Brexit - real world implications
Discussion
A relative works at senior Managing Director level at one of the biggest financial institutions in the City of London. It's not British, but European. It employs several thousand people in the UK
My relative has been seconded onto the Brexit committee.
At the moment, odds are for pulling down the shutters on the London operation. Brexit was not the only straw. But, it was the final one.
A mature democracy should never indulge in a referendum. The simple fact is that vast swathes of the electorate cannot possibly have enough knowledge of the consequences inherent in such a huge decision. Simply put, they are not armed with all the facts.
Brexit is a disaster for Europe and a catastrophe for UK.
No one wins.
My relative has been seconded onto the Brexit committee.
At the moment, odds are for pulling down the shutters on the London operation. Brexit was not the only straw. But, it was the final one.
A mature democracy should never indulge in a referendum. The simple fact is that vast swathes of the electorate cannot possibly have enough knowledge of the consequences inherent in such a huge decision. Simply put, they are not armed with all the facts.
Brexit is a disaster for Europe and a catastrophe for UK.
No one wins.
Edited by Blib on Wednesday 29th June 16:45
don4l said:
It's a bit late for all this.
The referendum was last Thursday.
True. And yet, if you try warning people in advance, they just call it 'project fear' and ignore it anyway. What bugs me is that so many Leave voters (maybe many Remains as well, who knows) didn't have a clue what they were voting for, or what the ramifications were. That's partly their fault for voting without doing the research, but obviously much down to the Leave campaigners for (much more than the other side) making up and exaggerating their claims, and to the Remain campaigners for not giving them the facts that would actually help. Did anyone tell the Cornish how many EU financed projects there are in Cornwall? (I seem to remember 486 projects). I bet nobody told them.The referendum was last Thursday.
Blib said:
A mature democracy should never indulge in a referendum. The simple fact is that vast swathes of the electorate cannot possibly have enough knowledge of the consequences inherent in such a huge decision. Simply put, they are not armed with all the facts.
Brexit is a disaster for Europe and a catastrophe for UK.
No one wins.
This.Brexit is a disaster for Europe and a catastrophe for UK.
No one wins.
Edited by Blib on Wednesday 29th June 16:45
It's why "direct democracy" is causing such chaos in California. They voted to cut taxes, and vastly ramp up spending on schools. And then they wondered why they're virtually bankrupt.
Blib said:
A mature democracy should never indulge in a referendum. The simple fact is that vast swathes of the electorate cannot possibly have enough knowledge of the consequences inherent in such a huge decision. Simply put, they are not armed with all the facts.
Tell that to Switzerland.Edited by Blib on Wednesday 29th June 16:45
Arrogance that you believe you're more aware of everyone's personal circumstances more than the people in those circumstances.
It's a long road, but the best governance proven time and again is when there is direct democracy.
It takes time to develop because we are in such a poor position (wrt experienced populace) at the moment but it's a direction I prefer over ever more autocracy.
When the demos is engaged, informed, enthused they make the centre ground decision.
John145 said:
Blib said:
A mature democracy should never indulge in a referendum. The simple fact is that vast swathes of the electorate cannot possibly have enough knowledge of the consequences inherent in such a huge decision. Simply put, they are not armed with all the facts.
Tell that to Switzerland.Edited by Blib on Wednesday 29th June 16:45
Arrogance that you believe you're more aware of everyone's personal circumstances more than the people in those circumstances.
It's a long road, but the best governance proven time and again is when there is direct democracy.
It takes time to develop because we are in such a poor position (wrt experienced populace) at the moment but it's a direction I prefer over ever more autocracy.
When the demos is engaged, informed, enthused they make the centre ground decision.
Imagine having referendum on everything.
How long do you want to wait for elective surgery on NHS?
1 day
4 months
How big do you want class sizes to be?
5-10
15-20
30-35
_ (other).
Do you think that would work. In essence that would be the only true direct democracy. Everyone has ABCDE buttons on mobile phones, government texts the question, you click the button scan your finger and off you go.
John145 said:
Blib said:
A mature democracy should never indulge in a referendum. The simple fact is that vast swathes of the electorate cannot possibly have enough knowledge of the consequences inherent in such a huge decision. Simply put, they are not armed with all the facts.
Tell that to Switzerland.Edited by Blib on Wednesday 29th June 16:45
Arrogance that you believe you're more aware of everyone's personal circumstances more than the people in those circumstances.
It's a long road, but the best governance proven time and again is when there is direct democracy.
It takes time to develop because we are in such a poor position (wrt experienced populace) at the moment but it's a direction I prefer over ever more autocracy.
When the demos is engaged, informed, enthused they make the centre ground decision.
munky said:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/06/how-think-about-eu-result-if-you-voted-remainjjlynn27 said:
John145 said:
Blib said:
A mature democracy should never indulge in a referendum. The simple fact is that vast swathes of the electorate cannot possibly have enough knowledge of the consequences inherent in such a huge decision. Simply put, they are not armed with all the facts.
