Indeed. Having spoken to a fair few "out" voters in the last week or so, none of them seem to have thought of the wider implications of an out vote other than one or two narrow issues they have concentrated on. One voted out because there have been two EU regulations which he sees as unfairly damaging his business - one about being unable to sell electronics with a high lead content, the other to do with the deactivation of firearms. Nothing else mattered to him, despite being completely unable to articulate what "out" actually meant. Same goes for all the others - they don't seem to have thought through the practical implications of their actions, other than "well, we won't have to put up with those EU *s" any more.
The implications, purely from a paperwork point of view, seem immense. While there may be a strong, independent future for the UK (or, more likely in the future, England and Wales), it won't come without some considerable cost in areas that people didn't think about for a second. I'm staggered that the "remain" campaign made such a bad job of pointing all these issues out.
Not that I fully advocate for what Heinlein believed when he wrote Starship troopers, but with the US election and the Brexit vote, I found some of the quotes pertinent to the current way people approach voting and democracy.
>"...those noble experiments failed because the people had been led to believe that they could simply vote for whatever they wanted . . . and get it, without toil, without sweat, without tears.”
Now, Heinlein argued for a restrictive vote based on civil service, perhaps best exemplified by another quote from the book “Citizenship is an attitude, a state of mind, an emotional conviction that the whole is greater than the part . . . and that the part should be humbly proud to sacrifice itself that the whole may live.” Despite his strong libertarian beliefs, there wasn't really much in terms of traditional politics that Heinlein promoted as he wrote this, aside from the fact that citizens should work to better their country.
While I don't think restricting the vote is the right answer, I do think this mentality of a full citizen is probably a good one for people to have before they vote. Not an intelligence test, not even an issues test (though also probably an okay idea), but instead just can you be relied on to be thinking about someone besides yourself.
Heinlein doesn't flesh this out much further than "man it'd be great if we cared more for our nation", and I am not smart enough to say what this looks like apolitically either, but it's a nice dream.
Heinlein's attitude towards citizenship in Starship Troopers very much reminded me of the attitude of the Prussian society regarding proper membership. In that mindset, only military discipline and a readiness for sacrifice formed a proper human being who would be a worthwhile member of society. This attitude can be seen as the Achilles' heel of humanism: every human is equal until you decide that some people just aren't human enough. I believe that this is how a country once championing humanism could take enlightenment (rationalization) and industrialization to such horrible conclusions.
Whenever considering a separation between full citizen and not-yet citizen, please keep this in mind.
I agree with both this and the above comment, in that I see this ideal as a dream at best, which is why as enticing as his views are, I can't fully say "yes, this is worth trying", especially since Heinlein's characters tend to be larger than life where the public just sort of accepts them for whatever reason.
So, please do understand in no way do I advocate for the actual separation. I think it'd be disastrous and used as a tool of oppression more than anything, despite my admiration of it in the initial post.
There's been a fundamental failure to teach basic intellectual literacy in the UK since the 1970s.
Issues have been reduced to opinions - often argued dishonestly, at the expense of basic facts - which in turn have been reduced to emotions.
It's one thing to think about how an issue affects you personally. It's something else entirely to utterly fail to understand that your hot-button feelings about one or two issues can have huge consequences.
Culture works through connections that increase the degrees of freedom of the system as a whole, not through individual moods and biases.
You can't run a 21st century economy without understanding this, and being able to make pragmatic choices based on it.
The problem with that is how do you know that people who've been in a public service job, even the military, have such an attitude? From my experience you get all sorts in the military. I think we has doing a lot of projecting from himself and his close associates on what's actually a hugely diverse group. Then there are plenty of others that act selflessly for society. Charity workers for example. If you start from his assumptions you can come to his conclusions quite naturally, but that's true of most people. I just find his assumptions very simplistic.
Yeah, it's obvious that Heinlein didn't really believe himself that the military route was the one to go. As the parent says, he leaves it at "man it'd be great if we really cared more for our nation", but... Although the idea of separating citizens-that-care from citizens-that-don't-care has it's appeal, the chances of one class entrenching and eventually abusing the other are so high that it's not really worth it.
But - the Heinlein approach was to simply volunteer to be a Citizen. Yes it came with duties, but that's kind of the point. So there would be classes sure, but self-selected. If you feel abused, why just join the other class.
The solution proposed by Heinlein has all the desirable characteristics: zero barriers to entry, not very burdensome (for the received benefits) and reliabilly produces good citizens.
