By organizing an abstract opinion poll, the government just prepared a shit show, there no way to make any significant chunk of the population happy, everybody had a different view of brexit.
Yes it is. Asked "do you want to fundamentally change status quo in some random yet to be decided way that most experts warn you will result in chaos" population should have voted "no".
Population would have voted "no" if just a few more young people cared enough to get their asses to the voting booths.
The lessons from Brexit are the same as the lessons from Trump in USA, Kaczyński in Poland, Orban in Hungary: 1. vote 2. don't vote populists. 3. don't disregard warnings of experts. 4. don't buy conspiracy theories. 5. don't engage in witch hunts against minorities and don't vote people who do so.
It's not a lot to expect of people. It's the bare minimum if democracy is to work at all.
Cameron is at fault too, of course. Shouldn't have played with the fire. But some politicians will play with fire if there's a profit to be made and power to get. It's the voters who have to stop them, not the other way.
I really don't rate the Guardian for all of its content, this particular article explains well and is reasonably sourced
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/young-peopl...
Wouldn't exit polls record the ages of voters though? Seems strange that there's so little data on this.
The details were left to be sorted out later and that's where all the trouble is.
If the details of Brexit were included in the referendum, there wouldn't be any trouble in implementing it.
But, you can bet that the ~half of voters that wanted Brexit aren't even in agreement on how to implement it, let alone trying to gain the support of all those that never wanted it to begin with.
In the end the referendum was more of an opinion poll than legislation that voters could analyze and make an informed decision.
I don't think you can fault the voters for answering the questions put to them. It's not like the ballot comes with a comment box: "I want independence from the EU, but I'm also concerned that you didn't think through how to implement it." They just vote Yes and expect politicians to do their job.
Britain is the second largest net contributor to the EU next to Germany. Britain will be absolutely fine.
But EU agreed to the decision? UK didn't.
> Britain will be absolutely fine.
We will see I guess :)
However, the UK will lose the huge amount of influence it has at the moment on the world stage, will be pressured by bigger economies to accept unfavorable trade deals and deregulation (US food standards, VISAs, etc) and its manufacturing will be severely damaged; it could possibly collapse entirely. The irony is that this will likely create a wave of unemployment in the very regions that voted in favour of Brexit.
But regardless of the consequences, if you think people voted for a "no deal" when they voted Brexit, you are deluded. Let's illustrate my point with a few quotes:
"The free trade agreement that we will ahve to do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history" - Liam Fox - 2017
"Getting out of the EU can be quick and easy - the UK holds most of the cards in any negotiation" - John Redwood - 2016
"Within minutes of a vote for Brexit, CEO's would be knocking down Chancellor Merkel's door demanding access to the British market" - David Davis 2016
“It is also true that the single market is of considerable value to many UK companies and consumers, and that leaving would cause at least some business uncertainty, while embroiling the Government for several years in a fiddly process of negotiating new arrangements, so diverting energy from the real problems of this country – low skills, low social mobility, low investment etc – that have nothing to do with Europe.” - Boris Johnson 2016
As you can see, no deal is far from the position that was pushed to the people, even after the vote had occurred. Saying people voted for a "no deal" because they voted for Brexit is disingenuous. Long gone is the time of "Having our cake and eat it"
Not what I said. I said they voted to leave regardless of deal. So if EU doesn't want to make a deal then so be it. The no-deal hysteria seems entirely contrived by the remainers as far as I can tell.
A favourable deal from the EU was never going to happen prior to leaving. The negotiations BEGIN once Britain leaves and they explore their options - which appear to be considerable quite frankly. The EU is in trouble, not Britain.
While some people were undoubtedly ok with a downside (especially if that cost was bourne by others, e.g. pensioners with guaranteed incomes and no jobs to lose), many leave voters accepted assurances "this would be the easiest negotiation ever". Remainers pointing out there was a downside were roundly condemned for "talking down Britain".
On the other end of the spectrum, leaving the EU, but remaining under all EU regulations, staying in the free trade / free movement / etc laws, being in a similar position as now, paying massive divorce bills and paying essentially membership fees / EU taxes with no return EU investment into the UK and with no voice or representation in the EU politics at all, the whole 'vassal state' thing, could be technically "leaving the EU" as well. But that's also not what anyone voting to leave meant either.
"Out at any price / In at any price" is as absurd a polarisation as the above examples.
People have been trying to paint this as a binary issue - ever since the referrendum put it in such a YES/NO terminology. But we're not binary creatures, life is messy and complex.
I would be curious to know about why the EU is in trouble; in my opinion the UK is, and massively. Brexiters have sold leaving the EU as the solution to a wide range of issues (housing, health, immigration, etc) and when people will realise all of this was extraordinarily optimistic (not to say, a lie), there will be a certain uprising and it won’t be pretty. We could also mention that the union is also at risk, from the non respect of the Belfast agreement to the fact that Scotland and Northern Ireland did not vote for Brexit: independence desires could loom again, and it could become very real very soon.
Every sensible organisation in this country have warned against a no deal and the catastrophic effect it would have. -8% GDP according to the government’s analysis. But yeah bloody remainers, the source of all misery...
Have you read the EU's no deal plan? Ireland's no deal plan?
Their plan is this: - Allow the UK to keep trading with the EU on WTO terms - Do not halt trade with the UK. No need to, damages both. - No border in Northern Ireland. They won't build it, we won't build it, empty threat. - Boats, Lorries, Ferries to continue as normal until agreements made. Guess what, this is what real independent nations do with eachother.
