Lefties: Stay or Leave? (Regarding The EU)

Maybe if enough of these lexit left-wingers left Europe, there would be room for all the refugees.
/s

I am very grateful that I do not have to make a decision here in Minneapolis as to what you in the UK should do with respect to the EU.

It is the business of European nationals to decide how to define their French, Spanish, Dutch, German, Polish, or... whatever nationality. I'm old fashioned, I guess; if I were a Frenchman, I would probably think "France First."

The bureaucracy of the European Union seems to be very intrusive and micromanaging. Some of that is good, of course. There are parts of American industry and agriculture that could benefit from some hard core picayune regulation.

Europe didn't ask for the several crises which brought a tidal wave of refugees, migrants, and immigrants (whatever...) to your various shores. It has always seemed untenable that any number of displaced persons can be settled without aggravating social inequalities that already exist.

I haven't been able to figure out which view is correct -- that the UK will do better economically apart from united Europe, or will do worse. And of course, we don't know what the medium term future is for Europe -- long term, don't know that either.

I would definitely beware of these big trade deals. They are made on behalf of corporations for the benefit of corporations and investors. They have NOTHING to do with the ordinary interests of ordinary people. Aside from trade, they undermine national power (in favor of corporate power) in defining what can be disputed and how. For instance, a treaty may call for binding arbitration in place of the right to take a dispute to court. Binding arbitration might or might not be fair, but the arbitrators are not subject to judicial appeal. Workers--whether unorganized or members of unions--usually get the shaft. Almost certainly, the consumer protections put in place by the busybodies of Brussels will be whittled back to an ineffective nub. You'll probably get a big ear of GMO corn rammed up your asses whether you want it or not.

States still matter, and especially states matter when the alternative is corporate institutions which serve corporate interests. In the corporate world, you are free in so far as you are profitable. If you can't make us money, what good are you?

The main concern, and I don't know how to evaluate it, is: will being "outside of Europe" damage your present and future prosperity. Will it help or damage your national, social, individual interests?

The British Left was traditionally against the EU, but it has flipped over to the other side in recent years, which may be a legacy of New Labour's preference for bureaucracy over democracy. It shared a lot with the EU's own contempt for the demos.

The dilemma for the European Left in general is manifested in the person of Yanis Varoufakis, the finance minister of Greece in the first months of the left-wing Syriza-led government last year, and self-confessed "erratic Marxist". He witnessed first-hand the economic short-sightedness and anti-democratic nature of the EU--which has carried out what is effectively a "coup d’état by stealth" in Greece and enforced a destructive and futile impoverishment of the country--and has thoroughly critiqued it in books and talks since he resigned from that post (when he failed to get anywhere with either the troika or his own Prime Minister).

And yet he is urging British people to vote to stay in the EU. He hates it, but seems to think it can be reformed from within. I think his position is based on fears of a destructive breaking apart of what unity is left in Europe, combined with the continued resurgence of reactionary xenophobic populist movements such as Golden Dawn in Greece, the National Front in France, and so on. He may be right about that, and a break-up of the EU precipitated by Brexit is a worrying prospect in some ways.

On the other hand, the divisions within Europe are intensifying as things stand, and this is partly because of the EU and the Euro. European unity built on a completely different foundation from the EU is an attractive prospect, but whether this requires a wholesale rejection of the EU or can be achieved in the way that Varoufakis envisages, I don't know. Personally I'm inclined to vote to leave (although I don't like the prospect of getting thrown out of France).

As for the UK in particular, as with many of the members of the EU I think it could see a revitalization of its political life if it leaves.

https://yanisvaroufakis.eu/
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/charlie-evans/eu-referendum_b_9638336.html
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/06/john-king-left-wing-case-leaving-eu

Also, don't dismiss the conservative case against the EU. There seem to be more conservatives than leftists making the same pro-democracy case against the EU that Tony Benn was making right up until his death. It's not really a left-right issue. And unlike the SWP, I don't think a specifically anti-capitalist campaign for exit is wise or realistic. There is, currently, no alternative to capitalism, and the best results for Europe will be founded on revitalized investment and growth.

I don't know enough about economics to make a reasoned decision. I believe various financial institutions have said that staying in is better (although I'm sure others disagree) and so I'm leaning towards that.

I don't give a damn about any of that nonsense about British laws being overruled by EU laws. All I care about is cheaper stuff and a higher wage.

I'm voting to leave the EU. At first I had no idea how I would vote if I was to do it at all. The first clue that began my swing toward Brexit was the observation that most 'establishment' politicians seemed to be desperate to stay. As a general rule, I have a fundamental distrust of politicians. So, if they say we should stay, then we should probably leave. The second clue was their economic forecasting; it was all doom and gloom. From my limited life experience, economic predictions are like weather forecasts. Reliable projections about the future of inherently complex and chaotic systems are overwhelmingly likely to be false. There are few economic arguments on either side that I find convincing, and even then I'm sceptical of the consequences of their facts. They may be right that leaving the EU would make it more difficult for skilled foreign workers to gain entry to the UK to work, but this fact alone might not be sufficient to draw the conclusion that leaving would therefore be bad. There are often hidden consequences in life that are obvious in hindsight but can't be seen ahead of time.

None of the above is enough of an argument to base a vote upon, but it gave me enough of a reason to follow my intuitions and find out more. I found the BBC largely useless (not to mention clearly biased in some cases), so I started with Daniel Hannans, Why Vote Leave. What I found particularly convincing were his arguments for British sovereignty. I suppose I'm more patriotic than I thought, and unlike Michael (who clearly only seems to care about himself and his stuff rather than his country), I do care about our laws being overruled by EU laws. It's frankly shameful that some Brits have no respect for the one thousand years of unbroken development of our common law. Once I found out, it did bother me that we have individuals running the EU who have lost the competition of democracy, they lose the trust and support of their constituents yet somehow get appointed into the upper echelons of a shadow organisation that has no accountability to the voter. What gives me confidence that the Brexiteers are absolutely correct in their arguments for British sovereignty and democracy is that their arguments go unchallenged by the remain campaign. They obviously know they have no answer for it.
I'm enormously sceptical of the 'superstate' that it appears the EU is heading toward. I see governments as a kind of machine, the larger and more complicated they are, and the more moving parts they have, the more they are likely to internally conflict and cease up somewhere in the system. The bureaucracy must be stifling. Governments, like solutions, are better simpler.

There's more to it than that, but that'll do for now.

[quote=WhiskeyWhiskers]I suppose I'm more patriotic than I thought, and unlike Michael (who clearly only seems to care about himself and his stuff rather than his country), I do care about our laws being overruled by EU laws. It's frankly shameful that some Brits have no respect for the one thousand years of unbroken development of our common law.[/quote]

I'm too wise to have principles. ;)

Quoting Sapientia

So, how are you going to vote, and why? Or, if that question doesn't apply, then how would you vote?

Britain has no chance to win the out vote :p . Some EU immigrants (who are Residents) can vote, and they will all vote against leaving. Historical Britain is fucked.

To be honest, Britain should not leave. We should form the United States of Europe, and become the next global superpower. That's the only chance we have against Russia, who is threatening our borders. If Europe unites, it will be stronger than the USA - then nobody will dare threaten us. Russia and the USA both want a divided Europe, because we would be too powerful if we are united.

Quoting darthbarracuda

Maybe if enough of these lexit left-wingers left Europe, there would be room for all the refugees.
/s

Let's kick ehm out, let's kick ehm out! ;) (at least those refugees are conservatives! :p )

Reply to Michael

You clearly do have principles; the principles of 'me, me, and me'. There is more to society than that.

Reply to WhiskeyWhiskers It's not just me though. I want the whole society to be in a better economic situation. What I think is stupid is a willingness to put national pride or historical respect above practical benefits. That's the sort of thing I mean by principles.

So to be more specific, I'm too wise to have anti-pragmatic principles.

... But now I've had to explain it the jest is lost ...

Quoting Michael

What I think is stupid is a willingness to put national pride or historical respect above practical benefits.

But the concern "about British laws being overruled by EU laws", as you put it, is not a matter of national pride or historical respect. It's a matter of democratic control over legislation (which has progressed in Britain through various phases as the right to vote has been widened to accommodate class conflicts). The European Parliament does not come close to providing that, nor was it ever intended to. The European Commission and other unelected parts of the European bureaucratic executive hold the power.

[quote=Varoufakis]It [the European Union] began life as a cartel of heavy industry (coal and steel, then car manufacturers, later co-opting farmers, hi-tech industries and others). Like all cartels, the idea was to manipulate prices and to redistribute the resulting profits through a purpose-built, Brussels-based bureaucracy.

This European cartel and the bureaucrats who administered it feared the demos and despised the idea of government by the people, just like the administrators of oil producers Opec, or indeed any corporation, does. Patiently and methodically, a process of depoliticising decision-making was put in place, the result a relentless drive towards taking the “demos” out of “democracy”, at least as far as the EU was concerned, and cloaking all policy-making in a pervasive pseudo-technocratic fatalism. National politicians were rewarded handsomely for their acquiescence to turning the commission, the Council, Ecofin (EU finance ministers), the Eurogroup (eurozone finance ministers) and the European Central Bank into politics-free, democracy-free, zones. Anyone opposing the process was labelled “un-European” and treated as a jarring dissonance.

This is, in an important respect, the deeper cause of the aversion that many in Britain instinctively harbour for the EU. And they are right: the price of de-politicising political decisions has been not merely the defeat of democracy at EU level but also poor economic policies throughout Europe.[/quote]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/05/eu-no-longer-serves-people-europe-diem25

I'm an active member of the Green Party which is supporting a 'Greener in' campaign. (There's a fair-sized and moderately influential 'Green bloc' in the EU parliament, and some skilled campaigners working to influence bureaucrats in Brussels)

Nevertheless, I'm for exit. I voted against in the referendum of the 1970's, and i'm voting against now. To me the leftist arguments for being in the thing are highly pragmatic: look what they've done for rights/the environment/poorer areas, etc.

The EU is a top-heavy network of unelected institutions with a relatively powerless Euro-parliament.

The EU policy towards the economic problems of Greece, Spain and Italy has been highly dictatorial and in support of the foolish lenders to those states, who are dominated by big banks.

Power should be distributed to the most local place where it can reasonably be exercised: that's one of my core political principles. The EU is a centripetal force opposing that.

Sadly the Labour party and the Greens have decided to campaign to remain, which has unfortunately left the Brexit campaign looking like a bunch of xenophobic reactionaries. There you go: the political elites of the UK are in a bad way.

Reply to darthbarracuda Perhaps not the best solution. But we [i]could[/I] make better use of the empty properties here in the UK - an estimated 22,000 in London alone - by giving them to those who need it, rather than allowing the super-rich to add them to their assets, leaving them unlived in and getting richer in the process. Hopefully our newly elected Labour Mayor of London will do something about that.

“Today in London hundreds of thousands of people are stuck in temporary accommodation, on social housing waiting lists, or years of saving short of buying their first home. At the same time the global super-rich buy London homes like they are gold bars, as assets to appreciate rather than homes in which to live … Absentee owners should live in the house they own or sell up – or face uncapped charges until they do. No dodges or clever schemes to get round that.”
- Tessa Jowell

Quoting jamalrob

Also, don't dismiss the conservative case against the EU. There seem to be more conservatives than leftists making the same pro-democracy case against the EU that Tony Benn was making right up until his death. It's not really a left-right issue. And unlike the SWP, I don't think a specifically anti-capitalist campaign for exit is wise or realistic. There is, currently, no alternative to capitalism, and the best results for Europe will be founded on revitalized investment and growth.

I agree with many of the pro-democracy points against the EU. Both Labour and Conservatives have that in common, although Labour, unlike the Tories, is significantly more united in it's stance of reform from within the EU, rather than leaving the EU.

Although it's not so black and white, some views on this issue can quite clearly be identified as either leftwing or rightwing. So, in that sense, it is a left-right issue. If you heard some of the comments that people have made at my workplace, I think that you'd agree that they sit firmly on the right. I find it concerning how commonplace these views are, and how easily influenced significant numbers of the general public are by them. I'm talking about the kind of ignorant rhetoric you hear on the subject of immigration. Not well-thought-out or empathetic, but ignorant, xenophobic, simplified echoes of what they've picked up from, say, reading The Sun, or a UKIP pamphlet, or listening to that bloke down the pub complain about "them bloody immigrants".

I also don't agree that there's no alternative to capitalism. Of course there are alternatives - and that's plural, because there is not just a single alternative, but rather multiple alternatives. I'm guessing that you mean that there are no better alternatives, but I doubt whether you're justified in reaching that conclusion. It seems to me that you would have had to have done [i]a heck of a lot[/I] of work to rule out every possible alternative.

Quoting Sapientia

I also don't agree that there's no alternative to capitalism. Of course there are alternatives - and that's plural, because there is not just a single alternative, but rather multiple alternatives. I'm guessing that you mean that there are no better alternatives, but I doubt whether you're justified in reaching that conclusion. You would have had to have done a heck of a lot of work to rule out every possible alternative.

You've interpreted me in an oddly literal fashion. I mean there is no realistic prospect of replacing capitalism and there is no good plan for how to replace capitalism or for what to replace it with. One can imagine things, speculate about what might work and how it might be achieved, but until there is a concerted and popular social movement with a good plan, it's utopian pie in the sky.

As for left and right, right-wingers will hang their positions on the referendum just as left-wingers do (like the SWP), but my point was that the core issue, that of sovereignty and democracy, is not left-right (even if it is treated that way).

Quoting Agustino

We should form the United States of Europe, and become the next global superpower. That's the only chance we have against Russia, who is threatening our borders. If Europe unites, it will be stronger than the USA - then nobody will dare threaten us. Russia and the USA both want a divided Europe, because we would be too powerful if we are united.

Ha. No. No we shouldn't. It just wouldn't work, because of the differences between the nations, and it could go badly wrong in various ways. And I disagree with it in principle, anyway. Let's not trigger another Cold War. And Russia hasn't done anything in recent years that has posed a serious direct threat to our borders. The brief crossing of airspace is either political posturing or has a reasonable explanation.

Quoting jamalrob

You've interpreted me in an oddly literal fashion.

Not really. I briefly addressed what you said, and then I addressed what I thought you meant, which basically matches your subsequent explanation.

Quoting jamalrob

I mean there is no realistic prospect of replacing capitalism and there is no good plan for how to replace capitalism or for what to replace it with.

Have you examined them all in depth? I doubt I'm even aware of them all, let alone examine them all, let alone in depth, let alone enough to have justifiable grounds to arrive at the conclusion that they're fatally flawed.

There are many answers to the question of why it is that capitalism has persisted: which may also explain why there seems to be no realistic prospect of replacing capitalism. I'm sure it seemed that way to those who lived in a previous historical era under a different political system... yet replaced they were. But revolutions aren't brought about by a docile populace who simply accept and take for granted the status quo - the conditions have to be ripe, and, for starters, a certain sort of consciousness has to be ascertained by enough people.

Quoting jamalrob

One can imagine things, speculate about what might work and how it might be achieved, but until there is a concerted and popular social movement with a good plan, it's utopian pie in the sky.

Well, yes, I agree with you there.

Quoting jamalrob

As for left and right, right-wingers will hang their positions on the referendum just as left-wingers do (like the SWP), but my point was that the core issue, that of sovereignty and democracy, is not left-right (even if it is treated that way).

Again, I agree, although it seems that those on the right are talking more about sovereignity - and perhaps democracy, too - in relation to the EU, but perhaps that's due to the media.

Quoting Sapientia

because of the differences between the nations, and it could go badly wrong in various ways.

If people left their pride, then they would easily choose this option, as we would all become stronger.

Quoting Sapientia

And I disagree with it in principle, anyway.

With forming a USE? Why?

Quoting Sapientia

Let's not trigger another Cold War. And Russia hasn't done anything in recent years that has posed a serious direct threat to our borders.

