Hacker News Reader

Comment by mablap | Hacker News Reader

The problem here is that most talking heads are demagogues piggybacking on popular sentiment and ignorance, unfortunately.

The British people didn't say "fuck you", they said "we don't really know what we want". I mean, 52-48 is not insignificant, but it's also not a "clear, strong message" for leaving - it's a message from a divided nation who is quite literally not sure what it wants. Just sit in a restaurant tonight and look around - whatever your opinion, half of the customers agree with you.

The issues at hand are very complex and quite simply too much so for most voters to even get an idea of what's at stake. As with any such referendum, the overwhelming majority of the votes are cast emotionally. You cannot get such a massive amount of people to think through the implications rationally - they go with their gut.

So again, the message here is "we have no idea what we really want", not "fuck you".

View on HN

Which talking head demagogues - the ones scaremongering in support of Remain, or the ones favoring Leave?

And are you actually saying that such important decisions shouldn't be left up to voters? If so, then should choosing leaders be left up to voters?

It seems pretty clear that many (not all) of those who voted Leave were in fact telling the EU and the scaremongering demagogues for Remain, "Fuck you." And some other portion (the sets probably overlap) were saying something like, "This EU thing isn't working out like you said it would, so we want out." Not, "I don't know what I want."

Both!

I think the population has a right to vote. I just don't think most people are fit to vote on every particular issue. It's en emotional vote and it could have swung one way or the other. Interesting times!

It seems that the vote is actually not binding. The parliament might still decide to stay in. While this would be another hit against the trust in democracy, I wouldn't bet GB is actually leaving. Very similar to Switzerland and the "foreigners out" vote.

Being unsure would favour the statu quo. The statu quo is not what won. You have 52% who wanted to change the statu quo, and the 48% who would be divided between unsure and in favor of the EU.

Yes, to an extent. 52-48 is quite too close to mean anything other than "the Leave vote won". A lot of voters could have changed their minds either way had the vote been a week ago, tomorrow morning, or in a month.

Exactly. If they held the referendum next week we'd probably get a different result. What a farce.

Many of the 48 % might also have wanted to change the status quo but were afraid of the economical consequences.

"I mean, 52-48 is not insignificant, but it's also not a "clear, strong message" for leaving - it's a message from a divided nation who is quite literally not sure what it wants. Just sit in a restaurant tonight and look around - whatever your opinion, half of the customers agree with you."

Not entirely sure of your general opinions on voting, but for the most part, majority is majority when it comes to democracy. You can't now claim "oh but it isn't victory by a significant margin, therefore people didn't really know what they wanted to vote for." The message is: "52% of the voters at the time wanted X, therefore democracy-dictates we do X". If it's good-enough for electing our leaders, it's good enough for a referendum.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com