Ireland's agriculture industry sells 80% of its produce to the UK. It's in big trouble with no trade.
Germany sells lots of cars to the UK. It's in big trouble with no trade.
4 Million EU citizens live here, they are in big trouble with no reciprocal agreement.
French, German and Spanish fishermen rely on British waters to for fishing as they are rather lucrative - to great detriment of the British fishing industry. They are in trouble when we take them back.
Spain, France, Italy and Germany are all having economic issues the UK isn't particularly having right now. Look at jobs, youth unemployment etc.
18% of the EU's goods are exported to the UK. The whole EU is in trouble with no trade. The reverse figure is fake news thanks to the rotterdam effect.
That 8% GDP figure is ridiculous and proven to be wrong [https://capx.co/the-bank-of-englands-brexit-forecasts-arent-...]. The assumptions it makes are the worst possible and completely unrealistic. Those figures suggest that the effect on the UK economy would be worse than WW2 - a time where Europe was occupied by a hostile power and Britain was at war with trade convoys regularly being sunk.
Personally I'd be happy for Scotland to leave the Union. They are a net receiver of English taxes. Also, would never be granted EU membership thanks to our hypocritical friends in Spain and their own issue with certain parts of their country declaring independence.
The EU suits large corporations. It keeps wages for the least skilled in our society as low as possible, more workers means less pay.
All we are asking for is to be an independent nation state, just like more than 150 other countries.
I have never said countries from the EU would not be impacted economically by a 'no deal' scenario. It would be bad for the whole continent. I was commenting on the "the UK will be perfectly fine, the EU is the one in trouble". Nonetheless, the economy of the UK is hugely dependant on the EU (financial services, JIT manufacturing, etc.) and the UK will greatly suffer from a no-deal. Quoting a highly biased and very specific article from a man who has been pushing for Brexit from the very start will not change the facts; a man, by the way, who said that leaving the EU with no-deal was more important than respecting the Belfast agreement. By the way, he also said that the UK would be even around 2030 (and he is a rather optimistic individual when it comes to Brexit): https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqTgF9QXQAADxR5.jpg (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/shortcuts/2018/jul/24/t...)
I also hope that I am wrong, but I can definitely feel a xenophobic underlying tone in your message. That's regrettable.
I have zero doubts that there is going to be a hard border within a year after a hard brexit. There is already a massive duty fraud problem with the UK https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-warns-uk-again-to-recoup-... which would only escalate.
I have the impression that most EU goverments are just fed up with this british farce and want it to be over and the UK gone.
Behind the scenes however, the British seem to stay important. The safekeeping of the Gladio operatives' names, Steele's involvement against Trump, the UK national who started the White Helmets, ... I have the vague feeling that les rosbifs seem to pop up a lot where the action is, just not too obviously.
Or just people don't like bashing them for voting populists :)
I don't understand the need to youth-bash here. Turnout for young people was pretty similar to that of older demographics. There was a generational gap in how people voted, but not so much in whether they voted or not. [1]
https://www.opinium.co.uk/did-young-people-bother-to-vote-in...
In fact, turnout was 64% among 18-24 year olds and 65% among 25-39 year old, which is closer to the population average than could have been expected.
Poe's law again. What's up with these posts?
Voting, at its core, is a popularity contest. How exactly do you NOT vote for populists?
> Daniele Albertazzi and Duncan McDonnell define populism as an ideology that "pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous 'others' who are together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity, and voice".
I don't have problems recognizing politicians propagating such views. Do you?
Just today I voted about an energy act, a police act and a residence planning act. I admit that I didn't study the law texts carefully. Instead I read the neutral explanation of the government and both explanations of the pro and contra committees and decided whether the reasonings convinced me or not.
So even in Switzerland you could get the proverbial shit show if someone managed to convince the people with misleading arguments, and I am afraid this already happened a few times.
And trying to use such evidence in court could be repealed then as obtained illegally. (Surveillance without a warrant.) The spirit of the law is to allow reasonably incidental recording only. A zoom camera pointed at your window is not covered, neither are directional microphones etc.
Law is not an algorithm. It is executed by judges and jurors.
(Note: not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc.)
The referendum should have been held now: "We have this deal prepared, would you leave with this deal, leave with no deal, or remain?"
They want May to come up with a better plan for a "No deal" Brexit. To take a much harder stance against the EU in negotiations. THAT's why they voted against her.
I feel like this is going in a VERY different direction than is being implied in the comments here.
And let's be honest here: it might work. In the EU, in all countries where I can understand the language: France, Belgium, Ireland, the Netherlands there are artikels on the front page of the main newspaper about companies lobbying to force their governments to simply break ranks with the EU in case of "No deal": to have a trade pact with the UK ready to go March 29. In theory, that's not legal, but there is precedent. If the UK can get trade deals with the US (which is not going to be a problem), Ireland, Belgium, France and the Netherlands, the damage of a no deal Brexit will be limited quite a bit. A "fuck the lot of you. No deal !" approach ... it's not out of the question that they actually make it work.
Plus, you know, it's clearly what the majority of the voters want and in theory both the UK and these European countries are democracies. On would think that would make it simple.
And then there's the question of what happens if Juncker gets called on his bluff. AFD, 5*, Lega Nord and FN will certainly see their hand strengthened quite a bit if the UK blows up their EU membership and actually gets away with it. Talk about worst possible outcome for everyone.
The EU should say "ok ... voters decided, sucks, but let's make this work. Let's give the UK a fair exit and a fair trade deal". That is in the interest of everyone in the EU AND everyone in the UK ... with the notable exception of the EU politicians themselves.
Non-EU countries make trade deals with the EU who is collectively acting on their member states behalf.
There will _NEVER_ be a "side" trade deal between Britain and an EU member state directly.
Don't feel too bad about not knowing this. The original Minister for Brexit David Davis (& embarrassingly enough a former Europe minister) also didn't know this.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minister-for-...
> However one of the main basic features of the European Union is that EU countries cannot negotiate individual trade deals without side countries and instead do so as a bloc of 28.
For example, Switzerland has trade deals that explicitly exclude certain EU member states (notably but not exclusively Romania). France has oil trade deals with African countries and China. And so on and so forth.
And of course there's the Swiss, Denmark and Norwegian middle-ground situations.
99% sure that is an impossibility but willing to take a look at any refs/articles you could link?
> Switzerland has trade deals that explicitly exclude certain EU member states
Similarly, pretty sure this is an impossibility. Any trade agreements are with and available to (all members of) the EU under the same set of conditions or they're not and they(Switzerland) would then trade under WTO rules.
Now you could say there's some excuse here. The oil in question technically never enters the EU, so it "doesn't have to" follow EU legislation (which prohibits dealing commercially with Iran). I'm sure if necessary something like that will be pointed out. Maybe it's also "not" Total selling the oil, but obviously they get part of the profit. And I'm sure there's some reason "Iran is not involved at all".
Also worth pointing out: the US has in the meantime successfully forced Total, over the LOUD protest of both French and German governments to abandon this deal.
2) https://www.expatica.com/ch/moving/visas/guide-for-eu-efta-c...
You can see the rules about employing Romanian and Bulgarian citizens (which are EU citizens) in Switzerland are very different from employing, say, French or German citizens. Note that this is one of the things the UK now tells Britain is non-negotiable. Somehow in practice another (labour related) trade deal the EU ... has negotiated it.
Of course, there are historical reasons for this, but of course that's true for all trade deals.
Any other EU company could have done the same.
re: 2) Seems like that provision was in the agreement Switzerland made with the EU:
from: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/freedom-of-movement_sw...
> Switzerland first activated such a safeguard clause – a controversial instrument of its complex dealings with the EU – in 2012, to limit the number of citizens arriving from certain new member countries who joined the EU in 2004..
They are getting a fair exit and trade deal.
That's what is happening now. Britain seems to be slowly realising that them being part of the EU was more beneficial to them (& the EU) than any other way.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46899466
PM May's interpretation merits repeating I think:
She will "continue to work to deliver on the solemn promise to the people of this country to deliver on the result of the referendum and leave the European Union"
Having watched the video, it might be relevant to add the response was applause. It seems to me that when push comes to shove, the conservatives seem to be operating under the conviction that another "Exit EU" referendum would have the same result. Whilst I have no way to know if that's right or not, I would argue that they do represent the majority of the people of Britain and therefore know better than I do.
As they are entitled to...Doesn't change anything really. Nobody wins with a hard Brexit but there's only so far the EU can go with concessions before it no longer makes sense. That point has been (roughly) hit.
Secondly, that deal being voted down doesn't mean everybody who voted it down thought there was a better deal out there. Labour and friends want to stay in the EU. They wouldn't attend May's planning unless a hard brexit was taken off the table(British version of saying/not US version).
It's quite telling that both Remainers & Leavers viewed the vote failing as a success.
So in effect consensus seems to be that the EU is risking a hard Brexit in the same way you do: threaten the British public with exactly what they voted they wanted, in hopes of achieving the opposite (no Brexit at all).
Furthermore: negotiations do not appear to be all that friendly. E.g. https://www.ft.com/content/9c59a204-fc6d-11e8-aebf-99e208d3e... as to how enthousiastic Irish citizens are about this particular problem, read this https://www.ft.com/content/ec894272-18db-11e9-9e64-d150b3105...
I think it's clear that I think this is dishonest, putting the interests of politicians ahead of those of the population, and to boot it's risky. The EU population does not want this at all, quite the reverse. They want trade with the UK to be as unaffected as possible, which of course means a trade deal that's as favorable to the UK as possible. Second the EU population certainly does not want to eat the economic hits that a hard Brexit would bring and expects their politicians to prevent this scenario.
I fear that if an election is called in the UK, which is the almost inevitable outcome of delaying or stopping Brexit, the end result will be a disorderly "fuck you" Brexit when conservatives gain another 10% of the vote with a promised firm hard Brexit negotiating stance. At that point Ireland, and perhaps France will suddenly find that the Euro is a serious impediment to their ability to react to limit the damage, and London will be able to adapt. This will further amplify the already anti-EU parties in France, Italy and Germany, and at this point it won't take much to force centrist parties in both countries to become anti-EU and propagate further.
An additional worry is that we're 10 years into the best economic situation we've seen in Europe in >50 years. This is the situation we're in, with essentially the best possible economic background. That at some point the economy will turn is inevitable, and it will further amplify anti-EU stances like it always does. If politicians find a way to combine both forces to hit at the same time, I don't even want to try to predict what could happen.
1) UKIP (or a coalition of Brexit-minded parties) wins general election.
2) PM Nigel Farage opens withdrawal negotiations with the EU.