Nooooo, they've only annexed Crimea, terrorised Ukraine, threatened to attack Poland for the anti-missile shield, etc.

And I say this while being one of the biggest admirers of Putin. I think he is quite possibly the only real political leader on the planet in this day and age. But he cares about his country and making it strong. We should do the same.
Quoting Sapientia

The brief crossing of airspace is either political posturing or has a reasonable explanation.

@jamalrob - I'm really starting to need an eye rolling emoticon, would this be possible pretty please? :D

Quoting Sapientia

Well, yes, I agree with you there.

Well that's what it means to say that "there is, currently, no alternative to capitalism".

Quoting Agustino

If people left their pride, then they would easily choose this option, as we would all become stronger.

I don't think that psychology is your strong suit, because your simple assessment is way off. It has little to do with pride. The position has an intellectual basis. At least from my position and those who share it. My objection isn't due to nationalist pride, but due to a reasonable wariness of the sort of political power structure that you're endorsing. You say that "we" would become stronger, but who really is "we"? I don't think that "we" are, or should be, bureaucrats in very high up, powerful, positions of authority. I don't want a President of Europe.

Quoting Agustino

With forming a USE? Why?

Because I'm against the centralisation of power on that kind of scale.

Quoting Agustino

Nooooo, they've only annexed Crimea, terrorised Ukraine, threatened to attack Poland for the anti-missile shield, etc.

Out of those countries, only Poland is a member state of the European Union and of NATO. And a threat isn't the same thing as a [I]direct[/I] threat. But, yes, I'm not denying Russia's aggression, nor that it should be a cause for concern. And I'm glad that there have been sanctions. I just think that you're going overboard with the whole thing.

Quoting jamalrob

Well that's what it means to say that "there is, currently, no alternative to capitalism".

Well, I wouldn't put it that way. Rather, no alternative has yet to definitively overturn capitalism. And that's hardly surprising.

Quoting Sapientia

Well, I wouldn't put it that way. Rather, no alternative has yet to definitively overturn capitalism. And that's hardly surprising.

But that's obvious, and it wasn't my point, which was that there is, currently, no realistic alternative to capitalism--which in this context means that there is no widespread social movement with a definite plan for how to organize society in the absence of capitalism, or for how the necessary transition would take place.

Quoting jamalrob

But that's obvious, and it wasn't my point, which was that there is, currently, no realistic alternative to capitalism--which in this context means that there is no widespread social movement with a definite plan for to how to organize society in the absence of capitalism, or for how the necessary transition would take place.

Ok, but that's also pretty obvious. Anyway, best get to work then.

Quoting Sapientia

Ok, but that's also pretty obvious.

First, it doesn't seem obvious to people like the SWP and other far left groups, who often talk as if the revolution is around the corner and as if there were still a militant revolutionary socialist proletariat, in Marx's sense, preparing to grab the reins of power.

Second, the point was meant to support my view that the SWP's focus on a particularly anti-capitalist campaign for exit is misjudged. And that was meant to support my view that the issue is best seen as neither left nor right.

Quoting jamalrob

First, it doesn't seem obvious to people like the SWP and other far left groups, who often talk as if the revolution is around the corner and as if there were still a militant revolutionary socialist proletariat, in Marx's sense, preparing to grab the reins of power.

Second, the point was meant to support my view that the SWP's focus on a particularly anti-capitalist campaign for exit is misjudged. And that was meant to support my view that the issue is best seen as neither left nor right.

Ok. But then, I've never read an SWP manifesto. Have you? They must have been doing something with all this time. Maybe there's a good plan out there - or at least the beginnings of one. But then there's the rather large obstacle of it becoming sufficiently widespread and endorsed.

So, at this time, what does political polling indicate would happen if the vote were held today? Which position (Stay or Exit) currently holds the best prospect of winning?

Quoting Agustino

Some EU immigrants (who are Residents) can vote, and they will all vote against leaving. Historical Britain is fucked.

Is it the case that EU non-citizen residents can vote? It seems to me I read that expats not in the UK can not vote. It doesn't make sense for non-citizens (or subjects) to be able to vote and expats be unable to vote -- if that is actually the situation.

Reply to Bitter Crank http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36271589

Poll results vary. Seems like a close call.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36323010

A UK exit from the European Union could wipe thousands of pounds off house values over the next three years, estate agents have claimed.

Homeowners in London could lose as much as £7,500, while homes elsewhere in the UK could lose £2,300, the National Association of Estate Agents said.

The report, jointly commissioned by the Association of Residential Letting Agents, said rents could also fall.

I'm sold. Let's leave. ;)

I'll be voting 'in' on the basis that the hated bureaucrats need strengthening against the hated capitalists, multinationals being larger than nations and corporate capitalism ruling the world almost unchecked.

But it's all rather tangental to any leftist movement, unfortunately. I'm not going to be empowered much either way. But at the margin, the EU is more democratic than Megashite Industries ltd, and Dodgy Dave's bullingdon bullies.

Quoting unenlightened

I'll be voting 'in' on the basis that the hated bureaucrats need strengthening against the hated capitalists, multinationals being larger than nations and corporate capitalism ruling the world almost unchecked.

But the EU is a capitalist club (originally designed to allow the expansion of member states' capitalist operations without the tedious inconvenience of another war). It is no enemy of the multinationals. The idea that bureaucracy is essentially opposed to capitalism is an enduring myth (enduring on both the Left and Right).

Quoting unenlightened

But at the margin, the EU is more democratic than Megashite Industries ltd, and Dodgy Dave's bullingdon bullies.

In what way is the EU more democratic than the Conservative government?

And as you may have noticed, what David Cameron has done to Britain is nothing compared to what the EU has done to Greece (and others). The country has been brought to its knees, the policies on which Syriza was elected have been overruled by an outside power, and the desires of the Greek people expressed in the bailout referendum have been ignored. How anyone can think that socialist politics or democracy can benefit from the EU is beyond me.

Quoting Sapientia

My objection isn't due to nationalist pride, but due to a reasonable wariness of the sort of political power structure that you're endorsing.

Why are you wary of centralised power?

Quoting Sapientia

You say that "we" would become stronger, but who really is "we"? I don't think that "we" are, or should be, bureaucrats in very high up, powerful, positions of authority. I don't want a President of Europe.

Maybe you don't, but I do ;)

Lol joking. But if Europe was one country, we would be able to increase and regulate better our trade globally, bring more security to our people, and spur development and growth through all the current countries of Europe through more integrated collaboration.

Quoting Sapientia

Because I'm against the centralisation of power on that kind of scale.

Why?

Quoting Sapientia

Out of those countries, only Poland is a member state of the European Union and of NATO. And a threat isn't the same thing as a direct threat. But, yes, I'm not denying Russia's aggression, nor that it should be a cause for concern. And I'm glad that there have been sanctions. I just think that you're going overboard with the whole thing.

Are you serious? Don't you see how Putin is dividing Europe? What is he doing with Viktor Orban in Hungary? Why do you think he's getting in bed with him? That guy is a wanna-be dictator - he has severely restricted the freedom of the Press in Hungary already. Putin met with the Greek leaders as well, and has encouraged them to leave EU and join him based on receiving help with the Greek debt problems. He has encouraged conflicts among European nations. Why has he threatened all countries where missile shields are being built, including Poland and Romania (BOTH of which are NATO AND EU members)? Why have there recently been many signs that an invasion of Estonia (NATO member) is prepared? If UK exits EU, he'll be so happy - big party at Moscow that day!

It seems to me that many Western Europeans have no idea what is going on, on the Eastern front... this is exactly what a brilliant strategist and general like Putin needs. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the anti-EU voices in the UK are Russian agents ;)

War is not an inconvenience to capital.

The EU is a capitalist club, but so is the labour party, by and large, and so is the Bullingdon club. It is largely a deckchairs on the Titanic thing for the left, which seems to find the GMC on its radical wing these days. :-$

https://www.facebook.com/theguardian/videos/vb.10513336322/10154112914426323/?type=2&theater

Quoting unenlightened

War is not an inconvenience to capital.

It's the concerns of the people who engineered the European Union that I was referring to, not capital in the abstract. My point was that they wanted to ensure the expansion of national capitalist economies without the kind of national competition that would lead to war. This was quite a good thing, but it doesn't follow that the EU is in any way opposed to capitalism, even if it is opposed to outright war. And right now, the EU is not doing a good job of ensuring unity.

Simply, the EU is not a bulwark against capitalism, and strengthening the European bureaucracy makes it more difficult for national electorates to opt for anti-capitalist policies, not less.*

*I wouldn't at this time count myself as anti-capitalist except in my utopian mode, so for me it's not an argument for leaving the EU that it's pro-capitalist (it's the kind of destructive, financialized, stagnant capitalism they foster and enforce that I have a problem with). But the wider point is about the ability of people to decide on the policies that govern them, for which I think national parliaments need strengthening.

As for Yanis Varoufakis and Owen Jones, they both have good arguments against the EU and very little positive to say about it, and Varoufakis's campaign to hold the EU together is a mainly negative one: he fears what would happen if it broke apart and thinks it needs to be completely reformed on a new basis.

Quoting Agustino

Why are you wary of centralised power?

Because the further away the power from the people, the less likely the interests of the people will be represented. I say, to some extent, cut out the middle man and move closer to direct democracy. If there are similar problems on a national level, which there are, then greatly increasing the scope will greatly increase the problems. Just look at the US. The Bush era, for example, was bloody awful. No thanks. If there was to be a President of Europe, I'd want there to be so many checks and balances that the job would almost be redundant.

Quoting Agustino

But if Europe was one country, we would be able to increase and regulate better our trade globally, bring more security to our people, and spur development and growth through all the current countries of Europe through more integrated collaboration.

The countries in Europe have the right of self-determination, meaning that it's up to them how they're governed. Each government differs in important ways from the others. You can't just sweep those differences under the rug and attempt to enforce uniformity, unless you're a proponent of totalitarianism. Also, it's bad enough that we have the US acting as a global police force, and interfering in other countries. We don't need another superpower. It would, on the contrary, only serve to increase tensions, and make us less secure as a result.

Quoting Sapientia

Because the further away the power from the people, the less likely the interests of the people will be represented.

Not necessarily.

The UK, vis a vis the EU, is in no way the equivalent of an American state vis a vis the federal government, but... The distant federal government has generally been the enforcer on civil rights, environmental protection, fair trade, and the like while the local school boards, cities, counties, and state have quite often been the perverter of the same.

Also, larger corporations -- as effective as they are in congress -- are even more effective at the state level, in getting the kind of tax deals and local regulation (always less of both) that they desire.

It would seem like it should be the other way around. But local governments (especially in the smaller states) just don't have the same muscle the the federal government has. New York and California are able to take on corporate power better, but even there... the feds are stronger than the states.

Quoting Bitter Crank

Not necessarily.

Yes, not necessarily. But that's one risk I don't want to take. Although I approve of those EU laws which protect important rights, I don't like the lack of democracy or some of the political and economic acts that the EU has taken upon itself to enforce. I wouldn't want that bad side to get worse by further empowerment.

I think I may have made my mind up. I will vote to stay. Although the EU could do with some reform, I think that it is better to remain a part of it. For me, it has to do with things like this: http://www.theguardian.com/money/work-blog/2013/jan/24/europe-legacy-uk-workplaces

I added a poll. I don't know why I didn't think to do so at the time I created this discussion, but there's one there now.

Quoting Sapientia

I think I may have made my mind up. I will vote to stay. Although the EU could do with some reform, I think that it is better to remain a part of it. For me, it has to do with things like this: http://www.theguardian.com/money/work-blog/2013/jan/24/europe-legacy-uk-workplaces

Is a good king better than a bad Parliament? See Tony Benn on democracy and the EU.

Not a Brit, but if I were I would go along with Varoufakis for "in". Lesser of two evils.

UK Government vs. EU on Google's tax avoidance

UK Government

[quote=BBC News]Several [international companies] have been accused of using legal methods to minimise their tax bills.

In Google's case, its tax structure allows it to pay tax in the Republic of Ireland, even when sales appear to relate to the UK.

In January, it struck a deal with UK tax authorities to pay an extra £130m in tax for the period from 2005, but that deal was heavily criticised.

The UK Public Accounts Committee (PAC) said the £130m settlement "seems disproportionately small", compared with the size of its UK business.[/quote]

European Union

[quote=BBC News]Europe's competition authorities have been examining whether some deals struck by big companies with national tax authorities amount to illegal state aid.

In April, the EU unveiled plans to force large companies to disclose more about their tax affairs.

They will have to declare publicly how much tax they pay in each EU country as well as any activities carried out in specific tax havens.

The rules on "country-by-country reporting" would affect multinational firms with more than €750m in sales.[/quote]

Coming down to the vote and polls are either too close to call, with maybe an edge for BREXIT.

It seems clearer to me, not that it matters, that BREXIT will be a mistake for the UK in both the short and long run. True, the stock markets aren't going crazy, but that may be for what reason? God only knows.

Europe is better off solidly united, and the UK is part of Europe culturally, geologically, economically, historically (the empire not withstanding) and militarily. Fortunately, Olde England seems to be on stable crustal bedrock, so it won't be going anywhere soon. It can't get away from Europe. The French will always be on the other side of the narrow channel.

From what little I can tell, the Stay campaign has not done a fabulously great job of presenting its case, but I haven't been there to hear it, I just get reflected noise.

Reply to Bitter Crank Your post presumes that for Europeans to be united is for them to remain in the EU, that to leave the EU is to "get away from Europe". This is a misunderstanding of the EU (although it's a common one even in the UK). Europe under the EU is not "solidly united".

The stay campaign seems to have done a better job of presenting their case than the leave campaign, in my opinion, and I think it's mainly because they--the remainers--have the vast bulk of the political and economic establishment behind them. The interesting thing is that, looking at some of the polls, the electorate might be becoming immune to the establishment's propaganda: a recent article in the Guardian described the popularity of Brexit as a working-class revolt. I'm on their side.

Reply to jamalrob The way the main media are constructed, together with the fact that all the main political parties went for a Remain campaign, has meant that the Leave campaign has been right-wing, with strong whiffs of xenophobia. The leftist case for leaving has not had an airing. The quality of the debate has been poor because mainstream politicians of the centre and left have been so restrained, leaving the field to Tory versus Tory.

I'm still for Leaving: the UK belongs in a trade pact with Europe, including a deal about free movement of people, but it would be better off out of a corporatist, centralised quasi-State which now takes big political decisions - like what macro-economic policy its members are allowed to pursue if they get into big debt - that should be taken by the countries themselves. The way politics is going in some European states is worrying, and our Conservatives, in the European parliament, are allied with such dangerous people as the Polish Law and Justice party, and not with Merkel and mainstream conservatism.

Quoting mcdoodle

corporatist, centralised quasi-State

"Quasi-state" - neither fish nor fowl. "State" in Europe has the heavy substantial meaning that "state" in the United States doesn't. Germany, France, Holland, Spain, Italy, and so forth all have ancient histories as States. Europeans have been (more or less) consistently peopled since the early medieval period--unlike American territory which cleared and re-peopled territories and then formed states--and relatively recently.

Sovereignty has been a long-term property of European states, so the European Union is much different than the federal union of American sates.

The implementation of the European union seems (based on my really fragmentary knowledge here) to have begun, and continued, as a complex bureaucracy. Analogously. it would be like the American Federal Civil Service rising to its present prominence as the continuing government without a Declaration and subsequent War of Independence.

If this all holds water at all, I can see why there would be a strong feeling within the electorate for not being an integral part of the bureaucratic structure of the EU, while remaining an important peripheral part of the EU.

Either outcome has upsides and downsides. Wish you all all the best

Quoting Bitter Crank

Germany, France, Holland, Spain, Italy, and so forth all have ancient histories as States

I agree with the tenor of what you're saying. But just to mention, both Germany and Italy are not so ancient, as they only became unified states in the 19th century, which helps to explain the strong regionalism in both their forms of administration.

