Comment by microcolonel | Hacker News Reader

Comment by microcolonel | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This form of condescension is a major part of why remainers have utterly failed to make their case. Remainers clearly believe they are better than brexiters, but do not address the issues which matter (lack of control on political matters which affect the lives of average people: trade, standards, communications, intellectual property, immigration) to the people they are ostensibly trying to convince.

The Brexit referendum had among the highest turnouts of all British votes in history, there was a considerable amount of media produced to explain each side (and many more remain arguments and endorsements were aired on radio, television, and through social media advertising campaigns), and the opinion was nonetheless trending further toward Brexit on the eve of the vote. It is just about as democratic as it could possibly be.

I honestly don't know where this theme of regret is coming from, because among the people I know who supported Brexit, none of them have expressed anything other than ongoing support, and a desire to see the original intent of the referendum respected by the parliament (as it clearly wasn't respected by the Prime Minister).

The original intent? What original intent was that? Brexit was always light on detail, and that is coming home to roost. When pressed, most Brexit supporters I've spoken to show absolutely no interest in the dismal nitty gritty of politics, preferring to spout shallow platitudes like "why can't they just get on with it".

The silence from chief Brexiteers Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson has been profoundly deafening.

People were promised a pogrom against immigrants and Muslims, and are getting antsy that they haven’t been allowed to start deporting and disappearing people yet. That’s what they want to get on with - it seems to be the sole unifying factor between pro-brexit factions.

I'm not at all knowledgeable about the situation in the UK so I searched for Nigel Farage and this came up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIhPlyG96zk

It felt like he was trying to avoid the consequences of the actions of "Brexiteers" like himself.

But he is definitely not silent. There's that.

There was no need for detail, because the WTO already provides a framework for trade agreements. That was the assumed state people voted on - talk of a deal came afterwards, and was considered by many to be an attempt to do "Brexit in name only", causing a situation where we're still obligated to the EU but no longer have any MEPs.

>>That was the assumed state people voted on

I can't believe anyone would make such an assumption. I know some people who 1) voted leave 2) are perfectly aware that under WTO rules their businesses would literally have to close because they trade with EU and their European partners won't accept a ~20% hike on the price of British products due to non-EU custom duties. They all wanted out of EU because they don't like the immigrants, because they think Brussels has too much power, but they all wanted easy trade with the EU. WTO trade is not what they voted for.

The "leavers" you talk to are pretty different from the leavers I talk to.

Well of course, after all there are millions of them so I'm sure it's relatively easy to find people from any part of the "leaver" spectrum - from people who knew exactly what WTO is and are happy with it, to people who voted leave because they don't like the Polish shops on their street.

There isn't a single one reason why people voted leave.

Stop trying to gaslight people with this garbage, it was never true that falling back to WTO rules was an intended destination after Brexit.

The WTO provides a loose foundation for trade without agreements, and guidance on how agreements can be reached.

Trade without agreements is subject to tariffs and major restrictions severe enough to cause serious economic damage.

Agreeing FTAs can take years, hence the need for a transition period until one is agreed between UK & EU.

What May did was entirely consistent with trying to achieve the Brexit that was voted for.

The argument about lack of control is not true: Uk has had very significant influence over a lot of the decision process in the EU. They have democratically elected representatives and career civil servants, like for local and national institutions in the UK. A British voter doesn’t control EU any less than they control the UK.

Not so. The UK parliament is at the root of democratic authority in the UK. The European Parliament is a largely powerless rubber-stamping body.

Thirty years ago, maybe. It's now got extensive co-decision powers and is a serious body in its own right.

In fact, there's an argument that the in-built government majority in the Commons makes that far more of a powerless rubber-stamping body in normal times (recent events notwithstanding!)

A serious body that is inhabited by Front National, AFD, Die Partei (they switch their parliamentary representative every 3 month, so that 4 people get a salary of ~30000 a year) and other reprehensible or joke parties.

I don't think this is actually a bug; I think small fringe parties deserve representation, and it's an inescapable consequence of being serious about proportional representation.

Arguably Farage has been a "shadow" party leader in the UK for years. I wonder how differently things would have gone under a PR system where there were a few UKIP MPs off in one corner. As it was, they had no influence right up to the point where they "flipped" a large section of the Tory party into being pro-Brexit.

I also think that Farage shows that having a safe seat in the media is far more important than in Parliament for small parties; the national media have consistently given him far more coverage than comparable small or regional parties, because he's "good entertainment".

Except that the the UK the goverment is formed from the elected members of the house. In the EU the only body with real power, the commision, is appointed by a process in which the "elected" president of the commision is the only candidate.