3) 2+ years later, with a complete withdrawal agreement on the table, a referendum is held on whether to accept the deal.
4) If at least 50% of voters support the withdrawal agreement, it comes into effect within two months.
This is not a pipe dream — it's exactly how the countries who joined EU in 1995 did it.
David Cameron is entirely to blame for this ongoing sad charade that makes a mockery of UK's democratic processes.
Of particular interest is where the massive pile of cash that funded the Leave campaign actually came from.
So the US managed to destabilize the Soviet Union. Threats from NATO and strategic nuclear weapons forced the Soviets to spend so much on defense that the civilian economy was destroyed. And yes, corruption and incompetence also played a huge role. Add saturation with VoA messages about the US consumer economy, and the Soviet Union collapsed. And more recently, they messed with Georgia, and finally engineered Ukraine independence. Not to mention Syria.
Russia has also sought to destabilize Western Europe and the US. For a long time, it was mainly messages about the communist paradise. And in the 60s, promoting protest against the Vietnam war, and pushing isolationism.
But then, in the late 80s, the message shifted to distrusting government, conspiracy theories, etc. I mean, look at RT! And more recently, basically the alt-right, with its overt racist overtones.
I don't know the UK situation well, but it's pretty clear that Russia promoted Brexit to destabilize the EU, and so NATO.
> And in the 60s, promoting protest against the Vietnam war
This really takes the biscuit. Opposition to war is not evidence of a Russian plot, it is evidence of common sense. Without even considering if the Vietnam war made a lick of sense, any healthy democracy should at a minimum have some protests when it engages in a war of aggression.
> But then, in the late 80s, the message shifted to distrusting government, conspiracy theories, etc.
I don't think this affects your main point, but irony here is that "Russian Influence" is clearly a conspiracy theory. It might turn out true, as a number of conspiracy theories do, but still. Maybe the Russians have got to you :P
So I'm not arguing that the Soviets created the antiwar opposition. But they clearly helped it develop. As I understand it, the main actors were domestic US communists, who were encouraged to join the movement, help train and organize, and so on. I was there, and I was part of it.
About Russian-influence conspiracy theory, have you actually watched RT very much? They've been trolling disgruntled Americans for almost 15 years. As subversive as VoA ever was, they've been total straight shooters compared with RT.
This is also what I say to the Americans who insist Trump doesn't represent America because Clinton won the popular vote. Yeah, technically correct, but it doesn't really change how I view the American people.
Reading the history of American foreign policy, it’s difficult to see it otherwise. It’s one long list of screwing other countries to serve the interests of the American people. That list contains a lot of bungled operations so the goals weren’t achieved some of the time. America has had 0 issues propping up brutal, venal, self-serving dictators if it meant benefit to America. Examples include Iran, Iraq, Cuba, Chile, Pakistan, Egypt, Afghanistan. These are the ones I can name off hand.
At the same time, American leaders are quick to get on their high horse talking about the values of democracy. Talk is cheap though.
Even after all that, our view of America dropped precipitously with the election of Donald Trump. I think it’s safe to say that a democracy elects people who embody the electorate. You know what Trump is like. That’s how we think of you (as a whole) right now. However, as a great man once said “some, I assume, are good people”.
If you’d like to learn more about the misadventures of America in the Middle East in particular check out The Silk Roads by Peter Frankopan. The last few chapters cover the 20th and 21st centuries.
I'm Russian.
> sorry if it hurts
You aren't.
The American State is run by the American Government in accordance with the wishes of the American People. That's the definition of Democracy, which the American Government has trumpeted for at least 80 years, perhaps more.
The foreign policy of the American Government is chosen by American Leaders in a way that benefits the American People while also keeping the Leaders in power. If there is a conflict between the two goals, the latter goal takes precedence. Again, that is a feature of Democracy that America trumpets.
When that foreign policy goes to shit and causes misery to the rest of the world, the world blames the American Government and the American People, who represent the United States of America.
All of this is blindingly obvious.
I think these are good examples. I agree. Though don't I don't agree with your overall assessment.
America elect representatives (not leaders) and it seems overwhelmingly to be the case that its representatives haven't been in control of its own government. The accountability structure broke and this has been going on for decades (probably since JFK) or perhaps even earlier.
America gives more foreign aid and has more immigration than all other countries combined. Its constitution is the longest standing foundational document in the world and genuinely (at least on paper) gives the people liberty and justice for all. America changes at a very rapid pace given its emphasis on liberty and immigration.
I think America is overwhelmingly a force for good in the world despite its rogue out of control agencies doing very bad things. Even so I deeply respect America as a nation. Given the age and the huge amount of power that has been consolidated its going through some inevitable problems. I think the American people are resilient and have the character to get through these times.
I'm really not interested in nitpicking beyond that. Talk to someone else or go elsewhere if you are.
Many people do erroneously call the US a democracy, but that doesn't make it correct or irrelevant.
It is interesting how all the yellow jackets, the maga folks, and the brexiters are all brutes easily influenced by nepharious forces against their own good. Especially when others manipulate their sometimes violent primitive tendencies.
It is interesting that all opposition to the predominant narrative really should be better informed, and listen to the ones that know better.
I wouldn't say it's in opposition to globalism or always blamed on Russia. I'd rephrase it as, "It is interesting how any movement in opposition to [what the most vocal want] is caused by [election fraud] and [uninformed voters]." It's actually not that interesting though, it's an attempt to rationalize dissonance. Often based on facts with little evidence of effect. Such facts are uncovered, easily in most cases, by those searching to find them which is why the problems only appear to apply to the victors.