Rule Britannia, get out. I'm cheering for you guys!

Quoting mcdoodle

both Germany and Italy are not so ancient, as they only became unified states in the 19th century

You are right. The contradiction flitted through my brain as I described these two countries as ancient. It didn't find a perch. But the component parts out of which they are constituted do go back quite a ways.

Quoting Bitter Crank

The implementation of the European union seems (based on my really fragmentary knowledge here) to have begun, and continued, as a complex bureaucracy. Analogously. it would be like the American Federal Civil Service rising to its present prominence as the continuing government without a Declaration and subsequent War of Independence.

If this all holds water at all, I can see why there would be a strong feeling within the electorate for not being an integral part of the bureaucratic structure of the EU, while remaining an important peripheral part of the EU.

Either outcome has upsides and downsides. Wish you all all the best

I think your fragmentary knowledge is largely correct (and is probably much less fragmentary than mine). Although I wasn't around when Britain joined the EU, I have heard (without challenge) from several people, who voted at the time, that we joined the EU with the understanding that it was merely an economic amalgamation for the purpose of common trade. They were offered a single market, and they gave their vote for it in return.

Since then, however, they have seen the EU grow from a single market into an entity that has "all the trappings of statehood"; a flag, a parliament, several presidents, a currency, its own borders, and a supreme court. I'm probably forgetting a few too. There's also no doubt that this was the (not-so-hidden) intention from the start, if you read some of the quotes from proto-EUnionists after WWII.

So a lot of British people feel they were deceived into a contract, but one where the other side has been constantly revising its terms and conditions to the point where it ends up being the exact thing they were cautious to avoid in the initial agreement. The other side has slowly crept into the deal all the things that would have been a deal breaker had they been on the table from the start. And they feel there's been nothing, up until the referendum, that they could do to opt out of this contract.

This is why the polls show that it is mostly the older generation (who were present for the initial in vote) who are for leaving. They remember the original deal, and the bitterness has fuelled their euro-scepticism. And this would also explain why the younger generation is for remaining; because they are simply unaware of the historical dodgy dealing that got them into the position they take for granted as the status-quo.

Quoting The Great Whatever

Rule Britannia, get out. I'm cheering for you guys!

Then we'd no longer be bound to those EU laws which are beneficial, and which the Tories (the current government) do not seem keen to replace. Hurrah.

The good news is that the referendum is only advisory and not legally binding. Hopefully even if we vote to leave Parliament opts to stay regardless. ;)

Reply to Michael

Is that a joke?

Reply to WhiskeyWhiskers That it's not binding? Nope. The government/Parliament have no legal obligation to follow through on the result.

Reply to Sapientia Are you defending being a vassal state? Grow some backbone!

Reply to Michael

I was obviously referring to the second part.

Reply to WhiskeyWhiskers I'm all for staying. From what I understand it's better for the economy.

That's fair enough. But would you still be keen for parliament to defy the will of the people if the vote was to remain?

Reply to WhiskeyWhiskers Of course not. I want us to stay.

Reply to Michael

Ah, I understand you now. With such antidemocratic tendencies it's no wonder you want to stay in the EU.

Reply to WhiskeyWhiskers I'm a pragmatist, not an idealist. ;)

Reply to Michael

No, you're a fascist.

Reply to WhiskeyWhiskers How so?

Can someone hurry up and invent Soma already? Or make a virtual 'Great Britain' on Oculus that's idealistic enough for leave types.

Reply to The Great Whatever I'm obviously defending some of the benefits of remaining a member of the European Union. Grow some serious criticism! (Emotional nationalist cries, loaded language, and ad hominems don't count).

And that goes for you too, @WhiskeyWhiskers. Calling @Michael a fascist? Really?

Reply to Sapientia

The hypocrisy of using democracy only when it favours your side is literally a necessary condition of fascism.

Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers

The hypocrisy of using democracy only when it favours your side is literally a necessary condition of fascism.

But what are you basing this on? Are you taking something that Michael has said as an example? From my point of view, it just looks like hyperbole.

Reply to Sapientia

Check the previous page. I see no reason why he wasn't being serious. I even asked if he was joking because I couldn't really believe what I was reading. What he calls "pragmatism" is nothing other than doing whatever he thinks is right; benevolent dictatorship - at least benevolent in his mind; 50% of the country would disagree. 95% could disagree with him and he would disregard the weight of common wisdom so long as he thought he was being "pragmatic". Democracy is reduced to a formality that can be ignored if the result doesn't suit him (as per the EU's attitude to Irelands referendums) and 'gentlemans agreements', for lack of a better term, are not honoured (following through on the result of a referendum even though it isn't legally binding, which Cameron has stated he will). I'll make it clear now that I won't be investing a lot of time arguing against Michaels 'pragmatism', because I don't think he's really thought it through and, already, it's quite absurd on the face of it.

Reply to WhiskeyWhiskers

Is it facist to favour the right decision over the popular decision? If the democratic vote favoured slavery, patriarchy, and homophobia, am I a fascist for hoping that those in charge ignore the vote and instead push for equality?

I'll make it clear now that I won't be investing a lot of time arguing against Michaels 'pragmatism', because I don't think he's really thought it through and, already, it's quite absurd on the face of it.

I have thought it through. What's absurd about it?

Reply to WhiskeyWhiskers Indeed.

The accusation of fascism is rhetorically useful for emphasizing just how bad such an anti-democratic position is. It's definitely hyperbole though. The EU itself behaves in just the kind of way that Michael favours, and it's definitely not fascist. Unknowingly arguing from certain mainstream prejudices and ideologies, Michael thinks politics is, or should be, merely the expert technical management of a given state of affairs; his politics, as far as he has any, seems to consist mostly of appeals to authority, so he won't see it as a matter of enforcing his own personal opinions.

I doubt he thinks politics is merely the vehicle to realize a belligerent reactionary corporatist totalitarian state.

It's likely that attitudes such as his enable the growth of various anti-democratic -isms, but it's a bit unfair to label someone who is basically apolitical as a fascist. Don't get me wrong though: I think his attitude to politics is appalling.

Reply to WhiskeyWhiskers I thought that that's what you were referring to. I think that I must have misinterpreted Michael's comments initially. Now I understand where you're coming from. As a pragmatic point, it's worth noting that that ain't gonna happen anyway. There's no way that the government would overturn the results of the referendum and risk the inevitable massive backlash. But, as an idealistic point, even if they did, I would condemn it on principle.

Quoting Michael

Is it facist to favour the right decision over the popular decision? If the democratic vote favoured slavery, patriarchy, and homophobia, am I a fascist for hoping that those in charge ignore the vote and instead push for equality?

You might want to check out the contemporary expert consensus regarding the economic consequences of the abolition of slavery.

Reply to jamalrob I don't see how that answers the question.

Reply to Michael It shows that experts are often wrong--that there are more important things at stake.

Reply to Michael The problem with that analogy being the massive difference in degree. Leaving the EU isn't comparable to slavery, patriarchy, etc.

Reply to jamalrob I know experts might be wrong. What I'm questioning the assertion that if if I don't give carte blanche to a democratic decision then I'm a fascist.

Reply to Sapientia The point is that wanting to ignore a particular democratic decision doesn't make me a fascist.

Reply to Michael It's not as black-and-white and you're trying to make it appear, though. Being in favor of overturning the results of this referendum is not justifiable in the same way that it would be if this were a referendum on slavery, and the results were to legalise it. Even if it is assumed that staying is the right decision, and the referendum result is to leave, the result should be honoured, since the consequences would not be severe enough to warrant otherwise, as it would in the case of slavery. It's not simply a matter of doing what is (presumably) right, irrespective of democracy.

Reply to Sapientia So what you're saying is that if most people want to leave then I ought to want the government to make it happen, even though I want to leave? I don't accept that. I want what I want. Sometimes what I want is not what most other people want. But I still want what I want, not what most other people want.

My desire to stay in the EU is greater than my desire for the government to accept a democratic vote in favour of leaving. It's a simple fact that doesn't need justification.

Well...

... I'm not in the UK or in the USA. I'm in Europe.

All I can say is that the EU has cut the UK a deal that no other member nation in the EU has, so honestly I'm a bit fed up with the constant bitching. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/502291/54284_EU_Series_No1_Web_Accessible.pdf

-------------------------------------------------


Chapter 3 – wider protections
and opt-outs

3.1 The agreement reached at the February European Council creates a new
settlement for the UK in the EU. It builds on a number of wider protections and optouts
that the UK had already secured and which are established in the EU Treaties and
in domestic legislation. This gives the UK a special status in the EU unmatched by any
other EU Member State or third country arrangement.
Safeguards in Europe
• The euro: the UK is under no obligation to join the euro.
• Schengen: the UK has the right to maintain its own border controls, and to stay
outside the Schengen border-free area, without preventing the British people from
moving freely within the EU.
• Justice and Home Affairs: the UK can choose whether or not we participate in
new EU Justice and Home Affairs measures. This means we can participate in vital
aspects of co-operation against cross-border crime without putting our unique
justice systems at risk.
3.2 Our new settlement builds on these opt-outs with even stronger protections for the
UK’s position in the future:
• the UK’s sovereignty will be permanently protected from the threat of becoming part
of an ever closer union;
• the UK Parliament will have the power to work together with its counterparts in
Europe to block EU legislation;
• transparent and stable arrangements will be in place to secure the UK’s economic
position outside the Eurozone; and
• we have secured a commitment to important changes which will help protect the
UK from the threat of crime being committed by individuals moving around the EU,
tackle the abuse of freedom of movement, and limit access to our welfare system for
nationals from other EU countries.
3.3 Being at the table in the EU has also allowed us to secure safeguards in legislation to
help protect the interests of the UK. For example, in negotiations concerning Working Time,
the UK was able to ensure that there is an opt-out for individual workers from the maximum
48 hour working week.
38 The best of both worlds: the United Kingdom’s special status in a reformed European Union
3.4 When new countries are admitted to the EU in future, the UK will insist that our controls
on free movement cannot be lifted until their economies have converged much more closely
with existing Member States’, using indicators such as their GDP per capita, employment rate
and distribution of wealth. And we would seek to reimpose these controls if there is either a
serious disturbance in our labour market or adverse social or public policy impacts in the UK
as a result of migration from this new Member State. Any enlargement requires unanimity of
the existing Members and, in the UK, an Act of Parliament, so the UK can ensure that these
requirements are respected in any discussion of enlargement of the EU.
Safeguards at home
3.5 At home, we have built into UK law some strong protections against sovereignty
moving to the EU. The European Union Referendum Act 2015 requires a referendum on
our membership of the EU; the Government will propose that this should be held on 23
June 2016. And the European Union Act 2011 ensures that no further area of power or
competence can be transferred to the EU or national veto given up without the express
approval of our Parliament and the consent of the British people in a fresh referendum.
3.6 In particular, a further referendum would be needed to approve:
• amending the EU Treaties to transfer power from the UK to the EU;
• replacing the EU Treaties;
• removing any existing UK powers to veto EU action;
• a UK decision to take part in a European Public Prosecutor’s Office; and
• a UK decision to join the euro.
3.7 In short, the European Union Act 2011 puts power in the hands of the UK Parliament
and the British people. Unanimity is required at the EU level to change the Treaties, the UK
Parliament must agree to the change, and the British people would need to approve it in a
referendum – a triple democratic lock over any future steps towards integration with the EU.

---------------------------------------------

Honestly, my take is that the EU brings and gives more to the UK than the UK gives or brings to the EU. A part of me feels like saying "don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out".

Meow!

GREG

Reply to Michael It's not about what you ought to want or not want. The question is if you're willing to accept a democratic decision you don't like and go on to support democratic campaigns to change that policy in the future; or if you'd prefer to disallow or over-rule democratic processes on an issue you're certain about.

Reply to jamalrob It's exactly about what I want. That's the only thing I've been discussing. I said that I'd hope the government chose to stay even if most people want to leave. I then said that I wouldn't be keen if the government chose to leave even if most people want to stay. I was then called a fascist.

So I'm questioning the claim that I'm a fascist for wanting what I consider to be the right decision even if it's not the decision that favours most other people's desires.

Reply to Michael No, it's not about what you should want, it's about what you ought to accept, regardless of what you want. You ought to accept the results, and not favour the possibility of overturning them. Jamalrob thinks that you have a thing for authorities, so perhaps it'll help if you just think of the results as authoritative. The people will have spoken, and there is insufficient grounds to defy them.

Quoting Michael

Is it facist to favour the right decision over the popular decision? If the democratic vote favoured slavery, patriarchy, and homophobia, am I a fascist for hoping that those in charge ignore the vote and instead push for equality?

I have thought it through. What's absurd about it?

The point is that it is very much up for debate which decision is the right one. You alone do not get to decide that; the country as a whole does. Over-ruling the majority decision if it does not agree with you, when the decision belonged to all the people, is anti-democratic. Your pragmatism assumes an astounding level of arrogance that you have the right answers, and people far more learned (from both leave and the uncertain) on this subject must all be wrong. A referendum is a question, we've had the debate, so let the chips fall as they may and respect the process. What's absurd about your position is it's logical conclusion; benevolent dictatorship. Do whatever you want to do because you think it's right. Your view leaves no room for national debate, dissenting opinion, democracy, common wisdom, tradition, or even basic humility.

Reply to Sapientia What does it mean to "accept" a result anyway? To be in favour of it? Why would I be in favour of leaving simply because most other people want to leave? It doesn't matter how many people are in favour of leaving; I'm in favour of staying.

Reply to jamalrob I took too long to reply, and you beat me to the punch. :-|

Reply to Sapientia I don't like stepping on toes, but I couldn't help myself.

Reply to WhiskeyWhiskers This all seems to be a red herring. Look back at what was actually said. I'll repeat my post to jamalrob:

I said that I'd hope the government chose to stay even if most people want to leave. I then said that I wouldn't be keen if the government chose to leave even if most people want to stay. I was then called a fascist.

So I'm questioning the claim that I'm a fascist for wanting what I consider to be the right decision even if it's not the decision that favours most other people's desires.

Reply to Michael It means accepting it as binding and authoritative, rather than a meaningless pretence which can easily be overturned. That's effectively what it's going to be in any case, so why not? You know they won't dare overturn it. And it has nothing to do with however many other people want to leave. I'm clearly not pushing you to agree with them or to change sides. I'm in favour of staying as well, but that doesn't overide the results of a referendum, nor should it - even if we view it as unfavourable.

Reply to Sapientia I can't accept that it's binding and authoritative because it isn't. That's a legal fact. So given that the government is not legally required to listen to the referendum, why am I a fascist for wanting them to choose to stay even if we vote to leave?

Reply to Michael I said that it effectively will be. Meaning that it will be treated as such by the government. Do you disagree? I thought you were a pragmatist, yet you're arguing over an unrealistic hypothetical based on a legal loophole. (And I've not called you a fascist).

Reply to Sapientia I'm sure it will be treated as such by the government. But I'd still want them to ignore a leave vote. That doesn't make me a fascist.

Reply to Michael I haven't called you a fascist! It makes you anti-democratic to an extent, and unjustifiably so in my view.

Reply to Sapientia That depends on what counts as good justification. If the country and its people would be better off by staying in the EU then I think that an anti-democractic decision to stay is justified. Others might say that because there is no moral imperative to stay (as there would be against slavery) then such an anti-democratic decision wouldn't be justified.

But then, as I said at the start, I'm a pragmatist, not an idealist, and so it's the former justification that I would consider the most important.