Tell that to Switzerland.Edited by Blib on Wednesday 29th June 16:45
Arrogance that you believe you're more aware of everyone's personal circumstances more than the people in those circumstances.
It's a long road, but the best governance proven time and again is when there is direct democracy.
It takes time to develop because we are in such a poor position (wrt experienced populace) at the moment but it's a direction I prefer over ever more autocracy.
When the demos is engaged, informed, enthused they make the centre ground decision.
Imagine having referendum on everything.
How long do you want to wait for elective surgery on NHS?
1 day
4 months
How big do you want class sizes to be?
5-10
15-20
30-35
_ (other).
Do you think that would work. In essence that would be the only true direct democracy. Everyone has ABCDE buttons on mobile phones, government texts the question, you click the button scan your finger and off you go.
king children are in a school class. This was what was challenged! How dare the government give the demos the opportunity to dictate who makes their laws.
Stupid.
Longer term, I believe in more direct democracy. Everything has limits, where we are today however is too far from where I want to be. Although we're making a step in the right direction.
Blib said:
You've just proved my point. These decisions should be made with the head. Not with the heart.
It depends what kind of democracy you want.I suspect things will be tricky for a couple of years but I genuinely believe in 5-10 years we will be able to reap the benefits.
The UK signed up to be part of a common trade area, not a self-centered European single-policy multi-nation state.
Even in America individual states have their own laws.... and really, that's not much different to Europe if we look at it. Other than the fact everyone is fat.
munky][Columbo]just one more thing..[/Columbo said:
I presume it has already been discussed on here that the referendum is not legally binding, it's advisory and can be overruled, and that 52% is hardly a mandate etc etc. I think it's unlikely that it would be ignored though (the Greek way), and unlikely that there'll be a second referendum and third until the sensible answer comes out (the French way, on treaty changes).
So the most likely outcome is that our elected politicians (and an unelected PM) do what's sensible and negotiate to remain in the free trade area to avoid recession and ruining people's futures. That would mean that we still have freedom of movement, and we still pay to be a member. Which begs the question what was the point of leaving and dividing the country against each other if nothing really changes.. silly Cameron for holding a referendum. Some things are too important for the public to decide directly, and that's why we elect a government to decide things for us. Good job we don't have referenda on defence, taxation, education.. who knows what stupidity we'd vote for.
Can someone tell me who the last elected PM was please? So the most likely outcome is that our elected politicians (and an unelected PM) do what's sensible and negotiate to remain in the free trade area to avoid recession and ruining people's futures. That would mean that we still have freedom of movement, and we still pay to be a member. Which begs the question what was the point of leaving and dividing the country against each other if nothing really changes.. silly Cameron for holding a referendum. Some things are too important for the public to decide directly, and that's why we elect a government to decide things for us. Good job we don't have referenda on defence, taxation, education.. who knows what stupidity we'd vote for.
John145 said:
jjlynn27 said:
John145 said:
Blib said:
A mature democracy should never indulge in a referendum. The simple fact is that vast swathes of the electorate cannot possibly have enough knowledge of the consequences inherent in such a huge decision. Simply put, they are not armed with all the facts.
Tell that to Switzerland.Edited by Blib on Wednesday 29th June 16:45
Arrogance that you believe you're more aware of everyone's personal circumstances more than the people in those circumstances.
It's a long road, but the best governance proven time and again is when there is direct democracy.
It takes time to develop because we are in such a poor position (wrt experienced populace) at the moment but it's a direction I prefer over ever more autocracy.
When the demos is engaged, informed, enthused they make the centre ground decision.
Imagine having referendum on everything.
How long do you want to wait for elective surgery on NHS?
1 day
4 months
How big do you want class sizes to be?
5-10
15-20
30-35
_ (other).
Do you think that would work. In essence that would be the only true direct democracy. Everyone has ABCDE buttons on mobile phones, government texts the question, you click the button scan your finger and off you go.
king children are in a school class. This was what was challenged! How dare the government give the demos the opportunity to dictate who makes their laws.
Stupid.
Longer term, I believe in more direct democracy. Everything has limits, where we are today however is too far from where I want to be. Although we're making a step in the right direction.
I really don't understand the whole obsession with laws. I don't, and never felt oppressed. Until this complete clusterf
k, I never once thought about who make laws. Who's telling me to drive 30m per hour and what is the fine for that. I still don't know nor care to know. People are, quite rightly ridiculing votes based on roaming charges, energy-saving lights, bent cucumbers and other dross. How many people actually sat down and did, to the best of their abilities, trying to exclude their biases from research, how many have done Cost-Benefit? Or even just simple Pro/Cons lists?I feel that a LOT of people will be very disappointed with whatever end solution is going to be. And whichever part of the debate they were on, one thing is for certain, it'll never be their own fault.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff