Hacker News Reader

> And one last thing, the EU was created to economically tie as many countries in Europe together so they would all depend on each other for resources. That way no one country could start world war three.

To me this is one of the most important aspects. It is so sad to see this being unraveled.

I would add the quite inspired Erasmus student exchange program to this - encouraging people to do (parts of) their university studies in a different European country is a brilliant way to perform cross-pollination both with DNA/family ties and ideas. I think this could end up being the most powerful way to guard against future intra-european wars.

erasmus (or orgasmus by some accounts) is indeed the most powerful tool for europeans to unite and figure out that as people we have more that unite us than divide us among nations and different language, manners, you name it...

It's so incredibly efficient that in a worst case, the EU could actually be reduced to being just this program, and still likely fulfill the most important of its goals (peace).

Ergo: UK people, please pressure your politicians to maintain membership of the Erasmus program. (Or something equivalent.)

The idea trade ties prevent war isn't at all credible. The main combatants of WW II had robust trade with each other, particularly Germany and France.

I was unclear. What I meant is that Erasmus is brilliant for

a) making lots of people in all of the european countries related to each other in a big, beautiful and complex manner - thus preventing future wars

b) spreading ideas - good for the economies of the countries and the union

> Such a big decision should have been a two thirds majority.

If I recall correctly, all advisory referendums in the UK have been winnable by a simple majority.

I imagine there would have been an outcry if the bar for leaving the EU was set higher than 50% of voters, especially because the 1975 referendum to remain in (what became known as) the EU had a 50% threshold to succeed.

It's natural that the people on the wrong side of the result feel a bit aggrieved. This is true in any voting system, for any vote - but can induce relatively severe regret for long-lasting or wide-ranging decisions.

The only solution I can suggest in order to minimise regret is to adopt a strategy of "deciding how we decide" as a preliminary step before the actual vote to decide. (The "Remain" camp were fairly sure they'd win the vote, and foolishly neglected to consider this.)

This approach can also be useful in meetings where a technical decision needs to be made. For instance, it might often be preferable to adopt a consent-based process rather than a consensus-based process. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making

Agreeing how to decide something can also be useful in adversarial negotiations, where it is often easier to agree a "fair process" leading to a result than it is to immediately try and haggle about the result itself. (For example: "Will you pay me the average of 3 repair quotes for the damage you did to my car?" vs "Pay me XYZ for the damage you did to my car.")

> If I recall correctly, all advisory referendums in the UK have been winnable by a simple majority.

If "advisory" meant opinion poll, then a 51% result would be meaningful. But as a binding referendum it's ridiculous. We'd never build a control system that flip-flopped wildly at the boundary point the way first-past-the-post elections work.

> The "Remain" camp were fairly sure they'd win the vote, and foolishly neglected to consider this.

It's always the sane people's fault for failing to realize how shitty the trumps and farages are willing to get.

In a practical sense, you're right. When people start racially scapegoating we need to watch out. But in a moral sense, no you aren't right. Their repulsive actions aren't our fault, especially not simply because we failed to stop them.

The Brexit referendum is not legally binding. Parliament will have to vote on Brexit, too.

It will have to vote on the final agreement at the end of the 2 year negotiation, but May is refusing to have it vote on triggering Article 50, i.e. actual Brexit.

That will the Supreme Court to decide. Its decision is expected on Jan 24.

Just a little (to me, important) correction: You mean 52% of the UK THAT voted. The turnout was 72%. So 37% of the electorate (not 37% of the population, as a lot of young people that would like a saying in such a drastic change that will affect them the most, couldn't get their voice heard either).

Good point, very true.

> Such a big decision should have been a two thirds majority

Two-thirds majority may not have been reached this referendum but it would have been eventually. Euro-scepticism has been festering in the UK for some time and is surging in France [1]

Most of the British public believe that immigration controls need to be tightened [2] something that is not possible when being a member of the EU.

[1] - http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2014-05-10...

[2] - https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inline...

Another thing to keep in mind is that the French Hollande administration will be out of job shortly (in May this year), so whatever they say doesn't matter that much. The centre-right is most likely to win the elections now, and they may have a more business friendly approach to the negociation with the UK.

> Brexit will hurt the EU more than it will hurt the UK

How do you figure that?

Purely speculative, just a hunch I have.

> Remember that 52% of the UK voted to leave the EU which leaves the other 48% hurt that you paint us with the same brush. Such a big decision should have been a two thirds majority.

Absolutely. This is an example of how unreasonable it is for politicians to make these sort of changes on the weak mandates that they have.

Have you considered how conservative this sentiment is? Have you tried applying it to any other controversial decisions?

Yeah, I don't want us to allow abortion by 51% either even though I am pro-choice. That doesn't convince anyone and just sets them up to try to repeal it as soon as the sentiment swings 2%.

When a politician elected with maybe 40% of the popular vote, from the 65% of people who vote, gets a 51% advisory mandate from those few who show up to vote in the referendum, it's a pretty weak reason to drag everyone else along. Democracy is built on the idea of false consensus. That once enough people decide on something that it doesn't matter if others do. The closer we go to simple-majority, the worse that is.

fwiw, I find it funny that you think that's conservative. I get more feedback that it's hyper-liberal. I don't think either are correct.

It's conservative in the most literal sense, as in conserving the status quo.

Sorta. But it's not that I think we'd never get 52%. Or 66%. I'm not trying to set a higher bar just to stop political change, but to make it more inclusive when it happens.

To get those higher mandates we'd have to try to pass less-controversial things. Again, not that it's meant keep us here as if this is a special reference frame that I cherish, but that it would force us to reach out to both sides and find change everyone can support.

Both parties in the US election were looking to force their politician on everyone else. A healthier answer would be if we picked everyone's compromise president. But first-past-the-post is designed to produce all-or-nothing outcomes.

> Remember that 52% of the UK voted to leave the EU

No they didn't (if "UK" = "population of the UK")

I meant the electorate that bothered to vote. Not the entire UK. Shamefully not the young people.

Politics, along with Civics, Ethics and Financial Education should be a mandatory part of our education system from the beginning of secondary school.

The cynic in me might suggest that it isn't because having the people uneducated on these matters greatly benefits a certain wealthy and influential section of society.