The problem is that I can't imagine a real method that can compare. There is no proof that the military way produces good citizens, and every other method ever tried introduces barriers, which usually leads to minorities being excluded.
Cameron's strategy was to claim that he was going to leave, then negotiate a brilliant deal, then campaign to stay on the basis of those changes.
This frankly idiotic approach rather undermines any attempt to point out the reality of leaving, since you have to suddenly discover all the unfortunate practicalities half-way through the process.
He probably also thought he was a great politician, not realising that he only won his elections due to mass media propaganda being on his side[1] (even then he didn't win in any convincing manner). With them taking the contrary position on Brexit, and having no compunction when it comes to lying, smearing the Bank of England, or whipping up hysteria about foreigners, he was in deep trouble (and like Boris, it's interesting to speculate as to whether the media actually wanted to win this vote or were just in it for political street cred by taking that stance).
[1] Note how he literally campaigned to leave if he didn't get concessions (and everyone knew this was pretend), then warned about utter catastrophe if we did leave and yet he's a great statesman as he stands down (which he also promised not to do). Meanwhile Corbyn is hounded for not being sufficiently positive in his campaigning and it's working class Labour voters that get the blame, not the rich Tories who voted overwhelmingly to leave. It's utterly bizarre, yet accepted as normal. Just like the Sun attacked people who questioned the Iraq War as traitors, and even provided a dart board with their faces on it so you could throw things at them, and now years later we get confirmation that they were all correct.
Cameron initially went to the EU for reform and with that changing aspects of the EU for all members. That not only did not happen and still needed but he in effect got palmed of with a special deal to appease the UK. But his initial remit and outline was to seek reform of the EU, not some special UK only back-hander.
UK leaving EU now and EU still in need of reform and currently they seem to still be going in the wrong direction and widening public discontent with them across Europe. The whole ignoring the people over companies as case of no individual wants TTIP, not one I have met. THis and any concerns are demonised and labeled so they can be dismissed, has driven the EU to become unpopular with an ever increasing populus it purports to serve.
AS for the media, well in todays times politics panders to the media and has changed in a way that is not nice too see and no offence to America, politics in Europe has become more American. more about how you look and come across more than the content of the words.
But when democracy for the people revolves around binary choices and an X in a box every 4-5 years from a limited choice then you have to wonder if that needs reform as people are afforded more of a say democratically in talent shows upon TV than political elections.
But like the plane industry the UK kind of stepped back in so many area's of space after WW2 due to the amount of debt incurred in that time.
TTIP is a valid EU-related concern if you live in a country that would reject TTIP if it wasn't part of the EU. This doesn't apply to the UK, where the current and probably future governments would happily sign it in normal times, and will be much weaker when negotiating now, so even a hypothetical anti-TTIP goverment would probably have it foisted upon them.
Everything is relative, so one persons's too-corporate EU is another person's too-socialist EU. Anyone in the UK who voted out of the EU because they were worried about corporations having too much influence is in for a rude awakening as the reality of brexit sinks in.
Its the aspect that no individual cares for TTIP and many actively against it. That does highlight disparity in communication by the EU and the people and was the point that was being made.
Your right that many governments will sign it away happily and again only back how out of touch many governments in countries as well as the EU collective are with the people.
May be they need to communicate more about matters as currently what people do know and even those who looked deeper into it that it was not good for them overall.
Easier when trade deals were more focused and case of we sell you this and you sell us that and we will balance out import tariff's and save grief and paperwork. Today trade deals seem to want to be a catch everything in one hit style documents and run to encyclopedia style lengths that the ability to game them or abuse them is more open as more of them. After all documents written by humans just as prone to bugs as software when you get into large tomes as most trade deals are these days.
Which for me is sadly like trying to design a shoe for everybody no matter that people are different sizes and needs of there footwear.
People moot rude awakening but seriously brexit has become the go to blame scapegoat for lots. But when the global economy loses on stock markets more than the UK's total economy for a year in one day, then you know it is far removed from reality and all speculation driven as markets are these days. Indeed somebody sells lots of something they can create the problem that was the reason for them selling and somewhat self-fulfilling.
Only come 10 years time can we truly get a gauge of change as by then things would of changed and be no change for least 2 years from now. Indeed Europe as a collective has too many weak links members wise and when just 4 of its members were net contributors into it with the other staking more out than paid in, and the UK one of them, then is it a bad thing for the UK, probably not at all once the market FUD and settles down and plans outlined and formalised as currently it is somewhat under-pant gnomes:
1) Referendum
2) ??????????
