take e.g. Being able to travel and work in the EU. The best case scenario is maintaining the status quo, which we will certainly have to pay for, and seems to be what a lot of people voted explicitly against. (Iceland, Norway and Switzerland are all members of Schengen, and so more connected than the UK). Science and research benefit amazingly from the EU - getting more out proportionally than we put in. This also could be renegotiated, but again with a price (both literal and in implementing EU laws/directives, or freedom of movement). Meanwhile, until we know what the end state will be, who is going to want to pay large research grants or jobs to UK institutions and citizens?
Meanwhile half the east coast seems to think that leaving will magically let them fish out of the sea infinitely, and I have no idea why farming thinks it was suppressed rather than subsidised by the EU.
> Take e.g. Being able to travel and work in the EU. The best case scenario is maintaining the status quo, which we will certainly have to pay for,
This works both ways. Right now, the UK has many EU migrants - including not highly educated/qualified people - despite not even having signed the Schengen treaty. For highly qualified people, who supposedly voted "remain", nothing substantial will change, as they will be welcomed with open arms pretty much anywhere in the world. What's there to be afraid of?
some people actually don't want to roam the world endlessly just because they can, but rather settle somewhere they like, have made friends etc. also, usually in married couples, situation doesn't change for both at the same time
I'm pretty sure Switzerland is not a part of Shengen - they keep their borders pretty lax most of the time (we were crossing back and forth multiple times and they only stopped us once when a guy with a huge afro was driving)
Otherwise I totally agree with you
Could be - I searched to confirm and wikipedia and a couple of other pages suggested they were, but they could just "allow" the movement without officially being part of it.
> Versus not having any clue about changes that can not even be guessed at, advertised on explicitly untrue premises
I've seen some eye opening footage of refugees on TV and youtube - after seeing that, if someone tells me that did not occur, I'd be a little suspicious.
In what sense? There is no doubt that there are large numbers of refugees; but we have partial responsibility for causing/contributing to that.
I honestly believe that people don't want to leave their home unless it is serious, and that the portrayal of them all as wanting to just 'Freeload' for an 'Easy life' is nothing but Xenophobia, and FUD peddled by politicians with a personal agenda to push.
> I honestly believe that people don't want to leave their home unless it is serious
Relatively wealthy people do it all the time, why wouldn't someone living in a 3rd world country (which is pretty serious in my books)?
> the portrayal of them all as wanting to just 'Freeload' for an 'Easy life' is nothing but Xenophobia, and FUD peddled by politicians with a personal agenda to push
Numerous articles and people who actually live in these neighborhoods would suggest otherwise, although to be fair the host countries are doing a terrible job of integration in most cases.
> "Younger people have grown up less isolated in a much more connected world"
The young are just as 'connected' post-Brexit as they were before. Just because, heavens above, they have to sign a few forms to get a visa to work in a different country doesn't mean they are incapable of doing so.
I'm 32. I voted to Leave. It's nothing to do with being part of Europe. I still see myself as European. The issue on the table is whether to be part of the EU. EU != Europe.
If you have to enter a country through a checkpoint as a foreigner, then you are not a member of that country. We can feel any way we want. In the utilitarian sense, Britain will not be a 'part of' Europe by law.
Its not just a 'few forms' if the other country decides to change the rules. It can become difficult, expensive or impossible depending on the political climate. Make no mistake, this is a huge shift.
> "Britain will not be a 'part of' Europe by law."
Europe is a continent. A continent that existed before the European Steel and Coal Community started in 1951. Britain is just as much a part of that continent as any other European country.
> "If you have to enter a country through a checkpoint as a foreigner, then you are not a member of that country."
If you get a work visa, it doesn't matter what type of passport you hold when you cross the border, the activity you'll be performing in the country will be same as before.
Ok I guess we're all 'part of' planet earth too. Not a category that provides any meaningful utilitarian value. And I guess I'm making the point that a work visa works, until it doesn't. At the whim of the host country.
> "Not a category that provides any meaningful utilitarian value."