Reply to Michael But your position isn't actually pragmatic or right. It'd be pragmatic to recognise that regardless of what you think is right, the referendum results are going to be what ultimately matter. The pragmatic mindset would actually be: "Let's work with what we've got, whatever the result may be". Your view would make sense if this were in fact a fascist state, and the state didn't have to worry about a public backlash. North Korea doesn't have to worry about that sort of thing, because they keep the public tightly oppressed. But here in Great Britain, the consequences of overturning the result would make doing so massively counterproductive. Surely it's pragmatic to avoid large-scale disruption. Your "pragmatic" view would only actually make sense in an "ideal" society devoid from the reality here in Great Britain, where actions like the one you favour have big consequences.

[quote=Sapientia]But your position isn't actually pragmatic or right. It'd be pragmatic to recognise that regardless of what you think is right, the referendum results are going to be what ultimately matter. The pragmatic mindset would actually be: "Let's work with what we've got, whatever the result may be". Your view would make sense if this were in fact a fascist state, and the state didn't have to worry about a public backlash. North Korea doesn't have to worry about that sort of thing, because they keep the public tightly oppressed. But here in Great Britain, the consequences of overturning the result would make doing so massively counterproductive. Surely it's pragmatic to avoid large-scale disruption.[/quote]

I think you're twisting the meaning there (or at least what I intended to mean). All I'm saying is that if the country would be better off in the EU then I would prefer for the government to ignore a leave vote than to accept an advisory referendum. I'd call that a case of pragmatism over principles.

Arguing over whether or not the label I've chosen is perfectly accurate seems like an unimportant semantic quibble.

Of course, if the consequences of ignoring a leave vote outweigh the consequences of leaving then I'd be in favour of leaving. But then the problem you'd have isn't with my anti-democratic pragmatism (as it has seemed up until now), but rather with my belief about what actually is the most practical decision.

Quoting Michael

I think you're twisting the meaning there (or at least what I intended to mean). All I'm saying is that if the country would be better off in the EU then I would prefer for the government to ignore a leave vote than to accept an advisory referendum. I'd call that a case of pragmatism over principles.

It might seem that way, but looking at the bigger picture, it isn't pragmatism over principles at all; it's your principle of the state doing what you think is right - despite the consequences vs. practical considerations - which of course include taking the consequences into consideration. And for all intents and purposes, this is not an advisory referendum; it's the real deal.

Quoting Michael

Of course, if the consequences of ignoring a leave vote outweigh the consequences of leaving then I'd be in favour of leaving.

You don't have to change which side you favour at the drop of a hat. I can't relate to that mindset. Seems like a superficial reason for changing sides. I would still favour remain, but would think it unfortunate that it didn't go my way and nothing can be done about it, practically speaking.

Quoting Michael

But then the problem you'd have isn't with my anti-democratic pragmatism (as it has seemed up until now), but rather with my belief about what actually is the most practical decision.

I take issue with both. I can assure you, I do not condone your take on overruling democratic decisions, except in the most exceptional circumstances.

[quote=Sapientia]I do not condone your take on overruling democratic decisions, except in the most exceptional circumstances.[/quote]

On what grounds? Is there some moral obligation to want the most popular decision implemented? This seems to be the unspoken premise that's driving the criticism against me.

You don't have to change which side you favour at the drop of a hat. I can't relate to that mindset.

That I'm willing to change which side I favour at the drop of a hat simply shows that the reasons I'm giving for supporting my position are genuine and not ad hoc rationalizations.

It might seem that way, but looking at the bigger picture, it isn't pragmatism over principles at all; it's your principle of the state doing what you think is right - despite the consequences vs. practical considerations - which of course include taking the consequences into consideration. And for all intents and purposes, this is not an advisory referendum; it's the real deal.

You just seem to be saying that a pragmatist has a principled support of the practical. That's just a word game. The point is that I'm not going to support the popular opinion simply because I'm committed to the principle of democracy. Instead I'm going to support whatever decision is going to give the country, and so by extension me, the better standard of living.

Quoting Michael

On what grounds? Is there some moral obligation to want the most popular decision implemented? This seems to be the unspoken premise that's driving the criticism against me.

For the Nth time, no, you don't have to [i]want[/I] it to be implemented, but you ought to respect the results, since this is obviously a democratic decision, despite the redundant technicality that you keep pushing about it being merely advisory and nonbinding. And expressing your desire that the results be overturned is not to respect the results or the democratic process behind the results.

Quoting Michael

The point is that I'm not going to support the popular opinion simply because I'm committed to the principle of democracy. Instead I'm going to support whatever decision is going to give the country, and so by extension me, the better standard of living.

You've repeatedly shown that you don't understand the criticism being made here. No one has said that you have to support the popular opinion. The point is about respecting the democratic process behind the referendum, which you do not, because you have no problem undermining it by taking advantage of a loophole, which has no chance of actually happening anyway, so is not even an option.

Funnily enough, I'm also going to support whatever decision I think is going to give the country, and so by extension me, the better standard of living. I think that that is to remain in the EU. I will respect the result, whatever it may be, and not wish it to be overturned by the government, because I accept, as does the Prime Minister and the general public, that the decision is ours and not the government's.

[quote=Sapientia]For the Nth time, no, you don't have to want it to be implemented, but you ought to respect the results, since this is obviously a democratic decision, despite the redundant technicality that you keep pushing about it being merely advisory and nonbinding. And expressing your desire that the results be overturned is not to respect the results or the democratic process behind the results.

...

You've repeatedly shown that you don't understand the criticism being made here. No one has said that you have to support the popular opinion. The point is about respecting the democratic process behind the referendum, which you do not, because you have no problem undermining it by taking advantage of a loophole, which has no chance of actually happening anyway, so is not even an option.[/quote]

I don't understand what you mean by "respecting" the decision. If "you should respect the decision" doesn't mean "you ought to want the decision to be upheld", then how has anything I've said implied that I don't "respect" the decision (whatever that means)?

You've repeatedly shown that you don't understand the criticism being made here

You're right; I don't. It's been hopelessly unclear. You're criticising the fact that I want the government to choose to stay even if the vote favours that we leave but then saying that you're not telling me that I ought to want the government to choose to leave if the vote favours such a thing.

So it seems me that you're just contradicting yourself. You're telling me what I should want but denying that this is what you're doing.

I accept, as does the Prime Minister and the general public, that the decision is ours and not the government's.

Given that the power to enact Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union rests in Parliament (or the government, I don't know which) the above is quite simply false. At best it's one of those abstract claims like "we have a natural right to such-and-such even if the law forbids it". We could get into a philosophical discussion on the merits of such a thing, if you like? Given that I'm not a mystic or theist, I'm going to argue against such airy-fairy nonsense.

The point is about respecting the democratic process behind the referendum

So, assuming you first clarify what it means to "respect" the democratic process, you then have to justify your claim that I ought to do so.

Reply to Michael Quoting Michael

I don't understand what you mean by "respecting" the decision. If "you should respect the decision" doesn't mean "you ought to want the decision to be upheld", then how has anything I've said implied that I don't "respect" the decision (whatever that means)?

That [i]is[/I] basically what it means.

Quoting Michael

You're right; I don't. It's been hopelessly unclear. You're criticising the fact that I want the government to choose to stay even if the vote favours that we leave but then saying that you're not telling me that I ought to want the government to choose to leave if the vote favours such a thing.

I don't believe I've been unclear, but it's clear that you're confused, because that isn't what I've done. I'm saying that your decision that it's better to remain in the EU shouldn't change based on the results, but that you should respect the results of the referendum. The government is just the middleman on this issue; merely a mouthpiece of the people. It wouldn't make sense to want the government to choose to leave if you think it's better to remain - this is my point that you seem to be having trouble with. The word "want" is the wrong word to use. I want to remain, I don't want to leave, but I would accept the decision to leave as valid if that is what the people of our nation have voted for. I'm saying that you should feel the same way, not that you should want to leave.

I'm not the only one to make this criticism. Jamalrob also criticised you for wording it in terms of what you want or should want. So that leads me to believe that the fault is not my lack of clarity, but rather your failure to take this criticism regarding the way in which you're phrasing this issue into account.

Quoting Sapientia

That is basically what it means.

So you are telling me what I should want? You denied this earlier.

I'm saying that your decision that it's better to remain in the EU shouldn't change based on the results, but that you should respect the results of the referendum. The government is just the middleman on this issue; merely a mouthpiece of the people. It wouldn't make sense to want the government to choose to leave if you think it's better to remain - this is my point that you seem to be having trouble with. The word "want" is the wrong word to use. I want to remain, I don't want to leave, but I would accept the decision to leave as valid if that is what the people of our nation have voted for.

It's still not clear to me what you mean by "respect" and "accept" the decision. I will accept that we voted to leave. I will even accept that the government honours our vote (if they do). But I'd still want the government to ignore such a vote.

So short of arguing that I ought not want this, nothing you're saying seems to make any sense. And if this is what you're saying, you still have to justify such a claim.

But given that "ought" implies "can", and given that we can't choose what to want, it seems to me that any attempted justification is doomed to fail.

I'm not the only one to make this criticism. Jamalrob also criticised you for wording it in terms of what you want or should want. So that leads me to believe that the fault is not my lack of clarity, but rather your failure to take this criticism regarding the way in which you're phrasing this issue into account.

I don't understand this at all. I want the government to ignore a vote to leave. What does it even mean to criticise my phrasing? Is it ungrammatical? Am I using meaningless words?

Reply to Michael

I'm basically saying the same thing that jamalrob said:

Quoting jamalrob

It's not about what you ought to want or not want. The question is if you're willing to accept a democratic decision you don't like and go on to support democratic campaigns to change that policy in the future; or if you'd prefer to disallow or over-rule democratic processes on an issue you're certain about.

What's not to understand?

Quoting Michael

But I'd still want the government to ignore such a vote.

That you'd want the government to ignore such a vote means that you do not really respect the result of the referendum or the democratic process. You can't respect a decision and yet seriously want it to be overturned - that's nonsense. If you respect the decision, then such a course would be out of the question. You could wish the vote had gone the other way, but when you desire that the referendum result be overturned, then you're undermining the accepted process. If you want the government to go back on their word and betray the result, yet you think you can respect the decision at the same time, then I'm saying that that is not genuine respect, but merely an outward pretence.

As for justification, what more do I need than that which is already evident. This is a democratic process, that has been made clear by the government. Your loophole doesn't change that. So if you don't like the process, then you are welcome to take no part, but if you do take part, then you are obliged to accept the validity of the result.

Quoting Sapientia

What's not to understand?

What I don't understand, as I've repeatedly said, is what it means to "accept" a decision. I can accept that a decision has been made – and nothing I've said implies that I wouldn't accept that it was made – but I don't know what else it would mean.

That you'd want the government to ignore such a vote means that you do not really respect the result of the referendum or the democratic process.

I also don't know what it means to "respect" a decision. And then, depending on what it means, I might not accept your claim that I ought respect it.

If by "respect" you mean "admire", then no, I wouldn't admire the popular decision simply because it's the popular decision, and neither ought I.

If by "respect" you mean "take into consideration", then yes, I would take into consideration the popular decision. But taking into consideration the popular decision does not require that I agree with it – and nor does it require that I want it to be implemented.

Reply to Michael

Look, I don't know how else to put it. It's simple really. If you respect the result, then you respect the result, and don't desire it to be overturned. If there's a race, and a winner is declared, then to wish that the results be overturned and another winner be declared, despite this being against the accepted process, then you simply do not respect the results or the accepted process behind deciding who won. It's not being a good sportsman. I'm saying that if you're going to participate, you ought to be a good sportsman.

I hope this makes it clear to you: If I voted to leave but the country voted to remain, I would want the government to follow through with the peoples wishes and remain, even though it is not what I voted for. Because that is respect for the democratic process. I would want the country to leave, but not at the expense of our democracy.

If you say you don't understand something as simple as this, I don't think philosophy is the subject for you. Or maybe you need it all the more.

Quoting Michael

If by "respect" you mean "admire", then no, I wouldn't admire the popular decision simply because it's the popular decision, and neither ought I.

If by "respect" you mean "take into consideration", then yes, I would take into consideration the popular decision. But taking into consideration the popular decision does not require that I agree with it – and nor does it require that I want it to be implemented.

Of course I don't mean "admire". Nor do I mean "take into consideration". More like "accept as valid". You ought to accept the result as valid, as that is what both the government and the population intend it to be. But more than that, you ought not wish that it be undermined or overturned. That would not be to respect the process. It's not about some legal small print, it's about what both the government is committed to and what the people expect, and that is that the results of the referendum will determine whether we stay or leave the EU.

[quote=Sapientia]You ought to accept the result as valid, as that is what both the government and the population intend it to be. But more than that, you ought not wish that it be undermined or overturned.[/quote]

And to accept as valid is to accept as legally binding? As I've already said, this isn't true.

Or is to accept as valid to accept that the government will honour it? I'm sure they will. I haven't said anything to contradict this.

But more than that, you ought not wish that it be undermined or overturned.

Why? If I think that the democratic decision is wrong then I'm going to want it undermined. If we voted for slavery then I'm going to want it undermined. If we voted for a decision that would lead to a recession then I'm going to want it undermined.

I'm sure you'd accept at least the first of these. Therefore you accept that one ought not accept a democratic decision simply because it's a democratic decision. Sometimes there are good reasons to want a democratic decision ignored.

So as I've said, you don't actually have a problem with wanting to ignore a democratic decision. You just don't think that I'm justified in wanting this democratic decision ignored.

But again, I question the claim that wants need to be justified. You just keep asserting that I ought want this or that without ever supporting such a claim.

[quote=WhiskeyWhiskers]I would want the country to leave, but not at the expense of our democracy.[/quote]

So you have an idealistic commitment to the principles of democracy. As I've already said, I don't. I wouldn't favour democracy at the expense of what's actually best for the country and its people.

Reply to Michael

Do you not see the hypocrisy, or logical inconsistency to be more polite, of favouring democracy when it works for you, but disregarding it when it doesn't? Or is basic logic too idealistic for your 'pragmatism'?

Reply to WhiskeyWhiskers There's nothing illogical or hypocritical in accepting that a thing is a useful but imperfect system and that sometimes it's better to use something else.

The "all or nothing" approach is a false dichotomy. Would you really be OK with a democratic decision that favoured slavery?

Reply to Michael

It is hypocritical if you have decided that democracy is at least sufficient to even bother using in the first place. What you really mean by it being imperfect is that it doesn't agree with what you think should be done. Admit that much at least. What is clear in this referendum is that no one on either side knows the answer with enough certainty to justify your benevolent dictatorship. But democracy is the least worst way of deciding. You don't know any more than I do what the "right" decision is, but we make the best decision with the information we currently have that seems most credible to our own reasoning. And we let the majority decide.

I would not be ok with a democratic decision that favoured slavery. Slavery is obviously a irredeemably immoral institution. The decision to leave or stay in the EU is not that clear either way. So the two are not even remotely equivalent, and you cannot argue they are.

Last post tonight. Phones going to die soon.

Quoting Michael

Would you really be OK with a democratic decision that favoured slavery?

I guess this is the argument for a written constitution--putting human rights beyond debate and alteration--that can't be democratically over-ruled, i.e., over-ruled by Parliament. But anything consistent with such a constitution would be ultimately decided democratically.

[quote=WhiskeyWhiskers]What you really mean by it being imperfect is that it doesn't agree with what you think should be done. Admit that much at least[/quote]

What do you think I've been doing?

You don't know any more than I do what the "right" decision is, but we make the best decision with the information we currently have that seems most credible to our own reasoning.

I know. But you haven't (primarily) taken issue with my claim that it's better to stay than to leave. You've taken issue with my claim that I'd want the government to ignore a vote to leave.

And we let the majority decide.

The right decision isn't determined by popular opinion. People can be wrong. Or people could be motivated by something other than what's best.

I would not be ok with a democratic decision that favoured slavery. Slavery is obviously a irredeemably immoral institution. The decision to leave or stay in the EU is not that clear either way. So the two are not even remotely equivalent, and you cannot argue they are.