So do you think that nations don't intervene covertly in other nations? What about the US in Iran (1953) or Chile (60s)? And so why is it so improbable that Russia is doing it?
And recall the study by Prof. Igor Panarin (former KGB analyst) predicting that the US will fragment. Maybe it's more like a game plan.
So he's recreated the KGB.[0]
0) https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/09/21/putin-has-finally-reinc...
Edit: That is, I think that it's personal, for him. A matter of honor.
https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/www.rbth.com/document/5aa678c...
Russian Foreign Intelligence Service is still separated from FSB/KGB.
edit: wording. Definitely not a russian intelligence agent :)
However, that doesn’t mean the movements of dissent is caused by this. They could be, or they could be a symptom of the problems not solved by a long term malfunctioning Democratic system. And the malfunctioning could be some other more major political ideology.
Since when is "Europe is gonna be islamized by refugees" a legitimate concern? It's not backed by facts in any way! The point is these "concerns" are fabricated outright or massively exaggerated by propaganda. Which is to a huge part a fault of Facebook as they failed to curb abuse.
And the US do much direct and violent interventions in lots of foreign countries. This is bread and butter for international politics. The western mainstream media now pretend to have an outcry now that such tactics are befalling themselves, which is really ironic.
Sure. There was always a single village moron (in German: Dorftrottel, no idea how to translate it) but he was ignored by society. Now, however, all the village morons worldwide are connected - and can claim massive followings and reach capability on social media. This is the key difference.
> but there are always some basis behind it, e.g. job loss and wage stagnation due to globalization etc.
Back in ye olde times, people went off, went on strikes and went after the employers to gain their rights and higher wages. Thanks to the propaganda, now they go after migrants, Muslims, Jews, PoC, whatever - but the capitalist elites get left alone. Which coincides with the funding for many right-wing organizations coming from very wealthy individuals (e.g. Koch, Mercer, or in Germany August von Finck).
> And the US do much direct and violent interventions in lots of foreign countries.
Sure, but that's a bit of whataboutism. I don't really like many of the things that the US have done (especially historically), but that does not excuse the stuff that China and Russia do.
Why don't you just say what you bloody well mean, so we can discuss it properly, instead of making these lofty implications that don't pin you down to anything?
But yes, I get that this was a concern for Brexit supporters. I'm just arguing that Russia exploited it.
Nowadays it seems to lack some of the professionality of former times and sometimes looks more like hobby projects of Kremlin figures and Oligarchs to curry some favour.
Tradition, local competency, low cost and risk due to social platforms and online news make it a good fit for present day Russia.
I think that what the OP is saying is that it's way too easy to always blame it on someone else when actually it's the voters' responsibility. We are definitely influenced by media, however, ultimately it's up to us to decide who to vote for, so it's our responsibility. Ignoring it doesn't make us less accountable.
There is an argument that this view is too simplistic and that the trade situation is complicated; but it seems a lot more plausible than a Russian conspiracy to ... do something.
There is always some level of background interference by foreign nations (as an Australian I shudder to think how much influence the US must have over Australia's politics in practice) but typically it would be cheaper to buy off or otherwise influence entrenched politicians rather than try to influence popular votes. I expect the Russians can figure that out too.
"The United Kingdom should be cut off from Europe.[9]"
"Ukraine should be annexed by Russia because "Ukraine as a state has no geopolitical meaning, no particular cultural import or universal significance, no geographic uniqueness, no ethnic exclusiveness, its certain territorial ambitions represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics". Ukraine should not be allowed to remain independent, unless it is cordon sanitaire, which would be inadmissible.[9]"
"Russia needs to create "geopolitical shocks" within Turkey. These can be achieved by employing Kurds, Armenians and other minorities.[9]"
"Russia should manipulate Japanese politics by offering the Kuril Islands to Japan and provoking anti-Americanism.[9]"
"Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics".[9]"
From "Foundations of Geopolitics" by Alexandr Dugin. Putin has repeatedly cited his works and the book is used as a textbook by the Russian military.
However, that doesn’t mean the movements of dissent is caused by this. They could be, or they could be a symptom of the problems not solved by a long term malfunctioning Democratic system.
Then take both with a bit of a grain of salt, but think what it would mean if both that seem to support each other’s assertion just told partially the truth.
[1] https://youtu.be/y3qkf3bajd4
[2] https://www.amazon.com/Willing-Accomplices-Influence-Politic...
Now, if someone challenges you and you are easily defeated, then it means you don't deserve to be the leader. If our leadership is failing, then so be it, they don't deserve to rule the world.
Blaming brexit on Russia is new to me, albeit not surprising.
Brexit was a timed event destined to happen for the simple reason that Germany France and Great Britain cannot rule at the same time. They never could and they never will.
And Great Britain for one reason or the other found itself behind, they were unable to do push their supremacy over Germany and France. Either you leave or you knee, or you fight. They were unable to force other powerful countries to make them do what they wished, as they had done in the last 6 centuries before.
The world would be a lot better if a country that detects weakness in another didn't immediately look to exploit this. We can say it's human nature but when we start to talk about 'deserving' an outcome, we start to talk about the world like it's dogfighting.
I expect that most racism/sexism/bigotry generally comes from prior manipulation too.
A person that does the creative arts is generally very open minded.
In the end it was a younger pupil and far too many people used their surname as password.