The point is membership of the EU is not what qualifies a country as European. Even if it's stating the obvious it's worth stating as some people seem to think being anti-EU is being anti-European.
Furthermore, the EU is not the only pan-European organisation. Heard of the Council of Europe?
Evidently you know something the rest of us don't about how easy it will be to get work visas. Will the 52% who voted largely on immigration accept freedom of labour and movement? And if not, and we had, say, a points-based system for everybody, why would other countries want to be generous?
> "Will the 52% who voted largely on immigration accept freedom of labour and movement?"
They don't need to. Look at the situation outside the EU. People move to work in many countries outside the EU without the same type of 'freedom of labour and movement' deals. If you think leaving the EU is going to stop people from getting a work visa I'd suggest you need to step back from the media spin and think about why countries would stop foreign workers from coming in when they have a skills shortage.
> "Why?"
The main reason was related to democracy. I've gone into this again and again on HN, so you can read my comment history if you're interested.
I'd also recommend this video, as it explains some of the reasons for Leave that I agree with...
I hope you realize that post brexit Britain is not Tokugawa Japan? You will be able to work, study and travel in Europe.
You may have to sign a form or two, or show your passport here and there. But the EU will be happy to give Britons a lot of rights as long as there is reciprocity.
When I was 14 I needed to spend all night in the snow in front of the Austrian embassy in my country to be able to get TRANSIT visa to visit a friend in Switzerland.
Britons will never know what this is like. Even in the worst and most hostile brexit. So stop whining that you are somehow deprived of opportunities.
I am not British and I am not whining about anything.
Travelling is different from residing, studying and working. Nobody knows whether Britons will be able to live, work and study freely in Europe, including you. Letting Britain keep all the benefits without being a member state is likely not possible without seeing other countries leave the union.
Never is a long word, by the way. Before WWI most Europeans could travel across the continent without much trouble. Hop on a train in Scandinavia and get off in Belgrade a day or two later. Then came several decades of closed borders, the Iron Curtain etc.
I think he mentioned Brexit because it's an example of too many voices getting lost/ignored in the 'noise' of democracy i.e a democracy needs to represent many complex issues. In the case of Brexit, many votes were cast, each vote complex in it's own right, on a binary referendum that has far reaching consequences. My take from what he's saying is that the world moves far to fast, and is far to complex for the current democratic model we hold dear to function properly for all.
In the short term, it has already been a bad thing, despite no actual change in our legal status yet. FTSE down, £/$ down a long way, Chancellor discarding the public finance targets as unmeetable. The next Budget is going to be horrendous, which is why nobody's particularly keen to jump on the job of PM.
The alleged (and of course uncosted) benefits are several years away at a minimum.
The FTSE is at an all year high right now, outperforming European indices after the Brexit. However, the main reason for that is compensation for the GBP drop, because most FTSE funds are internationals so the value of their foreign assets went up against the GBP.
The current account deficit used to be the stuff of news bulletins. It's barely mentioned these days as everyone assumes we can continue to pay for imports with foreign capital investment. This used to be a benefit of our "stability premium", as it is for Switzerland; we'll have to see if this continues.
Why was UK ascending to EU without any public voting a success of democracy (implied by stating departing is a collapse of democracy) while leaving with a vote a failure?
Well if those in power can't coerce the public into doing their bidding, then they'll reason that it only makes sense for them to take away our ability to have a say in that matter
I will be critical of Salims point esp. about India. During its democracy for the first 25 years of India was pretty much One party system, the real problem was Nehruvian Socialism and strong Unionism(not trade unions). India is a one nation, but many countries, and these two system ravaged the inherent strength and diversity, with concentration of power in New Delhi.
Post liberalized India, where ever Government has "no role" actually grew tremendously well, and has done well. In India's case, the democracy is messed up at multiple levels because loyalties are more nativist rather than ideological (which is changing at least in urban India). Democracy actually got better in India in the past 20 years. The intimidation that was prevalent in 90s was not there and more and more people are voting outside their caste and religious loyalties.