This form of condescension

Absolutely not trying to be condescending, apologies if I came across that way.

Personally, I am just pained that voters who live in countries where democracy still works, do not take it seriously - that includes not spending time and effort to educate themselves with at least the basics of the issues they are voting on.

Imagine living in countries like Russia, Zimbabwe, Turkey etc - where elections are a farce. Now compare it with UK - British people had a real chance to vote to stay in the EU, they just threw that chance away.

I am not being snarky or condescending - I am just frustrated that voters don't spend a bit of effort to educate themselves before voting. Democracy only works if the voters make it work.

> I am not being snarky or condescending - I am just frustrated that voters don't spend a bit of effort to educate themselves before voting.

Maybe many do and you're just wrong about whether they educated themselves? Maybe many of them are more educated about the issue than you are yet don't feel as required to shout how dumb the other side is from the rooftops. That you assume ignorance of those you don't understand and then say they should educate themselves as though there is an objective right answer is both snarky and condescending.

Folks are falling for well confirmed lies.

When people fall for blatant, untrue propaganda, they are dupes. Democratically empowered dupes, but dupes none the less.

> Folks are falling for well confirmed lies.

Sure, probably on both sides. But to assume that everyone on one side of an issue, or even most, are dupes is a very dangerous assumption. Not every election outcome has to be rationalized, but in the attempt to do so people build excuses out of easy-to-find-when-digging election issues prevalent in all elections. Then they blindly say that must be the reason or that it only affects one side or that voters are dupes or whatever makes them feel better instead of considering that there is reasonable disagreement. It happens with most election results these days that don't favor the boisterous.

> probably on both sides

Brexiteers keep saying the Remain camp put out lies, but whenever pressed for facts they can't really come up with anything substantial. In contrast to the lies the Leave camp has spouted, which are documented. The pioneers of the Leave camp actually got the hell out of politics when they succeeded. How does that inspire confidence..

So, please, show me how the Remain camp has lied in order to influence the referendum.

I said "probably" because I don't know (I do see plenty of comments suggestion fear mongering about things that wre supposed to have happened by now like recessions, loss of food, loss of medicine, etc). My comment is about foolishly getting hung up on the rhetoric (and assuming voters are too stupid to see through it) instead of the real issues both sides have. Sadly, the response was back to getting hung up on the rhetoric more or less proving my point.

To me it seems pretty clear that you said "probably" out of knee-jerk both-siderism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGArqoF0TpQ

[SMBC Theater, "Both Sides"]

> countries like Russia, Zimbabwe, Turkey etc - where elections are a farce

You underestimate the propaganda of Erdoğan, Putin and the likes. Elections themselves can be actually 100% proper - but for example in Turkey's case, 90% of the media is owned by pro-government people (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_Turkey - Demirören group is managed by this guy: https://www.haber61.net/images/upload/erdogan_demiroren_basb.... And Çalık is managed by Erdoğan's relatives). Same story applies to many of the dictatorships.

Whichever way one voted, we were sold a pup. Both sides lied. Which makes the case and result, either way, rather academic.

Farage admitted the morning after the result that the £350m a week to the NHS was a lie. A promise that undoubtedly had considerable impact with the current austerity NHS funding crisis.

> Farage admitted the morning after the result that the £350m a week to the NHS was a lie

The bus was part of the official Vote Leave campaign not Farage’s Leave.EU, so that particular lie is not for Farage to defend. Many others are though.

What lies did the remain side give? We know exactly what we were getting there, the same as what we have.

We knew what we were getting, but that is not what the campaign sold. Both sides ran overwhelmingly negative campaigns.

Ironic that remain was labelled Project Fear as the most direct lies were on the leave side - the £350m that is nowhere near and never has been, and the claims of mass Turkish immigration when Turkey isn't even in the EU stand out as easily memorable.

Remain were less blatant, but gave numerous predictions and estimates of the consequence of leaving. Some were reasonable, from good sources. Others appear to have been back of an envelope escalating wildness like that house prices would fall 10%, then 20, then 25% and more. Often very poor credibility sources but still repeated as though just as credible as the Treasury or BoE etc. Which just gave easy ammunition for the Mail etc.

We haven't left yet so the results are still to be seen.

Except the bus never actually said we'd be giving £350m per week to the NHS. It said "We send the EU £350m a week - let's fund our NHS instead." Nobody in their right mind would assume that means we'd just divert all that money to the NHS, nor is that a decision that the Leave campaigners can make - it's simply a statement that the NHS is grossly underfunded while we send billions of pounds a year across the channel.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com