I doubt that a significant part of the population are reiterating Kremlin-propaganda.
It seems to be a hysterical Red Scare 2.0, just from a different political side, that is just as opportunistic.
If you always see Putin in your dreams, I doubt you should point a finger on people and diagnose any form of manipulation.
There are certainly some bots, but I doubt Russia is represented disproportionally. Just the language barrier alone would lessen their numbers significantly. It often just serves as a convenient excuse for political defeat.
Putin is totalitarian dick. Why not just leave it at that instead of accusing people of asserting his will?
for the first time
I totally agree, it is interesting! Here is some required reading on the subject: https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5011321-Khus... It's the federal criminal complaint against Elena Khusyaynova[1] which details her activities at the Internet Research Agency and other Russian psyops sites:
> The Conspiracy has a strategic goal, which continues to this day, to sow division and discord in the US. political system, including by creating social and political polarization, undermining faith in democratic institutions, and influencing US. elections, including the upcoming 2018 midterm election. The Conspiracy has sought to conduct What it called internally "information warfare against the United States of America" through fictitious U.S. personas on social media platforms and other Internet-based media.
> Members of the Conspiracy, posing as US. persons, operated fictitious social media personas, pages, and groups designed to attract U.S. audiences and to address divisive US. political and social issues or advocate for the election or electoral defeat of particular candidates. These personas, groups, and pages falsely claimed to be controlled by US. activists when, in fact, they were controlled by members of the Conspiracy.
---
> any opponent of the progressivism pushing for this is obviously an racist/sexist/bigot.
There's an interesting bit that relates to this:
> Members of the Conspiracy were directed to create political intensity through supporting radical groups, users dissatisfied with [the] social and economic situation and oppositional social movements. The Conspiracy also sought, in the words of one member of the Conspiracy, to "effectively aggravate the conflict between minorities and the rest of the population."
The document goes into great detail about the specific tactics employed. I strongly suggest you (and everyone else) read it in full.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Khusyaynova
---
Edit: One more interesting thing from the complaint is this bit:
> Conspiracy's effort to sow discord in the US political system, members of the Conspiracy used social media and other internet platforms to inflame passions on a wide variety of topics, including immigration, gun control and the Second Amendment, the Confederate flag, race relations, LGBT issues, the Women's March, and the NFL national anthem debate. Members of the Conspiracy took advantage of specific events in the United States to anchor their themes, including the shootings of church members in Charleston, South Carolina, and concert attendees in Las Vegas, Nevada; the Charlottesville "Unite the Right" rally and associated Violence; police shootings of African-American men; as well as the personnel and policy decisions of the current US. administration.
What I find especially interesting is how well this passage (in addition to other descriptions given throughout the complaint) seems to describe your own HN post history, almost to a T! I just read through your entire (relatively short) post history and as best as I can tell, you have exactly one post which neither directly relates to one of the above subjects nor is nakedly inflammatory political rhetoric. Specifically you seem to have particular affinities for:
* Race relations: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18803533
* Women's issues: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18763486
* Specific (politically charged) events: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18888092
* LGBT issues: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18904507
Interesting indeed, my friend. Interesting indeed.
Also, the US have probably engaged in far more foreign inferences which are much more direct and violent than these events where Russia had a (shadowy) share. Ironic that now the western world are in uproar now that they are subject to some of their own classic tactics eh?
Please, don't buy into that divisive rhetoric.
Repudiation of the story that the leavers feel economically left behind [1]. Some Leavers certainly felt economically left behind, but many did not. Research has since shown that three groups were key to the Brexit vote:
- Left Behind Leavers, who were working-class, struggling financially, almost never had a degree, were in their forties or fifties and most of whom did not identify with the main parties or supported the UK Independence Party.
- Blue-Collar Pensioners, who were also working-class but retired, and so less likely to be struggling financially and tended to vote for Conservative.
- Affluent Eurosceptics, who were much less likely to identify as working-class, more affluent, more likely to have a degree and tended to vote Conservative.
While we hear much about the first two groups we have heard very little about the third, and only the first would support the predominant narrative to some degree.
[1] http://natcen.ac.uk/our-research/research/understanding-the-...
## source dismissive attitudes to brexit claims
Some sources on it being dismissed as nostalgia:
[4] http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/05/brexit...
[5] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/07/buildi...
Some source on it being dismissed as empire 2.0:
[6] http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/775399/empire-2-uk-improve-...
Many of the other points about how Brexit voters are portrayed vs reality is listed here [2] and [3].
## other articles on the topic
More expansive analysis can be found in:
[7] https://areomagazine.com/2017/04/21/eurocentrism-remainers-a...
[8] https://quillette.com/2018/08/03/britains-populist-revolt/
Acknowledge that. Blaming the Russians to avoid having to face the uncomfortable truth is only going to hurt you in the long run. Avoid that while you still can.
1. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/may/29/george-soro...
2. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/04/obama-eu-britain-brex...
https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/01/russian-facebook-ad-spend/
Independents and particularly white women elected Trump. They were the most important swing vote that determined the critical states that gave Trump the electoral college edge over Hillary's massive $2 billion political campaign. Hillary's failure to resonate with independent white women and minorities, particularly black voters, sank her campaign.
As soon as he won the nomination, they all fell in line. So clearly he was the "conservative peoples" choice, but not the "conservative establishment" choice. Once he was elected, republicans (even the establishment) further fell into line by continuing to support, condone and cover for his (and the GOP leadership's) corruption.