3) Profit
with us at stage two currently. So can accept the markets having fun. Indeed whatever happens it is those who get commissions (brokers) that always win out.
But corporations issue with EU is that they have paid lobbyists at the MEP's in Brussels all the time that the MEP's saturated time wise by them and the public interaction with MEP's is not great at all and indeed, many cases not as accessible. This along with Brussels centric and UK being Island does remove the level of access many would expect and still the EU does not have its own portal for communications to engage the people in a two way process. But so many things that could be improved it is what I call:
QWERTY politics and any other arrangement would work out more efficiently, just everybody stuck with what seems to work, even if the most inefficient form. Alas today, that lack of change creates divides. But that is equally a global issue in many countries more than many realise.
We live in interesting times, but heck, when is it not interesting.
"net contributors" in cash terms, every economic analysis suggest that money is paid back multiple times over in benefits of the EU.
I'm amazed that international politics is decided on the same basis as buying a smartphone app. Two dollars for useful app? No way man. I could buy half-a-coffee with that money!
The regulation element is funny because people blithely assume that changes will always be to ease restrictions. But a significant proportion of the population will reasonably think like me that restricting lead content is just common sense.
Brexit gives an oppurtunity to have more restrictive regulation at some point in the future. And the current government is suprisingly interventionist on many buisness issues. The EU neatly made various issues non-controversial and that may change. Hopefully we can finally reduce fishing to sustainable levels and ban cancer causing pesticides!
No, that is called trade. Likewise EU exporters will have to abide by British regulations (without any input) if they want to sell products to Britain.
The UK does not cede sovereignty to China when they sell China widgets built to Chinese specifications.
EU exporters will have to abide by British regulations (without any input) if they want to sell products to Britain
Market segmentation applies.
At the moment, if you want to sell a product to the 'west', depending precisely what industry you're in, you need (a) CE marking for the EU AND (b) UL or similar approval for the US. That's two sets of certifications, which can share some but not all lab reports. There are then sub-modifications required for the UK: left-hand-drive cars, BS1363 plugs, etc.
If the UK starts to deviate from that such that CE marking is no longer sufficient, then we're likely to see either manufacturers not bothering or just passing the extra compliance costs on to the customer.
This is before you get onto the question of trade in services, such as the UK's major financial services industry.
(I'd argue that the big undemocratic TPP, TTIP, and WTO agreements are more of a sovereignty impairment than the EU, but that's not a view with much traction)
... Texas has more sovereignty than the UK, because they are democraticly part of a larger union and get to choose the president of the USA.
... Scotland would lose sovereignty by becoming independent and no longer being represented in British Parliament ...
... Singapore lost sovereignty by leaving the Federation...
... and New Zealand should become a state of Australia in order to gain more sovereignty....
That makes no sense.
Sovereignty means supreme power ie. being able to make whatever laws they want (regardless of the consequences or benefits of doing so).
For example the tiny landlocked state of Lesotho is dirt poor but more sovereign than the South African provinces it borders on. It can make foreign policy, they can't.
At this point talk of "sovereignty" turns everything into an argument over semantics. Better to consider the effect on individual rights and liberty. That is what is completely missing from our national debate.
My point was that they could actually be required to exceed EU regulations in some cases. Similar to how California has tighter regulation than other states.
I think some version of this is the single biggest issue of our time involving society or really any group of people with a problem.
Problems are getting more complex, societies are getting more informed and democratic, thereby exposing people to more and more problems. People are overwhelmed and have a shorter attention span for each issue. They feel like everything is getting worse, even though it really stays mostly the same. Easy and fast answers win, you can say whatever you want, there is no time for corrections, because everyone has moved on to the next issue.
> being completely unable to articulate what "out" actually meant
Only those with an omniscient knowledge of the markets, or possibly a degree in economics, should vote?
If this is a mess to get out of, we shouldn't of gotten into it in the first place. The longer we'd of been in the EU, the harder to leave. Right now, it's painful to leave the EU - in the future it may be economy-ending - at least we've paused asset stripping before the assets run out. Saying "but there's no exit plan" is lame when that was on purpose - the same way websites make it easy to sign up, but make you you call them to close an account.
What do you mean by this? Asset-stripping by selling public assets to well-connected parts of the private sector was Tory party policy for decades. The privatisation of the Land Registry was announced somewhere in the middle of the Brexit chaos when nobody would notice it.