Then you accept that democratic decisions shouldn't get carte blanche. Therefore you cannot claim that I ought respect a democratic decision simply because it's a democratic decision. You can only argue that I ought respect this democratic decision. So justify your assertion.

What about an advisory referendum on whether the UK should leave or remain in the EU makes it wrong for me to want the government to ignore a vote to leave?

I don't like referendums, and i don't respect them or regard them as democratic.

Typically , a referendum is constructed for political purposes and some questions are asked and not others. Take the devolution of Wales for example. The first time round the answer was no to devolution, so there was a second referendum. This time it was a marginal yes, and there will be no third.

One could have a 'true' democratic government by subjecting every decision to an online referendum; it would be a disaster, because what folks want is contradictory - low taxes and high government spending, for example.

In the case of the EU, it is assumed that Britain has the absolute right to decide to leave, presumably forever at any time. But Scotland does not, let alone Yorkshire, or the unenlightened household.

Democracy is a buzz-word, and and only starts to have real application when the constituency is already established. We decide, only when it is already decided who 'we' are. This makes a referendum on who 'we' shall be pretty much of a sham.

Quoting Michael

Why? If I think that the democratic decision is wrong then I'm going to want it undermined. If we voted for slavery then I'm going to want it undermined. If we voted for a decision that would lead to a recession then I'm going to want it undermined.

I agree with you.

The democratic process is open-ended, after all. "The People" never speak once and for all time. Take prohibition in the United States. Prohibition was passed with the support of a particular demographic -- rural, native, midwestern, anti-alcohol voters. The anti-prohibition demographic (rural, Northeastern, immigrant, and pro-alcohol) was not sufficiently mobilized. 13 years later, the ill effects of prohibition, and the dissatisfactions of the pro-alcohol demographic, were sufficient to result in overturning an earlier popular decision.

Were drinkers wrong in persisting in their use of alcohol during prohibition? Legally, yes. The People had spoken; prohibition was the law of the land.

The problem with prohibition is that the will of only one (minority) set of voters was adequately expressed. For many native-born Americans and immigrant communities alcohol was an important component of conviviality and socializing. Catholics and Lutherans both used wine in worship, for instance. Most Protestants didn't (and still don't).

The decision on EU participation is likely to be determined by which demographic gets to the polls. If a larger portion of older voters opts for Brexit, and the usual lesser number of younger voters is not at the polls to pass Stay, then you'll be out. Is that fair? Technically, yes: Majority rule. On the other hand, it isn't fair for older people (for whatever reason) to cut off what the younger generation sees as a necessary component of their future.

So yes: legislative decisions and popular referenda are open to challenge. Only if the new law is clearly immoral (like extending slavery to new territories, or requiring people in free states to facilitate slave recapture) is open defiance acceptable. Many people considered prohibition an intolerable imposition and disobeyed it. At various times and in various places, immoral laws have been openly flouted while efforts were made to change the law.

When should one accept law one doesn't like? When it isn't clearly immoral, or illegal. When it is passed with a large enough majority to be incapable of overturning. The courts decided that referenda results and laws passed denying gay people marriage were illegal, even if they were passed by huge majorities. So, over many an unwilling voter, gay marriage is now law, like it or not. Is this now carved in stone? Well, probably not. A different court and differently worded law could change things. Before 1973, abortion was a settled -- and usually illegal -- question. After Roe Vs. Wade ('73), abortion was resettled on the side of being legal everywhere, like it or not. 40 odd years later, the issue is becoming unsettled -- with moves toward illegality, again, like it or not.

Reply to unenlightened

I don't like referendums, and i don't respect them or regard them as democratic.

What would be a good alternative?

looks like the leaves have it, you guys

at 11:45 p.m., local time, 5:45 a.m. in London, it's 52% to 48%, in favor of leaving. There's a 1,121,000 majority, with 19 voting jurisdictions yet to report.

Well... we'll see what happens next, and next, and next. Best of luck to you all.

Goodbye and good luck.

Congrats, Britain. Here's to further countries having the courage to follow in your footsteps.

My take...

... whatever!

I just book a vacation to London. (amazing how cheap the vacations have become in the past few days - and suspect they'll be really cheap in the near future) Not too sure if I'll have the opportunity to see someone grap an old Bulldog and put his false teeth back into his maul while trying to make it growl, but it would sort of be entertaining... I suppose.

Let's see what happens.

Good luck with estabilshing new trade agreements, stabilizing a currency, establishing security via fear and distrust, as well as having all the paperwork for visas in the event someone wishes to leave that rock.

I just ask myself how many cans of baked beans I really need, but anyway...

... I suspect that Scotland might well be making an appeal to enter the EU within the next 10 - 12 years, but let's wait and see.

Until then... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nM4wE3ef9s

Tschüss! ;)

Meow!

GREG

Quoting unenlightened

In the case of the EU, it is assumed that Britain has the absolute right to decide to leave, presumably forever at any time. But Scotland does not, let alone Yorkshire, or the unenlightened household.

A small Yorkshire First movement hasn't gained much traction: I speak from Yorkshire, as a Yorkshireman, though I am on the border with Lancashire, so multi-cultural. :) I mean, I even like Manchester. And Liverpool.

So the decision to leave has come to pass, and the sun rose as usual. The political class are going to bogged down for a couple of years negotiating this and that, so maybe we'll have some stability. I'm gong back to Kant.

Quoting JJJJS

I don't like referendums, and i don't respect them or regard them as democratic.

What would be a good alternative?

There is no alternative to the social contract that is not poor, nasty, brutish and short.

Good article: https://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2016/06/21/beyond-the-brexit-debate/

Quoting Michael

And to accept as valid is to accept as legally binding? As I've already said, this isn't true.

No, it doesn't have to mean that. That's a needlessly narrow interpretation. You know what "valid" means outside of the very specific context you've set up for it.

Quoting Michael

Or is to accept as valid to accept that the government will honour it? I'm sure they will. I haven't said anything to contradict this.

That's only part of it.

Quoting Michael

Why? If I think that the democratic decision is wrong then I'm going to want it undermined. If we voted for slavery then I'm going to want it undermined. If we voted for a decision that would lead to a recession then I'm going to want it undermined.

I'm sure you'd accept at least the first of these. Therefore you accept that one ought not accept a democratic decision simply because it's a democratic decision. Sometimes there are good reasons to want a democratic decision ignored.

So as I've said, you don't actually have a problem with wanting to ignore a democratic decision. You just don't think that I'm justified in wanting this democratic decision ignored.

But again, I question the claim that wants need to be justified. You just keep asserting that I ought want this or that without ever supporting such a claim.

Because, as I've already said, we live in a democracy, and to undermine it is to weaken it, which is a bad thing if you value our democracy as much as I do, which I suspect you do not. So, again, as I've already said, and as you must have ignored, it should only be done under exceptional circumstances, such as the legal reintroduction of slavery, which would obviously be a humanitarian crisis requiring urgent action.

Just to be clear, this is the justification you say I haven't provided.

A disappointing result. I'm glad that Boris Johnson got boo'd leaving his house. You can even hear shouts of "Bastard!". Which rights are kept and scrapped are now in the safe hands of the Tories. My town voted 68.1% leave and 31.9% remain. It was my first time voting in a referendum, and my first time voting for anything political besides voting for the Labour leader, and it seems pointless, and I got drenched in the rain.

[quote=Sapientia]Because, as I've already said, we live in a democracy, and to undermine it is to weaken it, which is a bad thing if you value our democracy as much as I do, which I suspect you do not. So, again, as I've already said, and as you must have ignored, it should only be done under exceptional circumstances, such as the legal reintroduction of slavery, which would obviously be a humanitarian crisis requiring urgent action.

Just to be clear, this is the justification you say I haven't provided.[/quote]

Firstly, me wanting the government to ignore the vote doesn't undermine democracy. Only if the government actually ignores the vote would democracy be undermined – but even that's debatable, as the referendum was only advisory.

Secondly, I've already said that I'm not an idealist and so don't simply value democracy for the sake of democracy. So to say that I ought not undermine it because it doesn't value democracy is a misplaced hypothetical imperative. For it to have any grounding you'd have to first show that I ought value democracy.

Thirdly, and most importantly, you're accepting that there are occasions where the popular opinion ought not be listened to simply because it's the popular decision. So, as I've said before, you don't disagree with the fact that I want something undemocratic, you just disagree with my claim that this situation is one of those exceptional circumstances.

No, it doesn't have to mean that. That's a needlessly narrow interpretation. You know what "valid" means outside of the very specific context you've set up for it.

Then what does it mean? Is to accept it as valid to accept that the government ought not ignore it? Well, I'd reject this. There's certainly no legal obligation to not ignore it. I would even say that there's no moral obligation to not ignore it.

It seems to me that this claim that I ought "accept it as valid" is one of those things we tend to say but under closer examination don't seem to be saying anything at all (like the notion of "natural rights").

Quoting Michael

Firstly, me wanting the government to ignore the vote doesn't undermine democracy. Only if the government actually ignores the vote would democracy be undermined – but even that's debatable, as the referendum was only advisory.

I know. But you want a bad thing. And it was not only advisory, since the government was always going to follow through on whatever the result was, so it's disingenuous of you to keep saying that.

Quoting Michael

Secondly, I've already said that I'm not an idealist and so don't simply value democracy for the sake of democracy. So to say that I ought not undermine it because it doesn't value democracy is a misplaced hypothetical imperative. For it to have any grounding you'd have to first show that I ought value democracy.

What's the better, realistic alternative? You as our wise philosopher-king?

Quoting Michael

Thirdly, and most importantly, you're accepting that there are occasions where the popular opinion ought not be listened to simply because it's the popular decision. So, as I've said before, you don't disagree with the fact that I want something undemocratic, you just disagree with my claim that this situation is one of those exceptional circumstances.

Of course, I thought I had already made that clear. Some things are more important, like human rights, but this clearly isn't comparable.

Quoting Michael

Then what does it mean? Is to accept it as valid to accept that the government ought not ignore it? Well, I'd reject this. There's certainly no legal obligation to not ignore it. I would even say that there's no moral obligation to not ignore it.

It seems to me that this claim that I ought "accept it as valid" is one of those things we tend to say but under closer examination don't seem to be saying anything at all (like the notion of "natural rights").

So now you're pretending not to know what "valid" means? It doesn't [I]mean[/I] that the government ought not disregard the result of the referendum and do the opposite if they think it best, but that is an [I]implication[/I] of respecting the result of the referendum, and their prior explicit commitment to abide by the results.

Legal shmegal. That means nothing. They clearly do have a moral obligation to follow through on their prior commitment to honour the results. They were very explicit about that. It was all over the media.

[quote=Sapientia]I know. But you want a bad thing. And it was not only advisory, since the government was always going to follow through on whatever the result was, so it's disingenuous of you to keep saying that.[/quote]

It's not disingenuous to state a fact. And I don't see what's "bad" about it. Rather I'd say that it's bad to leave. The pound and the stock market are already suffering.

What's the better, realistic alternative? You as our wise philosopher-king?

Whatever ensures that the best decision is always made. I don't know what that is, or even if it's possible.

But if you're going to say that I ought always want the popular opinion to be implemented (except when such a thing would be immoral) then you're going to have to offer a better justification than "you can't think of a better alternative". That would be a non sequitur.

Of course, I thought I had already made that clear. Some things are more important, like human rights, but this clearly isn't comparable.

It might not be comparable to human rights, but I still think that it's a good reason to ignore the popular opinion. If the popular opinion is idiotic with no concern for the economic consequences then the sensible thing to do is ignore it. It might be undemocratic, but as I've said from the start, I don't have an idealistic commitment to democracy. I'd rather have done what's actually best for the country.

So now you're pretending not to know what "valid" means? It doesn't mean that the government ought not disregard the result of the referendum and do the opposite if they think it best, but that is an implication of respecting the result of the referendum, and their prior explicit commitment to abide by the results.

I know what it means in the context of an argument; that the conclusion follows from the premises. I know that it can more broadly mean that a thing is based on truth or reason. But I don't see how any of this is applicable here.

So I'm not pretending to not know what "valid" means. I just genuinely don't know what you mean by it in this context.

Legal shmegal. That means nothing. They clearly do have a moral obligation to follow through on their prior commitment to honour the results. They were very explicit about that. It was all over the media.

As a moral anti-realist I'm going to obviously take issue with the notion of moral obligation. And even if they were morally obligated to follow through, it doesn't then follow that it's wrong for me to want them to ignore the vote.

Unless I'm morally obligated to want another to fulfil his moral obligations? Care to justify that?

Quoting Michael

It's not disingenuous to state a fact.

Do you know how many laws there are which have no basis in reality? There are countless. Google it. What you're stating is a legal technicality which doesn't reflect the reality of the situation, and we both know what that is.

Quoting Michael

And I don't see what's "bad" about it. Rather I'd say that it's bad to leave. The pound and the stock market are already suffering.

That's avoiding the point. You know that I also think it's bad to leave. You need to explain why it wouldn't be bad to overturn what was clearly set up to be a democratic decision. The reason why that would be bad is because it would be to betray the 33.6 million people who took part in the vote on the clear understanding that the results of the referendum would be what determines whether we remain or leave the EU.

Quoting Michael

Whatever ensures that the best decision is always made. I don't know what that is, or even if it's possible.

Just what I expected, which is why it's sensible to stick with our democracy. When you come up with a serious alternative to contend with, I'll take it seriously, but until then, it's merely wishful thinking.

Quoting Michael

But if you're going to say that I ought always want the popular opinion to be implemented (except when such a thing would be immoral) then you're going to have to offer a better justification than "you can't think of a better alternative". That would be a non sequitur.

You've not worded that correctly, again, but I'll set that aside. The reason why you ought, as a general rule, respect the result of a referendum such as this, is because it has been made clear from the very beginning that this is to be decided by the electorate, not by politicians in Westminster. You shouldn't require anymore reason than that. It would be immoral to betray the nation, not to mention the severe consequences it would bring about as a result.

Quoting Michael

It might not be comparable to human rights, but I still think that it's a good reason to ignore the popular opinion.

I've given very good reasons as to why it would not be a good thing to do. You'd be okay with betraying the electorate (tens of millions), severly undermining the political system and authority figures such as the MPs , provoking a public backlash, riots...?

Quoting Michael

If the popular opinion is idiotic with no concern for the economic consequences then the sensible thing to do is ignore it.

Ha! Sensible?! Only if you factor out reality.

Quoting Michael

It might be undemocratic, but as I've said from the start, I don't have an idealistic commitment to democracy.

I know. You have an ideological commitment to what Michael thinks is right, and to hell with the consequences!

Quoting Michael

I'd rather have done what's actually best for the country.

What's best for the country is a much wider issue than whether we stay or leave. You're attacking the very foundation of our political system, and that has consequences which effect what's best for the country. It would definitely be worse for the country if the government foolishly decided to do the opposite of what the referendum result dictates. You remember the student riots. That was over a pledge that wasn't honoured. Can you image the backlash in this case? It would be much more severe.

Quoting Michael

I know what it means in the context of an argument; that the conclusion follows from the premises. I know that it can more broadly mean that a thing is based on truth or reason. But I don't see how any of this is applicable here.

So I'm not pretending to not know what "valid" means. I just genuinely don't know what you mean by it in this context.

Authentic, authoritative, conclusive, confirmed, credible, determinative, ultimate, final.

Quoting Michael

As a moral anti-realist I'm going to obviously take issue with the notion of moral obligation. And even if they were morally obligated to follow through, it doesn't then follow that it's wrong for me to want them to ignore the vote.

Unless I'm morally obligated to want another to fulfil his moral obligations? Care to justify that?

If you don't accept that the government ought to follow through on such a clear commitment on such an important and widely influential issue as this, then you are condoning one of the worst aspects in politics on a large scale. MPs have moral responsibilities as part of the job. They will say so themselves. Anyone with even a basic understanding of right and wrong knows that someone in such a public role has duties and responsibilities. They are expected to behave a certain way. You don't have to acknowledge it, but it is evident in our society that that is the case.