"Independents and particularly white women elected Trump"
Independents sure but white ... republican women voted for him too. Being a "white woman' does not automatically make you a liberal democrat.
"Hillary's massive $2 billion political campaign"
Cute. All presidential campaigns are massive on the $ scale.
"Hillary's failure to resonate with independent white women and minorities, particularly black voters, sank her campaign."
Lots of factors contributed to Hillary's loss, it was not just "white women and minorities" who failed her.
Anecdotally, the people who have admitted to me (they feel shame BTW) voting for Trump did so out of their own self-interest. They thought they were "shaking up the system".
Hang on, one side was found to have lied and was fined for that.
Nonetheless, having that be the only thing governing one state's relationships with another is so rare and unpleasant that unless that state of affairs is explicitly requested with a declaration of war it is natural to assume something else is intended.
There was talk of 'hard' and 'soft' Brexits.
Mainly there was talk of how we could stay in the single market, and maintain all the good things about EU membership without having to pay any of the costs.
The key quote:
"There is a free trade zone stretching from Iceland to Turkey that all European nations have access to, regardless of whether they are in or out of the euro or EU. After we vote to leave we will stay in this zone. The suggestion that Bosnia, Serbia, Albania and the Ukraine would stay part of this free trade area - and Britain would be on the outside with just Belarus - is as credible as Jean-Claude Juncker joining UKIP."
So here you have one of the two most senior politicians in the Vote Leave campaign, in a flagship speech, saying that after we vote to leave we will continue to enjoy free trade with Europe. Not WTO rules, not even a negotiated deal. He says we'll just "stay in this zone" as if it was a default.
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 silence from chief Brexiteers Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson has been profoundly deafening.
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.
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.
There isn't a single one reason why people voted leave.
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.
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.
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.
When people fall for blatant, untrue propaganda, they are dupes. Democratically empowered dupes, but dupes none the less.
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.
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.
[SMBC Theater, "Both Sides"]
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.
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!)
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".
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.
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.
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.
It's a shitshow for sure, but at least it's a democratic shitshow. Democracy isn't always a bed of roses, sometimes it's chaos, but it is what it is.
The EU council could have offered some reasonable concessions in order to remain, both before and after the referendum, but nada. What really helped the leave vote was not so much shadowy influences but the attitude of the EU council. You can't ignore the elephant in the room.
1. Can you explain the "attitude of the EU" part?
2. If the EU is that bad, why aren't other countries holding referendums and leaving the EU? Why is only the UK making so much noise?
I am not European, so my knowledge on this matter is pretty small. Honestly curious, not being snarky etc.
They want to centralise power more and more, and seem completely oblivious to their own mistakes.
Just an odd example - make fuel from a food crop grown in tropical jungle areas, to save CO2? No surprises how that turned out...
The reason why the EU is perceived so bad in some countries (like the UK) are partly historic and partly because it the EU is the perfect scapegoat for local politicians who have messed things up. In the UK, scapegoating the EU for your own mistakes was particularly common.
Add to this the facts that the Leave campaign lied about practically everything - or at least intentionally distorted the facts - and that many voters don't know much about the structure of the EU, and the Brexit became reality.
It is unlikely that a similar decision will be made in any of the remaining 27 countries, for lack of popular support and because people there are more aware of the benefits of the EU. Never say no, though, fuelled with money from outside the EU, currently right-wing populists are pretty good at exploiting the fact that the divide between the rich and the poor is ever increasing very cleverly, and since poverty will increase in all EU countries, irrational and populist recipes for "the simple man on the street" can continue to gain in popularity. Radical left wing parties have largely the same agenda, so these are interchangeable.
So it's possible that one or two countries might attempt to exit the EU after some populist party has won an election. It's unlikely, though, because the EU offers overall way more benefits than disadvantages. It's budget is ridiculously cheap in terms of percentage of GDP and you get a lot of bang for the bucks out of the trade union alone. Moreover, future generations are fairly pro-EU in most member countries (though there are some outliers).
I think you're wilfully ignoring what has been happening in Ireland, Greece, France and Italy in recent years.
From the start the only one with any kind of power in the negotiations was the EU.
What do I expect them to do? Act solely in the interests of their pay packet and party. What should they do? Act in the interests of the nation. That was once supposed to be the point.
They could have sought concessions or adjustments from the EU as precursor to a second referendum. The few times another EU nation has rejected a treaty or some aspect of the Union there's been something of a renegotiation and a second referendum.
Since the ridiculous Fixed Parliaments Act there needs to be a super-majority to call a UK election early. Why not with a referendum for a change of such consequence?
Were the EU not such a divisive issue, for the whole 40 years of our EU membership, within the Tory party, they might have approached the issue with a little more honesty. It could all have SO easily been avoided.
Do people really forget David Cameron's renegotiation prior to the referendum that quickly?
He came out of that looking the fool and if anything actually helped the leave campaign.
Just look at May now and imagine Cameron in her shoes. No politician wants this.
Allowing the referendum was an interesting but silly motion already, a gross miscalculation.
They should expect a plain exit. With that done, a good deal with the USA is possible. The threat of that could instead get them a great deal with the EU, and they may even do well with both.
Desperate begging is the current plan though... that won't end well.
Small is not beautiful in global trade.
Protectionism is what we like to think of as standards. It improves lives in Europe.