I'm not too happy about that either, but that's a different issue - especially when it's the UK private sector.
I'm talking EU funded projects that migrated industries out of the UK to other parts of the EU. If you argue that there was just as much inward migration, I wouldn't have the information to dispute it, but then who does such clarity when the waters are so muddied - I want assurances, and the EU has not been forthcoming wrt transparency of this kind.
>Only those with an omniscient knowledge of the markets, or possibly a degree in economics, should vote?
Hyperbole aside, on an issue of this importance and magnitude, yes you should have an pretty solid idea about what you are voting on. If you can't be an expert yourself, you should at least figure out how to understand the main points an expert makes. If you can't do that you shouldn't vote, because you have no idea what you're talking about and no way to judge the consequences.
How does a non-expert recognise an expert with so many claiming expertise?
> If you can't do that you shouldn't vote, because you have no idea what you're talking about and no way to judge the consequences.
Why? Can you assume, then, that only those who do know the consequences will vote instead? Who does know the consequences - experts?
Also, who's to decide the importance or magnitude of an issue?
Doesn't this mean that the ability to muddy the waters is the power to restrict votes?
If we, the great unwashed don't understand the EU, or it's importance, how did our democratic country get into it in the first place? Surely the public understood it as little then? Or should we do what our politicians tell us to?
You're arguing for direct democracy instead of representative democracy. What we have is an election of leaders, and then the leaders lead. So yes, we do what our politicians tell us to, and if we don't like it, we elect different politicians. That's how the system works. We elect people whose full time jobs, and their staffs, is to look at the consequences and make the decisions so we don't have to put in all the redundant work.
The EU referendum was an abnegation of leadership. It was never meant to be lost, because there was no concrete plan for what to do should it be lost. But the precise lack of planning meant that a No vote could mean anything to anybody; any little bugbear they had against the EU could be used as a reason to vote No, while the Yes case is entirely concrete. It was a choice between reality and everyone's individual fantasy. In that respect, it's hardly surprising that fantasy won.
We can't elect different politicians. The big lie of democracy is that you get a choice about policy.
You really don't. What if there are no leaders on the ballot who support the policies you want? What if there are no leaders on the ballot who support very popular policies?
What if polices are presented dishonestly, so voters don't get a fair choice on them?
What if policy is monopolised by party machines, so you actually have democracy twice removed - once from voters to parties, then again from parties to leaders?
I agree the referendum became a ridiculous exercise in "Are you more or less happy? Yes/No" - which is no way to make a decision of this sort, especially when a lot of people clearly aren't happy at all.
But that just emphasises how badly broken the British system is. It actively selects for political dysfunction. So of course dysfunction is what everyone gets.
The reality is you could pick a random selection of historically competent professionals from various fields, parachute them into power, and they'd do a far better job of picking policy and making sensible decisions than our professional pols do.
The EU - we don't like it, we voted out, that's how the system works.
> We elect people whose full time jobs, and their staffs, is to look at the consequences and make the decisions so we don't have to put in all the redundant work.
We don't have access to those people, or their conclusions are presented as/alongside FUD and misinformation.
If it's up for vote, it not something we ask the politicians to decide - which is not what the above post was suggesting: it suggested we should abstain from a voting.
> any little bugbear they had against the EU could be used as a reason to vote No, while the Yes case is entirely concrete
I point a gun at you and say "freeze". Staying still has a concrete justification, but who knows what will happen if you try to run.
I'm not an expert in this by any means, but it is patently obvious with a little fact checking which of the "experts" on each side of the debate were legitimate. So to answer your first question, you recognise an expert by checking some of the things they come up with, and dismissing them as experts when they fail to hold water. This is a skill that many people don't have though, and I'm arguing that if you don't have this skill you probably shouldn't vote on issues you don't understand yourself. Now, are you self aware enough to know you don't have this skill? That's another question.
>Also, who's to decide the importance or magnitude of an issue?
This is a pointless hyperbolic question. The magnitude of the issue we are discussing is not really in question. When you get into the grey area of whether it is a "big issue" you also get into the grey area of whether it even matters.
>Doesn't this mean that the ability to muddy the waters is the power to restrict votes?
Again, if you're someone who is easily confused by the calibre of smoke-screens we've seen, you probably shouldn't be voting. Sophisticated deception does happen, but it didn't in this case. It was all pretty blatant.