And there's obviously a link between something being bad and wanting that bad thing to happen. I shouldn't have a clear conscience if I wanted the helpless old lady to be pushed in front of a van, just because it wasn't actually me who pushed her. If I want slavery legalised, am I excused by emphasing that I only [I]want[/I] it legalised? Of course not. It's wrong to want slavery legalised. You shouldn't want that.

[quote=Sapientia]The reason why that would be bad is because it would be to betray the 33.6 million people who to part in the vote on the clear understanding that the results of the referendum would be what determines whether we remain or leave the EU.[/quote]

So? Why is it bad to betray these people? Does the "badness" of this betrayal outweigh the actual consequences of leaving?

You have an ideological commitment to what Michael thinks is right, and to hell with the consequences!

No, I have a pragmatic commitment to whatever avoids an economic recession and any other actual consequences.

Authentic, authoritative, conclusive, confirmed, credible, determinative, ultimate, final.

In a legal sense, it's none of these things. The decision rests with Parliament. Is there some other sense in which something is authoritative and final?

Sounds like more of that vacuous "natural rights"-like terminology.

What's best for the country is a much wider issue than whether we stay or leave. You're attacking the very foundation of our political system, and that has consequences which effect what's best for the country. It would definitely be worse for the country if the government foolishly decided to do the opposite of what the referendum result dictates. You remember the student riots. That was over a pledge that wasn't honoured. Can you image the backlash in this case? It would be much more severe.

I've already said that if the consequences of ignoring a leave vote are worse than the consequences of leaving then I would want us to leave.

But as I've said before, you haven't primarily been criticising my belief that it's best to stay than to leave (even given the referendum results). You've primarily been criticising that I'd want the referendum result to be ignored for anything other than a moral reason.

If you don't accept that the government ought to follow through on such a clear commitment on such an important and widely influential issue as this, then you are condoning one of the worst aspects in politics on a large scale.

You've already accepted that there are exceptions to this. You just disagree with my claim that the economic and other consequences of leaving are justifiable exceptions. I think that they are, because I'm a pragmatist. You think they're not, because clearly you're an idealist.

Does this mean that the UK has their own Independence Day? 8-)

This and this are prime examples of why the idealistic notion that the country should be unquestionably governed by popular opinion is absurd. Lots of people just don't think things through and act on impulse or without enough relevant information. Why should this be honoured? Simply because it's the popular opinion. That's a clear non sequitur.

The issue of staying in or leaving the EU is far too important an issue to be put to a national referendum and voted on by the uninformed and those who might be motivated by emotions or bigotry. That's why we elect a small group of people to make these decisions for us. They can then actually discuss the issue in depth and seek expert advice before coming to a reasoned decision.

Quoting unenlightened

Democracy is a buzz-word, and and only starts to have real application when the constituency is already established. We decide, only when it is already decided who 'we' are. This makes a referendum on who 'we' shall be pretty much of a sham.

The above quote has been posted to The Philosophy Forum Facebook page. Congratulations and Thank you for your contribution!

Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff More like Abandonment Day.

Reply to Michael Ouch :-$
It will get better, I promise. It is impossible to see the storms edge that yield sunshine while walking through the middle of it. But have faith that there will be better days than today ahead. (L)

I'm selfishly focusing on the fact that my RMB savings took an overnight sterling-equivalent jump of 5-10%.

Benkei should be rolling in anytime to say the Netherlands are already printing the posters for their own extraction from the EU. 8-)

Quoting Michael

The issue of staying in or leaving the EU is far too important an issue to be put to a national referendum and voted on by the uninformed and those who might be motivated by emotions or bigotry. That's why we elect a small group of people to make these decisions for us. They can then actually discuss the issue in depth and seek expert advice before coming to a reasoned decision.

This is a laughable fantasy.

Reply to jamalrob Which part? That it's too important to be put in the hands of the uninformed? Or that Parliament can make reasoned decisions with expert advice?

Quoting jamalrob

This is a laughable fantasy.

First to confirm you are living in the USA, second to confirm that what Michael is saying looks a lot like our form of "Democracy".

Quoting Michael

So? Why is it bad to betray these people?

I can't believe you even have to ask. You see no problem with deceiving an entire nation over an important decision such as this? Even going so far as holding a referendum in which 33.6 million people voted, only to then betray them by going back on their word, disregarding the result they promised to honour, and doing the complete opposite? Some things can't be explained, you just have to have a sense of what's right and wrong, you have to have principles and a conscience.

Quoting Michael

Does the "badness" of this betrayal outweigh the actual consequences of leaving?

Yes.

Quoting Michael

No, I have a pragmatic commitment to whatever avoids an economic recession and any other actual consequences.

So, what about the consequences that I mentioned? I think they outweigh the consequence of an economic recession, which might or might not happen.

Quoting Michael

In a legal sense, it's none of these things. The decision rests with Parliament. Is there some other sense in which something is authoritative and final?

Yes, practically speaking, which is the only sense that matters. Clinging to what the law says doesn't make the least bit of difference. Parliament has said they'll honour the vote whichever way it goes, so it is obvious that it's really up to the public. Your tactic here is not going to succeed. There is nothing stopping you from accepting what the government has said as valid, from accepting the result as valid, like the rest of us, except your stubbornness.

Quoting Michael

I've already said that if the consequences of ignoring a leave vote are worse than the consequences of leaving then I would want us to leave.

I don't understand you. You're saying that if the consequences of the government disregarding a leave result are worse than actually leaving, which I think they would be, then you would want to leave. Why? That makes no sense. You want the UK to remain in the EU, yet you'd actually change sides and want to leave, rather than accept it as an unfortunate outcome (since overturning the result isn't a realistic option, and would be political suicide).

Quoting Michael

But as I've said before, you haven't primarily been criticising my belief that it's best to stay than to leave (even given the referendum results). You've primarily been criticising that I'd want the referendum result to be ignored for anything other than a moral reason.

I don't know why you feel the need to clarify what I'm criticising. It should be clear by now. Obviously I'm not criticising your belief that it's best to stay in the context of the referendum. But I am criticising your desire that the referendum results be disregarded in favour of your personal belief about what is right.

Clear enough? Can we not keep going round in circles, clarifying and clarifying and clarifying, rather than tackling the content?

Quoting Michael

You've already accepted that there are exceptions to this. You just disagree with my claim that the economic and other consequences of leaving are justifiable exceptions. I think that they are, because I'm a pragmatist. You think you're not, because you're an idealist (or maybe "moralist" is the better term).

Yes, I think we've established that I think that there are some important exceptions, and that I don't think that this is one of them, and that therefore what you desire is not justifiable. What you call "pragmatism" I call mere narrow-mindedness, lack of foresight, and lack of moral principles.

[quote=Sapientia]I don't understand you. You're saying that if the consequences of the government disregarding a leave result are worse than actually leaving, which I think they would be, then you would want to leave. Why? That makes no sense. You want the UK to remain in the EU, yet you'd actually change sides and want to leave, rather than accept it as an unfortunate outcome (since overturning the result isn't a realistic option, and would be political suicide).[/quote]

I want the UK to remain in the EU only because I believe that the country will be better off for it. If, however, the country will be worse off if Parliament ignores the vote to leave than it would be if we left then I'd want to leave. I'm being consistent with my reasons for choosing a side.

What about this doesn't make sense?

But I am criticising your desire that the referendum results be disregarded in favour of your personal belief about what is right.

No, I want the referendum results to be disregarded in favour of what's actually right. I just happen to believe that what's actually right is to stay.

I think it's stupid to accept a popular opinion simply because it's the popular opinion.

Clinging to what the law says doesn't make the least bit of difference. Parliament has said they'll honour the vote whichever way it goes, so it is obvious that it's really up to the public. Your tactic here is not going to succeed. There is nothing stopping you from accepting what the government has said as valid, from accepting the result as valid, like the rest of us, except your stubbornness.

I know that Parliament has said that they'll honour it. I haven't denied this. And I've already said that I will accept that they'll honour it. But I still want them to ignore it.

But you've been talking as if "accepting" the result means something other than accepting that it was made and will happen. This is the type of "accepting" that doesn't seem to mean anything.

I can't believe you even have to ask. You see no problem with deceiving an entire nation over an important decision such as this? Even going so far as holding a referendum in which 33.6 million people voted, only to then betray them by disregarding it and doing the opposite? Some things can't be explained, you just have to have a sense of what's right and wrong, you have to have a conscience.

Is that your answer to moral anti-realism, then? Not a reasoned defence of realism; just a claim that it's something you either "sense" or don't?

So, what about the consequences that I mentioned? I think they outweigh the consequence of an economic recession, which might or might not happen.

And I think that they don't.

Quoting Michael

I want the UK to remain in the EU only because I believe that the country will be better off for it. If, however, the country will be worse off if Parliament ignores the vote to leave than it would be if we left then I'd want to leave. I'm being consistent with my reasons for choosing a side.

What about this doesn't make sense?

It doesn't make sense because the country would be worse off in either case, just more so if the goverment did the opposite of the results, so you shouldn't want either outcome. You should still want to remain. It's a matter of accepting one of two bad results, not a matter of switching desires from remain to leave.

You cray cray?

Quoting Michael

No, I want the referendum results to be disregarded in favour of what's actually right. I just happen to believe that what's actually right is to stay.

Sure, whatever. You're still wrong though, because it's only right to stay in the context of the referendum. The government taking action against the will of the people, who they themselves allowed to determine whether we stay or leave, would be unacceptable, and bring about detrimental consequences. Hence it should not be desirable.

Quoting Michael

I know that Parliament has said that they'll honour it. I haven't denied this. And I've already said that I will accept that they'll honour it. But I still want them to ignore it.

Which is wanting a bad thing, especially in light of the Parliament having said that they'll honour it. You want a dishonourable government, and I do not.

Quoting Michael

But you've been talking as if "accepting" the result means something other than accepting that it was made and will happen. This is the type of "accepting" that doesn't seem to mean anything.

Respecting the result. Not merely accept it while wishing to undermine it. The other people in this discussion have had no trouble understanding this phrase. I even used it in a sporting analogy to show its use in other contexts. I think you do understand what is meant. A good sportsman is not a sore loser, they respect the result, and they understand what is expected of them by participating. It's the same thing with the referendum. The ground rules are laid out at the beginning and the result is final.

Quoting Michael

Is that your answer to moral anti-realism, then? Not a reasoned defence of realism; just a claim that it's something you either "sense" or don't?

What I've said doesn't entail moral realism. We have a sensibility regarding moral matters regardless of what is really right or wrong, or whether there even is such a thing beyond what we think and feel and treat as such. You know this as well as I do. We've both experienced it, felt passionately that something is right or wrong. In addition to that, there are evidently social norms, which are arguably right or wrong, but can still be acknowledged without conceding moral realism. One of those norms being an expectation that public authority figures behave in a certain way.

Quoting Michael

The issue of staying in or leaving the EU is far too important an issue to be put to a national referendum and voted on by the uninformed and those who might be motivated by emotions or bigotry. That's why we elect a small group of people to make these decisions for us. They can then actually discuss the issue in depth and seek expert advice before coming to a reasoned decision.

The thing is, it's too little, too late for that. Labour didn't promise a referendum, but Labour lost the general election. You can't always have things your way. I wouldn't have minded much if we never had this referendum, but clearly the nation felt otherwise. Once it's on the table, there's no going back. You can't realistically go through all of that only for the government to say "On second thought, we've changed our minds: fuck you, we're staying". It should only be desirable in the sense of what might have been, not as an option going forward.

Quoting Michael

The issue of staying in or leaving the EU is far too important an issue to be put to a national referendum and voted on by the uninformed and those who might be motivated by emotions or bigotry.

Been hearing this a lot from the remain camp -- interesting look into the psychology of that side. The referendum was, broadly speaking, a nationalistic revolt against globalism and a democratic revolt against authority, at least in the popular mind. Maybe that's not what it actually was, but the psychology of the two sides seems pretty consistent on this. The remainers protest that people (especially working class people) don't know what's good for them, that a thing of any importance shouldn't be put to a vote, that people inhabiting a country have no right to self-determination but should be grateful to be determined by rulers, etc.

I'd like to suggest that precisely these attitudes are what fuel and keep hot the leave sentiment and the rise of nationalism. And let's be real, you're all being pretty repulsive right now (on many other things too, like claiming that older people shouldn't vote [nor,I guess, should any demographic that votes for the wrong policies]). When looking at statements like these, a leaver can genuinely ask, well, why shouldn't we despise you? You clearly hate us and have an active interest in taking away our political powers, as well as the powers of the British people to retain their own sovereignty under their own political impetus. So who are you going to blame when you're this appalling, and the authoritarian knives come out when, for the first time in decades, you are the losers of the culture war?

Not British, never been to the UK. However, this:

Quoting The Great Whatever

I'd like to suggest that precisely these attitudes are what fuel and keep hot the leave sentiment and the rise of nationalism. And let's be real, you're all being pretty repulsive right now (on many other things too, like claiming that older people shouldn't vote [nor,I guess, should any demographic that votes for the wrong policies]). When looking at statements like these, a leaver can genuinely ask, well, why shouldn't we despise you? You clearly hate us and have an active interest in taking away our political powers...

more or less sums up why there is such virulent populist anger in the United States and Europe right now. If you do something that makes people angry, and your response to their anger is to keep on doing the thing that's making them angry, there will eventually be an explosion, and said explosion will be aimed directly at you. You can't just keep doubling down on what you're doing in response to people getting pissed off at you and not expect a backlash!

Regardless of value judgments, the above implication holds for most arenas of human behavior. When I was a teenager, and I wanted to piss someone off, I would keep doing the same annoying thing over and over and over and over again, watching as the person in question went from mildly annoyed to irritated to enraged. This works on the scale of societies as well. Again, this is simply a fact. You piss people off with no regard to their reasons for being pissed off (besides "You're stupid and evil") and eventually, they're gonna come after you.

Excellent decision by Great Britain. It's a nice smack in the face to those glib, corrupt, and incompetent bureaucrats in Brussels who've been shoving terrible austerity and immigration policies down the throats of their member states this past decade. It's also great to see Obama and Merkel eat humble pie after they patronizingly made silly warnings to the British if they voted leave. This is a triumph of democracy.

How excellent is it for Great Britain, if now Scotland opts to leave?
But hey, that would be also a triumph of democracy.

Let's see if this triumph of democracy gives us the next global economic recession. Because it's a perfect reason to panic and send down first the markets, then the economy.

Reply to ssu I expect Scotland will call another vote on disunion and will pass it.

A quip I saw on a Tumblr porn blog: You could smack a random Brit in the face, with a 52% chance of them deserving it.

Reply to ssu Yes, the Brits should have listened to the plutocrats and remained. Silly peasants. May God save the GDP.

Quoting ssu

But hey, that would be also a triumph of democracy.

Indeed.

Reply to Pneumenon Reply to The Great Whatever
[quote=TGW]Been hearing this a lot from the remain camp -- interesting look into the psychology of that side. The referendum was, broadly speaking, a nationalistic revolt against globalism and a democratic revolt against authority, at least in the popular mind. Maybe that's not what it actually was, but the psychology of the two sides seems pretty consistent on this. The remainers protest that people (especially working class people) don't know what's good for them, that a thing of any importance shouldn't be put to a vote, that people inhabiting a country have no right to self-determination but should be grateful to be determined by rulers, etc[/quote]

Good article about this.

Quoting csalisbury

Good article about this.

This was a very lucid piece.

Nicola Sturgeon says MSPs at Holyrood could veto Brexit

@Sapientia, looks like my hope is, at least tentatively, being explored. I wonder how you feel about this. Given that Scotland unanimously voted Remain, do you think it democratic for Scottish MSPs (and presumably also their MPs) to block any attempt to leave the EU?