India has many problems, but most economic problems rose from Command and Control economy, that gave raise to rampant corruption, smuggling (for Gold and electronics) and many other things. Yes, most of the economic issues have texture to them but the main ingredient was government trying to control the markets, Nehru style. I could care less if it in vogue, nor it would be foolish to even think India has fully unburdened itself from Nehruvian Socialism, honestly its not even hindsight, NS is thriving in plain sight again at the cost the people and economy. The Indian Public sector banks are case and point.
The initial meaning of the Greek word "idiot" was reserved for persons not interested and non-participating in political process, especially elections.
Oh, that's simple. Democracy "works" only when majority of population is well-educated and cultured, and it tends to collapse when wast majority is ignorant, brainwashed by populism and dogmas idiots.
From the time of ancient Greek only educated men could be able to vote. That accounts for obvious early success of democracy. It also correlates with the notion of the bell curve (there is a famous book) you like it or not.
The utopian idea that everyone shall be able to vote leads to things like Brexit or that unrepairable disaster modern authoritarian Russia turned into.
Patients shall not vote for hospital's rules and medical procedures or staff election. Qualified well-educated doctors should. Students shall not vote for what they going to be taught (due to being not yet fully developed and brainwashed by media), this seems obvious.
But the idea of necessity of some sort of competent and educated "aristocracy" is one of the major ideas in political philosophy. The crucial thing is that members of such aristocracy must be quickly and easily replaced when fail or lost support. This, by the way, is how most of professional communities and university facilities are organized.
Agreed, even highly intelligent people can be completely oblivious to certain basic things or have severely skewed views of reality which may actually be worse for society than mere stupidity.
No, I think the GP is right: in order for democracy to work, a significant part of the population must understand how it works, or at least care about how it works. "Educated" does not always mean "high-income" or "high-status" -- it can also just mean what it says.
If you only go by a set of established rules, you:
- are running (part of) your government by autocratic decree.
- still risk the population rejecting your form of "democracy".
Any section of society that has power will use it to benefit itself, at the expense of the other sections, hence universal suffrage is the only form of democracy that works.
Ancient Athens was a slave society rule by a small elite. Not a good example.
In my experience universities are often very dysfunctional organizations below the surface, with some of the most nasty and meaningless political squabbles I have ever witnessed.
They are definitely NOT the kind of organizations we should strive to model our society after.
> Democracy "works" only when majority of population is well-educated and cultured
Who gets to decide who is smart enough?
Universal suffrage is a feature. It's a defensive mechanism against self-interested parties ignoring the needs of the people. You may see those less educated or cultured than as you as rabble, but the democratic process punishes that bias to ignore those people.
> The crucial thing is that members of such aristocracy must be quickly and easily replaced when fail or lost support.
Recorded human history suggests that "competent and educated" aristocrats fail to remove themselves individually or as a an empowered group.
Ok, you propose to make a right to vote not for everyone. Then the question do you see yourself having this right? If yes, that is pretty arrogant, too say at least. If no, well, most of people will not choose this option.
Modern democracy isn't a gift of gods. History of the World is full of revolutions, civil wars, riots in basically every country in order to have what do we have.
Democratic procedures are fine. But one snap voting is silly. This is why more elaborate structures of parliament or senate has been evolved. The last word shall be of well-educated and well-informed. Period.
One of the well-known examples is bailout of AIG. Informed and educated people decided to avoid bankruptcy of the biggest insurance company in the world, no matter what idiots in charge did with CDS. Majority would vote to punish the banksters, as they vote for all the stupid things.
Democracy is when "all the people...involved in making decisions about its affairs, typically by voting". All people vote in Belarus and Russia. Are those democratic countries? 108% of the Crimea population voted to be annexed. Is that democratic? By definition: yes. The people have spoken. But the reality is far removed from the ideology.
Source for "108%"? Other than that, yes, the Crimean referendum as well as Brexit are democratic. It is utterly bad to construct double standards around that as unrespectful Western media try to do.
The U.S.A. is not a Democratic government, but a Federal Republic with a constitution. It has democratic principles, but it is not a Democracy. Every decision is not made by a popular vote, but neither are the members that represent the people the "Philosopher Kings" of ancient Greece.
> Patients shall not vote for hospital's rules and medical procedures or staff election. Qualified well-educated doctors should.
Bad analogy. The goal of democracy is not to generate the best possible results for the country. If that happens then its the side effect. Democracy stands on the principle of "all citizens have equal rights".
Equal rights are the must. Not a single objection to that. It is a cornerstone of civilized society. The final decisions however shall not be taken by a snap voting of "mere plebs".
Exactly how universities or professional communities do. Of course, there is also corruption, protectionism and cheating, but at least, competence or lack of it and failures are obvious to majority, given that they are competent themselves. Good schools manage all this well.
I wouldn't hire a blind school bus driver if one applied, but I think that's common sense. Your comment is flawed by thinking that it is just the Philosopher Kings vs. the stupid masses. Really it is the educated elites, who lacking common sense and respect for their fellow man, over-estimated that 'their' way of thinking was everyone else's, and that it was the 'right way'. Well, at least they have to think a little harder this time. A little humble pie couldn't hurt either.
I think this bit from John Gray in the NewStatesman hits it on the head:
"As it is being used today, “populism” is a term of abuse applied by establishment thinkers to people whose lives they have not troubled to understand. A revolt of the masses is under way, but it is one in which those who have shaped policies over the past twenty years are more remote from reality than the ordinary men and women at whom they like to sneer.The interaction of a dysfunctional single currency and destructive austerity policies with the financial crisis has left most of Europe economically stagnant and parts of it blighted with unemployment on a scale unknown since the Thirties. At the same time European institutions have been paralysed by the migrant crisis. Floundering under the weight of problems it cannot solve or that it has even created, the EU has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that it lacks the capacity for effective action and is incapable of reform. As I suggested in this magazine in last year (“The neo-Georgian prime minister”, 23 October 2015), Europe’s image as a safe option has given way to the realisation that it is a failed experiment. A majority of British voters grasped this fact, which none of our establishments has yet understood." [1]
I think whether you believe in John Gray's politics or not, this is the crux of the issue, and rather than the 1% vs. the other 99%, it is more a matter of the 'elites' vs. 'the ordinary man' (and no, not "the stupid, racist, idiots" as they are called by even some of the so-called respectable journals). And by 'elites' it is not just about wealth, but education, and unquestionable feelings of superiority.
Go and try to institute your government of Philosopher Kings @dschiptsov, and see what happens when you ignore the common man, or worse, berate and try to hold him down even if he has more common sense than some of his university-educated peers.
I am happy about the Brexit vote, if for nothing at all but to disrupt the system, and make people stop and think, to reassess. To see so many adults whining like children, since the vote didn't go their way, to the point they are calling for a re-vote. What are they thinking? More people will go out and vote who thought it was in the 'bag' and stayed at home that day? Or that those they see as 'stupid sods' will change their mind, and see it 'their' way, the 'smart' way?
I don't know, and that's just it, I don't know what would actually be best, but I am Ok with that. Seeing the Remainers throw around financial comments about it being worse than the 2008 crisis don't really know numbers. When you couch the numbers as a percent of total market capitalization it is 4.7% for Brexit vs. 6.9% during the 2008 financial crisis one-day loss. Yes, $2 Trillion vs. $1.9 Trillion I believe. On the others side of the coin, the pound drops and the UK gets more tourists since it is a cheaper destination, and cheaper, more exports. People on any side are just afraid of big changes. Sometimes big changes are necessary in the long run.
It's the same reason that although I can't stand Hillary or Trump, I hope Trump wins to really shake things up back home in the U.S., since it seems nothing else does; Hillary would just be status quo at this point. Electing a woman POTUS shouldn't just be about checking that box, but about actually electing a true woman leader, not another political dynasty ala Bush. Can't we vote outside the box? Even though I am more libertarian or capitalist, I would have voted for Bernie Sanders. At least he showed some integrity.
Real change happens when people wake up and start really talking to their neighbor, or see them differently than before the wake up call that shook their world.
If politicians don't represent the will of the people, a revolution will ensue.