> If we, the great unwashed don't understand the EU, or it's importance, how did our democratic country get into it in the first place?
You might as well ask the question of how did we become the UK in the first place. It is entirely irrelevant to what we decide to do next.
Some issues of right and wrong don't need expertise in the consequences. E.g. "Burning hobos for fuel would be CO2 neutral. But it will have an effect on prices, and perhaps change stock fund values for pensioners. Hm, what should we do?"
In my country, politicians regularly act in the interests of demographics with high voter turn-out, and against the interests of demographics that can't vote or have low voter turn-out. Given the choice of cutting benefits to retired people or cutting benefits to young people, the young people will get the cut much more often.
It'd be great for /me/ if only people with a masters degree or higher could vote, as the government wouldn't have to waste time addressing the demands of 95% of the population and could instead spend more resources on people like me.
I don't think it'd be good for 95% of the population though.
AS for exit plan or plan B the Government should of planned for that and given that the plan A was stay in the EU and do nothing, then for the government to not do any planning is somewhat poor.
But the whole campaign from both sides skewed the reality in many ways and one of the unsetteling ones is that they have somewhat installed a percetion omngst people that if you voteed out your xenophobic and racist! Which is crazy and case of picking out the few cases in which so and projecting them upon a collective using another qualifier. Same thing happens by people seeing few religious terrorists and presuming all people of that religion upon those few worst cases.
The other issue in politics is you end up with picking from two choices, and either pick a hammer or a saw to handle all problems current and future. The latter being a real issue with the current democratic input from the people as you may pick one party to rule as you need a hammer for the problems of the time mostly and a saw problem arises.
The upshot is that the spread of people who vote one way and then years later in hindsight would of voted differently is always going to happen. Though does appear to be happening more and whilst in the past you had a two party system with people loyal to a party, the growth in floating voters has grown. Which is a good thing as you can not treat all problems with a hammer or a saw and sometimes you just need some duct-tape.
But with a democratic system designed for people who can just write and X for a time of communication speed akin to snails in our current times. Times of more awareness and intelligence and literacy, along with access to knowledge and speed of communications. The whole party/democratic system needs reform.
But in party that is why we end up with a more mixed second level, and in the case of the UK we have the house of Lords. Though not democratically elected they do add balance and with that common sense when a hammer is being used when a saw is needed.
But far from ideal and yet it has allowed us to move forward, albeit slowly. But then the aspect that people adjust to change at carious rates, may be a good thing, maybe not and allows a changephobia mentality to be fed.
Still one can look at the financial markets, they all bet on remain and the outfall and panic has been most clear. After all nothing actually changed overnight and won't for at least two years. People just like to presume the worst when it comes to change or stay as is in general more than not I feel, yet at the same time. Just as equally less inclined to plan for such cases with a penchant to prefer panic.
Either way much to be learned from this whole referendum and hopefully lessons globally learned. But a case of the Western world distancing itself from the people more and more and being out of touch with the rest of the World, getting more in touch with the people. Both have a way to go but certainly an something that seems apparent these days.
All reminds me of the saying "no such thing as a stupid question, only a stupid answer" and when the people ask the questions and see how stupid the response is, they remember.
In terms of lesson learned, I found a new one today... Previously I saw that a lot of the problems with the public debate stemmed from the divisive media coverage, and I still believe they played a crucial role in promoting negativity on both sides, but now I see there's a crucial capacity that is needed to develop a deeper understanding of the issues, and that is the capacity for doubt.
Without the willingness to open ourselves up to conflicting views, we rob ourselves of the power to move past demagoguery, to move past personality politics, and see issues for what they really are. Whilst I recognise that it's possible to be too flexible and stand for nothing, I'd suggest that scoring points in debates by making others look foolish may only stop when we recognise we benefit from conflicting opinions (voiced respectfully).
That would be sadly similar to Black Arrow 'R3' in 1971, Britain's first and only successful orbital launch. After that we abandoned the project, the only country to do so after such an achievement.
> Prior to the cancellation of Black Arrow, NASA had offered to launch British payloads for free; however, this offer was withdrawn following the decision to cancel Black Arrow.
The implications, purely from a paperwork point of view, seem immense. While there may be a strong, independent future for the UK (or, more likely in the future, England and Wales), it won't come without some considerable cost in areas that people didn't think about for a second. I'm staggered that the "remain" campaign made such a bad job of pointing all these issues out.