Quoting Michael

unanimously

What?

Reply to jamalrob As in every counting area in Scotland favoured Remain.

Quoting Michael

No, I want the referendum results to be disregarded in favour of what's actually right. I just happen to believe that what's actually right is to stay.

This assumes that you value economic prosperity over adherence to democratic principles. I would consider the violation of democratic principles (as in ignoring a referendum) to be a more negative aspect of a society than a decision to do something that might negatively impact an economy.

Looking at this from afar, I'd say that the leaders of the EU are to blame. For years the Brits complained about losing their autonomy and the EU leaders knew very well that there was a large and growing contingent that wanted to exit. They refused to accommodate the legitimate concerns of the Brits and left them with the stark choice to either accept the situation as it was or make the risky decision to leave and face economic difficulties. The EU just assumed the Brits wouldn't leave, so they offered them no accommodation. This was just poor politics and leadership on the part of the EU because I think all involved still believe that a union is economically preferable. That they couldn't work it out speaks to political failure and not that the idea that economic unity was not a good idea.

Fear of economic ruin will not keep a country in the EU and fear of foreign takeover will not force people out of the EU. There is plenty of middle ground, but the middle folks didn't win the day.

Hopefully this will be wake up call for the EU so that they'll realize that if other nations begin to complain, they'll make real efforts to accommodate them.

From a US perspective, the idea of a foreign nation being authorized to direct the US in how it is to conduct its affairs is entirely unacceptable. Taking pride in being right is nothing to apologize for. If we cared what Europe thought, we wouldn't have left.

Reply to Hanover Yes, and I said at the start that I don't value democratic principles over economic prosperity. Democracy is a useful tool but it's by no means perfect. I think it's naive to follow it idealistically. People are already willing to forgo it if it would violate some moral principle, e.g. if popular opinion favoured slavery. I'm just willing to extend the list of relevant exceptions.

The EU just assumed the Brits wouldn't leave, so they offered them no accommodation.

From what I understand they did offer accommodation. I guess it just wasn't enough for some.

Reply to Hanover

I wonder, given the lies and misinformation from the Leave campaign, e.g. over NHS funding and a reduction of immigration – things which were no doubt influential – do you think that there's reasons to reject the legitimacy of the result?

Reply to Michael You're talking about things Nigel Farage, the UKIP leader, allegedly said, whose party only has one sitting member in the House of Commons. When you have over 70% turn out and more than 50% of the vote choosing to leave, then it would be wise not to overgeneralize. Farage was by no means the only face of the leave campaign and to myopically focus on him or others like him is really to smear the leave campaign as a whole.

One of the stronger ironies in this situation is that many UK businesses will need to swallow EU regulations holus-bolus or lose their biggest export markets. I'm always personally conflicted when examining decisions like this because of my own New Left roots in libertarian socialism. As an outsider I tend to give the EU high marks for green policies and consumer protection, and recognize the necessity for bureaucratization and de-politicization in these areas. On the other hand, it is impossible to overlook the yawning democratic deficit.

What worries me more than the decision is the potential for a very destructive narrativization of the result, something that some of the Trumpf surrogates on this side of the Atlantic are pursuing with vigor.

Reply to Thorongil I wasn't focusing on him. The NHS funding, for example, had nothing to do with UKIP.

Quoting Michael

I wonder, given the lies and misinformation from the Leave campaign, e.g. over NHS funding and a reduction of immigration – things which were no doubt influential – do you think that there's reasons to reject the legitimacy of the result?

Lies and misinformation are part of any lively democratic campaign. It seems to me there are all sorts of ways in which opponents of a democratic result can construct a narrative of illegitimacy; I've certainly knocked one or two together in my time. But there's then got to be a basis of 'legitimacy'. If your basis isn't 'democracy' and you can't state what your alternative is, it's hard to see the argument.

There's a curiously entitled atmosphere among the English middle-classes, at least those posting on facebook and stuff, in the last couple of days, a feeling of shock that their 'Remain' sentiments' aren't somehow obviously right, that even democracy doesn't work if it produces this sort of result. Now the centrists among them are blaming (for the decisive working-class vote) the Labour leader Corbyn, who to me as a non-Labour supporter seemed the most honourable of any of the political elite in the whole shebang.

Practically speaking, the result is going to stand and we've got to get on with it. I'm an old libertarian socialist at heart like photographer, and although I was a Leave voter, I obviously regret that some of the things I stand for - in the environmental field, for instance - are going to be in jeopardy. But that's the price of risky change.

And from what I've heard, there were those who suggested exiting would result in WWIII, arguing an exit was equivalent to a return to pre WWII nationalism. It'd be a neat trick if we could cancel any decision (democratic or otherwise) if we could just prove through some sort of post decision litigation that someone tainted the information pool. I think we've got to trust our decision makers to separate the wheat from the chaff on the front end else we'll never be able to make a final decision.

Anyway, if you reject the referendum and impose the EU on some people who are quite certain they can decide what's best for themselves without some philosopher king parenting them, I think you'll be in a far worse situation than in just exiting. Hell, just ask Her Majesty what's best and forgo all this new fangled people power stuff.

Reply to Michael So you're not talking about any one person who allegedly made false claims about the NHS, including Mr. Farage, who has come under an avalanche of criticism for allegedly doing just this? What, then, are you talking about?

Reply to Thorongil It was the Vote Leave campaign that made the false claim about the NHS.

And it isn't just allegedly:

Reply to Michael I forget by how much, but the £350 million a week being sent to the EU was a rather large exaggeration -- and didn't, for instance, account for the x£ million being sent to the UK.

In the US, same thing: Dollars flow back and forth between the states and the federal government -- in as taxes, back out as programs, and some states donate more than they get back -- because their economies are doing well.

Quoting mcdoodle

Lies and misinformation are part of any lively democratic campaign.

Lies and misinformation end up in democratic campaigns, for sure, but I would hope that they aren't expected to be part of any lively debate! I don't know how any serious debate can take place if lies and misinformation are assumed. Can't anybody argue using honest information???

Quoting Bitter Crank

Can't anybody argue using honest information???

Sure you can! If you don't mind losing.

Reply to Michael That claim isn't really false, then. Just slightly misleading.

Reply to Wosret Nonsense!

There are several reasons to speak honestly or not: Speak to amuse, speak to inform, speak to persuade, speak to spur to action...

Speaking to amuse requires careful structure, but it doesn't require honest information, as long as everyone understands that a joke is in progress.
Speaking to inform absolutely requires honest information, as true as you can get it; otherwise, you are arguing to misinform, to mislead. That is done, of course -- rather regularly.
One can speak to persuade and spur to action, but IF false argument results in action (like voting to exit the EU) THEN the ill consequences can be laid on the doorstep of the speakers who used falsehoods.

Success in speaking depends on the structure of the arguments being effective and the information being true.

If one can "win" by using falsehoods, then how do you hope to maintain a civil society?

Reply to Bitter Crank

Let me put it to you this way, the unscrupulous have all of the options available to those with scruples, plus dishonesty. misinformation, misdirection, relevant omissions, and spin.

Reply to Wosret But they are usually exposed as lacking integrity, credibility, reliability, decency, honesty, probity, sincerity, honorableness and scruples.

True enough: you could get up before a court and lie, misdirect, mislead, omit, and so on. You can do this in front of a Rotary Club, a government committee, your boss, your mother, your lover, your children, your cleaning lady and get away with it as long as no attention is paid to what you said. But, as soon as your audience starts thinking about what you said today, yesterday, last week, last year... your lies will be found out. Inconsistencies, improbabilities, contradictions, suspiciously convenient coincidences, and so on will be revealed. Worst of all, your partners in deceit are likely to turn you in for their own reasons.

Why not turn you in? People who lack integrity, credibility, reliability, decency, honesty, sincerity, honorableness and scruples are unlikely to think they owe you anything. Look what happened to President Richard M. Nixon: He had some good points in his favor, but he was also running some very sleazy operations, and there was a slip up. After the slip up there was the cover-up, and round and round it twirled until the whole story unfurled, in excruciating detail, and Tricky Dick had to resign in disgrace.

There's definitely higher risk involved, thankfully the most villainous seem to be the least risk averse. The goodie goodies are the most risk averse. Just as you listed all of the horrible consequences that follow from behaving in such ways, it may indeed not be prudent future planning. Since none of us are saints, we must judge some degree of all of those unscrupulous things to be worth the involved risk.

Honestly, I think the reaction to Brexit actually happening has been really overblown by the media. It seems so obvious that the media has an agenda here. The fact is that the UK wasn't even that much of a real member of the EU anyways, choosing to opt-out of 4 out of 6 policy areas. The UK was, at best, an awkward member, and these market woes are puny compared to just a couple months earlier with what happened in China. People are really overreacting.

I actually think there is a silver lining to all this. The EU has been quite oppressive to smaller nations like Greece and remember the Greek default years (which is still happening but people seem to forget about this) and the wholly undemocratic nature of the EU itself, and what the EU is doing to Italy and Portugal -- a UK exit actually serves as a much needed experiment for other nations to exit as well and avoid the horrific things that happened to Greece that will inevitably happen to many nations in the future.

Reply to discoii Perhaps the first post I've seen you write that I agree with. Well said.

Reply to Thorongil :D Just what I was thinking.

My ideas just follow from basing them on anti-colonial/imperialist logic. I'm not sure if I should be worried here...

Reply to discoii Well, I agree with your ideas and I am no fan of anti-colonial/imperialist logic (at least in terms of how you are likely conceiving of those adjectives).

If the media has an agenda, it likely can be summed up in terms of various attachments to globalization, which is viewed variously but within the "liberal media" is seen most often as containing the seeds for the cure for its own corrosive effects.

Talking of agendas, there's this in Foreign Policy:

It's Time for the Elites to Rise Up Against the Ignorant Masses

The headline is in earnest.

Quoting jamalrob

Talking of agendas:

In Foreign Policy: It's Time for the Elites to Rise Up Against the Ignorant Masses

The headline is in earnest.

Spooky. I'm startled by a (related) middle-class liberal reaction that there is something illegitimate about the 'leave' vote, and that the EU and Europeanness are somehow the same: that to want to leave the institution is to want to deny one's Europeanness. That isn't how I feel at all. 'Leave' rhetoric was marred by anti-immigrant talk, but 'Remain' rhetoric is marred by this blurring of identity and cartel-membership.

Reply to mcdoodle Indeed. And I don't think the post-vote bitterness about Britain as a "rainy fascist island" is doing anything to help immigrants. On the contrary, it is whipping up fear and hatred. But I don't think the intention is to help anyway; often it seems to be just more virtue-signalling and the new snobbery--the need to mark oneself as a progressive, opposed to the culture of the white working class.

On the other hand, some Remainers are helping, by marching in solidarity with immigrants and so on. And I'm glad to see that some of the Remain-supporting commentators, such as Paul Mason and Owen Jones, are denying the narrative of resurgent racism and arguing for a positive Brexit now that the people have spoken, but I fear they may be in a minority.

Quoting jamalrob

In Foreign Policy: It's Time for the Elites to Rise Up Against the Ignorant Masses

Must one assume that The Elites are of one mind and so are the "Ignorant Masses"? That it's either the elite's way or the highway? Is the choice between the corporate and institutional elite and fascism? James Straub, author of the linked article, seems to think so.

There are, of course, some people who have xenophobic, neophobic, racist, sexist, nativist, reactionary, know-nothing, climate change denying, fascist, creationist, and various other unwholesome opinions. The elites are not entirely free of such views. On the other hand, there are people who are disenfranchised, marginalized, and impoverished who just don't share the same interests of the affluent, successful, and dominant elite classes.

When marginalized citizens object to a rapid influx of people whose arrival seems to be the result of an elite's policy, they are dismissed as xenophobic. If they don't celebrate every new swirl of distant populations into their communities, often the result of some elite policy, they are racist or nativist. After they are forced to accept a reduced standard of income, fewer resources and services, diminished quality of life, poor education options, less health care, and so on (conditions they definitely didn't vote for) they are deemed economically irrelevant by the elite.

Sometimes elite policy blows up in the faces of elites, but generally the elites are able to arrange the circumstances of their lives. If they want to experience diversity, they can go to an ethnic neighborhood festival for the afternoon, or tour the inter-ethnic cocktail party circuit. If they are interested in other cultures, they can travel and study them in their homelands. If they don't happen to like where they are living, their employment, their house, their car, their school... they can move - leave; do their own little Brexit, or Deutschexit, Francexit, Indiexiit, Chinexit, or USexit.

Most of us are stuck, having to put up with whatever the global elite sends down the pike.

This is what we have been fed:



And this is what we excrete:



"The poor white remains on the caboose of the train, but he ain't to blame, he's only a pawn in their game."

Which is to say that devotion to democracy without truth is folly.

Quoting Bitter Crank

Must one assume that The Elites are of one mind and so are the "Ignorant Masses"? That it's either the elite's way or the highway? Is the choice between the corporate and institutional elite and fascism? James Straub, author of the linked article, seems to think so.

I agree that that's part of the problem. As I said in another post, I voted Leave for quite different reasons from the anti-migrant line that the main campaign eventually deplorably arrived at. And the way the debate developed became falsely binary. Democratic truths are plural, but there were no institutions in place to represent, for instance, my own leftie Leave view, which never got an airing in public space. Part of the bafflement of the main political parties in the UK now - except for the Scot Nats - is that they stood for one view and a large minority of their supporters, and very many of those they wish were their supporters, took a different view.

Sometimes I wish I could send all the Brits off on a ship back to the UK here in Thailand. They contribute nothing to Thai society except their cash and generally leave it in a worse state than it was previously and the lowest scumbag shitfucker who can barely afford a plane ticket comes over and finds out that they are now little royals with the 50/60:1 exchange rate and proceeds to trash our cities and beaches and knock up our women and proceed to leave fatherless children to be raised here by single mothers. They basically all have jobs ready for them here to teach English even though the vast majority of them weren't trained to teach anything -- hell, I'd be surprised most of them actually knew how to read -- but they proceed to get a salary well above median income in Thailand, successfully catapulting them to upper middle class status. No Thai person ever learns a lick of English from them and they smoke opium and drink two or three bottles of whiskey before coming in to teach their 9.30 AM class and sexually harass their underage students before committing statutory rape while teaching in school by forming British networks of pedophile rings. These fucking migrants must go. Don't even get me started on the ones coming here to find themselves in a Buddhist temple.

So does anyone know if the Daily Express is hiring?

Reply to discoii I spent six months in Thailand a few years ago. Nice food and weather. Cheap beer. :)

Reply to Michael Yeah fuck off! (just kidding, I'm sure you are one of the good ones, I'm just trying to keep up with the Leave spirit)

Reply to unenlightened

I readily grant that Romanians in England are hoping for a better life. So are the Poles and Pakistanis, Indians, and Bangladeshis, et al. However...

The principle that populations on the move must be allowed to migrate to wherever they wish, and no population already in place may object is problematic. The ethnically, economically, culturally, and racially mixed US has practiced this principle for 240 years, and it has had mixed success.

We were not only able to easily absorb many millions of migrants, the elite needed migrants to come to populate a continent targeted for manifest destiny. The railroad barons had trains to fill and lands to settle. Manufacturing and agriculture needed really cheap labor (a half-notch above slave labor) in areas where black slavery wasn't culturally preferred. The formerly slave populations became a generally unwanted group.

Many groups were, and/or are now, unwelcome. The Irish, Jews, Italians, Norwegians, Chinese, Greeks, Mexicans, Vietnamese, Lebanese, Japanese, Russians, Poles, Lithuanians, Latvians, Swedes, Estonians, Ukrainians, Indians, Finns, Cubans, Dominicans, Negroes, etc. were all at various times unwelcome as new community members. It took some European migrants generations to become accepted. Poles didn't get the Welcome Wagon treatment in Chicago. Jews gave Norwegians the creeps in Minneapolis. The American Japanese on the west coast got prison camps in WWII.

The elite was reasonably happy to receive the black Great Migration from the south to the north in the 30s and 40s to fill up the low end of the labor pool, but: stay in your ghetto, or else. When the blacks attempted to move out of their ghettos into nicer white neighborhoods, the boundaries of the ghetto moved with them and the whites left.

SO: Why should Europeans be any different? In the US settled populations (who were once newly arrived riff raff and Euro white trash) now want to hold on to whatever security and stability they have in suburban and exurban rings around core cities. The elites, who determine policy, pass laws, and direct enforcement, live well beyond the reach of the best of the white petite bourgeoisie, let alone the riff raff trash. I imagine that applies to Great Britain and Europe, as well.

What is at stake for the losers in population mobility is reduced autonomy. They come to realize that if they are not useful to the elite, for what ever reason, they can and will be at least diluted, if not replaced.

The latest would-be arrivistes are doing what the earlier would-be arrivistes did--try to climb and mostly not make it to the top of the tree. To the elite, "A man's reach should exceed his grasp" is a sentiment which keeps the riff raff working hard, and divided.

Quoting discoii

So does anyone know if the Daily Express is hiring?

Other newspapers are available.

Immigration reform is still necessary and the migrant crisis is still a crisis, despite the silly tabloids.

Quoting Thorongil

Immigration reform is still necessary and the migrant crisis is still a crisis, despite the silly tabloids.

No, that is the lie being peddled. The crisis is the collapse of the manufacturing regions the mining regions, and the fishing industry. These are the regions so deprived they qualify for EU funding, and these are the regions that voted to leave, because they were taught to blame the migrants, rather than the failure of the government to regenerate. There is no migrant crisis in London, evidenced by the remain majority, although it is the most multicultural city in the world.

Reply to unenlightened

So I take it none of these "great sources of information" were being sold by an underpaid and overqualified Eastern European Philosophy Professor or were they just busy serving tea and crisps in the Greater London area at a reasonable rate? ;)

Kind of explains it all for me and seems rather clear of a "arguement" that Mr. Steward Lee presents.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x23yv5y_stewart-lee-on-immigration-paul-nuttall-and-ukip_fun

Meow!

GREG

EDIT: (just in case...)



???? ?? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? "?????? ????????? ?? ?????????? " ?? ????? ?? ???? ????????? ?? ????? ? ?????-????????????? ?? ??????? ?????? ???????? ?? ????????? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ????????? ?? ??? ? ???? ? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ? ??????? ?????? ?

Reply to unenlightened No migrant crisis just because Londoners voted to remain? Lol.

Reply to Bitter Crank I agree. We ought to allow that the lies be said and the truth be ferreted out naturally. Everyone believes they possess the truth anyway, so it's not clear who gets to sanctions the liars. We all have a point of view. We tend to be more forgiving of those who use a bit too much force when selling a point of view we agree with.

Reply to Thorongil Er no, lol.

My thesis is that migration is not critical to any degree, but migrants are used as a diversion from real structural crises in society. The misery in places like Oldham, for example are in no way caused but rather somewhat mitigated by by an influx of migrants. The community is suffering from economic depression, unemployment, and the consequent loss of working class status and values. People feel useless, unloved, helpless neglected, etc. The decline of the working class has been evident for most of my life, and almost nothing has been done about it apart from the above evidenced scapegoating.

Instead, the scrap heaped ex-workers in coal, steel, shipbuilding, etc, who have lost their cultural and economic base have seen the migrants who are necessarily more adaptable, and often better educated and more ambitious, overtake them.It is because people have lost their place in society that they are in crisis, not because other people have found a place.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-oldham-idUSKCN0ZB0LU

It's all there, ironically expressed by the son of Pakistani immigrants. He is not the problem, it must be those others. It is frankly ridiculous to blame immigrants for the neglect of the infrastructure, the lack of schools, jobs economic activity. The mills have closed and nothing has replaced them. Local government is starved of funds and central government has done nothing.

Quoting unenlightened

Er no, lol.

My thesis is that migration is not critical to any degree

That should be, "er, yes," then. Make up your mind.

Reply to unenlightened Migrants haven't traditionally been more educated. Mexican migrants rarely have any meaningful formal education, for example.

It's likely immigrant labor and overseas labor is used as a scapegoat for other societal and individual failings, but certainly not all. The economic impact to a society is real when high numbers of jobs are performed by others.

My thesis is that the lack of consistent and meaningful immigration policy and the allowance of foreign nations with minimal labor regulation to perform domestic tasks has had a real negative impact on the working class. If we cure that failing will it be the panacea the working class needed? Of course not, but I'm a bit skeptical of any suggestion that immigration reform measures must be rooted in xenophobia or scapegoating at some basic level. You can't just open up all jobs to all comers and not expect a damaging effect on those who previously didn't have that level of competition for those jobs.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-oldham-idUSKCN0ZB0LU

It's all there, ironically expressed by the son of Pakistani immigrants. He is not the problem, it must be those others. It is frankly ridiculous to blame immigrants for the neglect of the infrastructure, the lack of schools, jobs economic activity. The mills have closed and nothing has replaced them. Local government is starved of funds and central government has done nothing.

Immigrants, the poorest ones anyway, end up in those places that are most deprived for obvious economic reasons; they don't create the deprivation or even add to it. Remove the immigrants from Oldham, and watch house prices further shrink, housing stock deteriorate, economic activity decline further and the place become a ghost town.

Quoting Hanover

Migrants haven't traditionally been more educated.

True. What migrants have as an advantage is hope; hope of bettering themselves. This is what living in a declining area deprives one of. Thus the second generation Pakistani has become native in outlook.

Reply to ?????????????If I've been inconsistent year to year, I don't know. Point out my prior comment, and I'll respond. It is true that migrant workers do take some jobs the locals don't want (like.certain agricultural jobs), but no doubt others they do compete with the local market, especially overseas labor.

There is a worker class, middle class, upper class, etc. That's not a leftist notion. Anyone can categorize based upon income or job description regardless of political leaning. I don't think anti-Marxists argue there is no working class. The debate centers on the cause of the alleged struggle and it's solution.

Reply to Thorongil It's no to your fatuous straw man. I have provided evidence by examples that the tendency to blame migrants is closely associated with declining regional economy and also that where the economy is not declining, there is less blaming of migrants although there may be more migrants. I do not claim that one example proves anything. But these are facts that are better explained by reference to the regional economy than by reference to migrants.

I suggest to the contrary that migration stimulates regional economies to the extent at least of slowing the decline.

Reply to unenlightened We appear to be talking past each other. Best to leave it at that.

Quoting Thorongil

We appear to be talking past each other. Best to leave it at that.

It may look that way to you; to me it looks as if I have presented an argument supported by evidence that migration is a manufactured problem and you have responded with no argument and no evidence that it must be a problem because lol.

Reply to unenlightened Keep telling yourself that. You're living up to your username.

My name is evidence, indeed. Powerful argument.

Quoting unenlightened

Instead, the scrap heaped ex-workers in coal, steel, shipbuilding, etc, who have lost their cultural and economic base have seen the migrants who are necessarily more adaptable, and often better educated and more ambitious, overtake them.It is because people have lost their place in society that they are in crisis, not because other people have found a place.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-oldham-idUSKCN0ZB0LU

It's all there, ironically expressed by the son of Pakistani immigrants. He is not the problem, it must be those others. It is frankly ridiculous to blame immigrants for the neglect of the infrastructure, the lack of schools, jobs economic activity. The mills have closed and nothing has replaced them. Local government is starved of funds and central government has done nothing.

I live near Oldham, I have an Oldham postcode, in a post-industrial town that now is mostly a commuter town, with one big factory and a few small others, and high unemployment. You can easily find people here like the ones quoted in the Reuters article, but are they (including one voluble taxi-driver, a journalist's version of 'evidence') typical? They aren't typical of people in the town I'm in.

The quality of public debate before the referendum in the UK was astonishingly poor. So, a few slogans, the support of tabloid newspapers and a lack of good information one way or the other, and here we are, having voted to Leave, with a lot of talk about migration. (But quite a few people here hunting for Irish ancestors so they can get an Irish passport!)

All the same, I voted Leave too. I'm the Green candidate in the last local election who got more votes than UKIP! You can't make easy generalisations in this situation.

I share the view that the purportedly competing political elites have all abandoned the needs of the area where I live. The Labour party is inward-looking and mostly hand-in-glove with privatisers and international bankers, though nit retains strong core backing. Even if you think that people shouldn't blame immigration, you have to listen to them when they do, and give them a meaningful response. Negotiating a reduction in European freedom of labour movement will be a meaningful response, and to me it has to happen, whatever my own more liberal views about migration (Reader, I married an immigrant). Maybe we will also have more to spend on the health service and a better system of agricultural subsidies, when we finally stop moaning about how each other voted and get on with facing up to tomorrow.

Quoting mcdoodle

Even if you think that people shouldn't blame immigration, you have to listen to them when they do, and give them a meaningful response. Negotiating a reduction in European freedom of labour movement will be a meaningful response, and to me it has to happen, whatever my own more liberal views about migration (Reader, I married an immigrant).

Well actually, I don't think it will be a more meaningful response than pulling all someone's teeth out is a meaningful response to their complaint of toothache; . It will only hasten the decline of the health and education services, the value and hence quality of the housing stock and the availability of work.

But by and large, the EU is an irrelevance, as it is run on the same lines and with the same economic ideology as the British government whichever party is in power. Oldham will continue to decline until it has an economic function restored to it, and no one is making any serious suggestions in that direction.

Reply to unenlightened Well, indeed, the world is going to hell in a capitalist handcart, but if you take such a broad brush line, then you will find no small steps meaningful, and you may as well join the wild optimists in the antinatal Schopenhauer clinic. I'll stand for the Greens again, and do my bit in the local community for peace and understanding, and carry on being one of those middle-class wankers who keep civil society going, however uncivil are the wild beasts unleashed by foolhardy rhetoricians.

Oh no, I'm all for small steps and even crawling, and keep on greening for sure. My indifference to the EU is only relative. Think global act local, you know. We don't have to go to hell, but avoiding it requires correctly identifying the problems and looking where we are going. That's why I'm bothering to blather on about things. There are folks that I think we should make life more difficult for, but they are not those generally thought of as migrants.

My guess is that migration has had mixed consequences for Britain (and many other countries). Some of the consequences are beneficial, some are not. I don't see any reason why migration should be an all-or-nothing proposition. But to choose how to manage immigration means choosing how to manage the economy, and for whose benefit. In many cases, working people see that immigration (and the economy) are being managed for the benefit of the elite, at the cost of the working class.

There are areas in the US where there are not enough workers--at any price. Depopulated agricultural areas don't supply enough labor to run local agri-industrial operations like grain and alfalfa drying, for example, or meatpacking. Migration -- legal and otherwise -- solves the problem. (Besides, American workers don't want to work at wages which are attractive only by Mexican pay standards. Nor should they.)

On the other hand, immigrants can be used to bust unions and drop the prevailing wage and working conditions. At the low wages they make, migrants can't afford to live well at all, so they double, triple, and quadruple up in houses, creating a mini-tenement slum, which has a negative impact on neighborhoods. From the immigrant POV, they are still coming out ahead -- compared to where they are from.

I read statements to the effect that "American [or British] workers don't want to work on dairy farms, don't want to work in factories, don't want to work in meat packing, don't want to work in stores, don't want to do landscaping, etc. No, they don't want to work in these places at very SUB-standard wages, and they shouldn't. Neither should the immigrants.

Reply to Bitter Crank I also reckon that if there's a second referendum for Scottish independence, they'll vote to leave. They now have more reason - right or wrong - to do so. I don't want Scotland to leave the UK. I think it would be unfortunate.

Reply to Michael Scotland is part of the UK, and the UK voted as a whole, and the majority voted to leave. So no, Scottish MSPs or MPs should not attempt to block any attempt to leave. Futhermore, Scotland had the opportunity to decide its own fate on these matters independently from the rest of the UK, but voted to remain a part of the UK. They made their bed, now they have to lie in it. If they don't like it, then they can push for a second referendum, but in the meantime, they ought to respect the UK-wide majority who voted to leave, and they should respect the UK government who represents them. The brexiteers won fair and square (so to speak), and the government is committed to honouring the result. As much as I agree with Nicola Sturgeon, and with the way in which Scotland voted, I do not agree, in principle, with her considering a veto as an optional course of action in this case.

There are good and bad points to EU membership. But I have to say that despite its failings on the day after the vote I felt somewhat claustrophobic and regret the loss of opportunity that Brexit will mean for the younger generation.

We've allowed the bureaucrats of the EU to enjoy large expense accounts, waste time and effort and spend on idiotic projects, so athough I'd have rather have stayed in, we have only ourselves to blame for the vote. Generation after generation have stood by whilst the EU has been colonised by the elites and the corrupt.

I think it would be great if Scotland would become independent once again!

One North European country more.

Now you can refer to Scots as being Pseudo-English.

Reply to Sapientia MPs represent their constituency, not the country as a whole, and the Scottish Parliament represents Scotland, not the UK.

Can someone explain to me the recent Guardian anti-Corbyn campaign? Did Rupert Murdoch buy up the Guardian?

Reply to discoii I don't get it either.

With a few exceptions, the Guardian is a fairly establishment publication, supporting the liberal managerial left that changed the political scene from 1997 onwards. Here's an editorial from January 2003, a lovely example of hand-wringing militarism:

"War with Iraq may yet not come, but, conscious of the potentially terrifying responsibility resting with the British Government, we find ourselves supporting the current commitment to a possible use of force. That is not because we have not agonised, as have so many of our readers and those who demonstrated across the country yesterday, about what is right. It is because we believe that, if Saddam does not yield, military action may eventually be the least awful necessity for Iraq, for the Middle East and for the world."

Lefties, it's time to accept that the liberal left is as much a part of the establishment now as Murdoch et al (perhaps more so?).

By the way, I'm not especially enamoured of Corbyn's politics myself, but I think he's pretty good for British politics in general and infinitely preferable to his opponents in the Labour Party.

Reply to jamalrob I see. I only started reading the Guardian when I moved out West and I can see here that those 'preference algorithms' that the big websites use to tailor my newsfeed to my biases has resulted in me thinking that the Guardian consists of commies like Zizek, Varoufakis, and Graeber, and generally anti-establishment people like Glenn Greenwald writing for it as guests.

During Corbyn's rise a while back, the Guardian also seemed to be supporting him overall. It was just a surprise to start seeing them backing some sort of Hillary-esque establishment candidate.

Reply to discoii The i, (https://inews.co.uk/) to which I've moved from the Guardian, did a rundown of the biasses in reporting on the referendum. The Guardian was I think the only one strongly biassed for Remain, and the Times and the i itself the only ones that were even-handed.

I agree with jamalrob: the liberal centre-left has found through the referendum campaign that it is in a vast pond of shared values with the conservatives they thought they hated. Some kind of split in the Labour Party seems in the offing. I just wish more of them would recognise they are really Red Greens like me :)

Well, something similar might be happening in the US, which is a split in the Democratic Party.

Reply to discoii The clue's in the name. It's a middle class social-worker's rag that tries to teach the working class not to keep coal in their bath, and generally do us good whether we like it or not.

Quoting Michael

MPs represent their constituency, not the country as a whole, and the Scottish Parliament represents Scotland, not the UK.

The Scottish Parliament is devolved, not independent. It has some legislative power over Scotland, but other powers are reserved for the UK Parliament. The UK Parliament represents the UK, which includes Scotland. Scotland decided to remain a part of the UK. The UK voted to leave. End of.

The Scottish Parliament does and should represent Scotland, but since Scotland is not independent from the UK, it shouldn't attempt to block a UK-wide decision. The right way to go about it would be to attempt to secure a second Scottish independence referendum, if that is what the Scottish people want. Scotland cannot have its cake and eat it.