It doesn't really matter how many trade deals or what the trade deals are when VAT, import fees are applied in such a way to equalize the costs of external trade, to the point there isn't much benefit of trading with outside the EU unless they're some how able to significantly reduce costs or pioneer an industry that doesn't exist in the EU.
Even with just the UK utiliziling only the WTO (which the UK has no control over in the EU), the UK could stand to get better trading with the rest of the world than it can within the EU. But, this is not just because it can set the WTO rates.
The UK is not obligated to apply VAT and other fees after it leaves the EU on any imports and it doesn't have to be concerned about applying protectionism in industries that don't even exist in the UK.
> Protectionism is what we like to think of as standards. It improves lives in Europe.
I'm not really sure about which standards you're talking about, but I'll take a couple of the earliest and longest implemented standards that the EU requires, something that Greenland left over in the beginning.
The standards of the common agriculture policy and the common fisheries policies that the UK farming and fishing industires have been lobbying to fix for multiple decades has only lead to the destruction of environments, forcing farmers on quotas who then can't sell their products being forced to then depend on EU subsidies and grants to operate, it has lead to the destruction of much of the industry in the UK which in turn has made in particular, numerous farming and fishing towns become welfare dependent... It's been over 20 years of consistent failing to address these issues.
The worst part of this all is that these issues were completely avoidable, the EU and UK could have actually solved these problems and not let the situation deteriorate to the point that people have become that unhappy that they just want out. I am interested though to hear an opposing view how this improved lives in Europe.
The CFP is a mess, but without something to replace it I suspect fish stocks would simply have been extracted below replacement level.
The essential problem with the Brexit movement is that it's based not on what the EU is but on the distorted view on what the EU is. When you start tackling the specific complaints that people had, it often turns out that it was the British government who had the power to alter the policies, not the EU. (For example, Britain deciding to let in Polish migrant workers after Poland joined the EU in 2004, unlike every other major country in the EU). The EU even conceded that Britain had a perpetual right to opt out of "ever-closer union."
So what could the EU have conceded that would have convinced the die-hard Brexiteers to opt for Remain?
All it would have taken is to swing the referendum result by a few percentage points.
Some moves towards reforming the EU to make it more democratic could have been welcome.
The European Parliament may approve or reject a legislative proposal, or propose amendments to it. The Council is not legally obliged to take account of Parliament’s opinion but in line with the case-law of the Court of Justice, it must not take a decision without having received it.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/about-parliament/en/powers-and...
The European Commission drafts legislation and then the European Parliament decides whether or not to amend or pass the legislation.
Hence, this appointment system, which is additionally kept in check by the European Parliament whose members are elected directly by the voters from all member states.
You could complain that it's too representative, but not that it's not democratic. The alternative of giving the European Parliament more power and let it constitute a "European Government" directly has not been found appealing by the governments of its member states, particularly not by the UK, since they do not want to give away so much of their sovereignty.
Complaining about lack of democracy in the EU while at the same time complaining about lack of national sovereignty is perhaps the most hypocritical and intentionally misleading part of the current populist agenda.
Oh I know you'll tell me of the ignorance and stupidity of the racist, little England British voter and how they need to be 're-educated' but this is hardly a mandate from the people is it?
> ignorance
People can't be proud of not knowing about the EU and complain about being called ignorant at the same time.
(Quite a lot of this is misinformation, frankly - the Mail and the Express run hilariously biased anti-EU campaigns on their front pages.)
Our media are at least partly to blame, tolerating "opinions" on matters of fact and minimising our real exposure to actual things the EU does.
[1]: https://qr.ae/TUnWGJ
I have just completed a European Law module for my Graduate Diploma in Law, and this answer is a really concise and organised version of what I've been trying to say to people since the first few weeks of the course.
I have studied the European Union as an undergraduate politics student and now as a postgraduate law student, and I would totally agree with you that one of the primary issues of the European Union is its perception among citizens. Another commenter here mentioned how low the European Parliament Election turnout is in Britain, I think it was about 34% last time round, and this vote is often used as a 'protest' vote.
The public are not aware of how the European Union is constructed, and they are not aware of how the balance of power is determined. Much of the dialogue before the referendum in the UK was about 'unelected' and 'undemocratic' power in the EU, and this was usually directed towards the commission - a body that has no lawmaking power, and is selected by directly elected bodies(at the EU and Member State levels).
I really think the EU needs to speak louder and more directly to European Citizens about the role it plays and how it functions. Perhaps it does already, but I have not come across much outreach.
Full disclosure: I am an ardent remainer, and believe that whilst the EU is not perfect, we are much better off inside with influence than outside without.
- Nobody in the UK ever voted for an external, supra-national government to have increasing control over numerous and increasing aspects of British life: farming, fishing, immigration, subsidies, etc. etc.
- The EU is openly talking about a unified army, implementation of a law requiring all members to join the Euro and 'tax harmonisation': the removal of sovereign countries to set their own tax policies.
- Oh I know you'll tell me elected chambers that elect councils that distribute swords allocating a table of 7 presidents who nominate a head hobbit but the EU is patently undemocratic: noone knows who's in it, what they do or how they got there. Turnout for EU elections runs around 25% in the UK: it's hardly a mandate from the people is it?
- The EU is very expensive to the UK which makes a net contribution of £9 billion / year. This is money that could be spent on hospitals, teachers, police, etc.
- I know you like the EU because you see it as some hippy, huggy federation of nations but the EU is increasingly right-wing and neo-liberal - you need only look at their criminal treatment of Greece to see that.
-'The EU' might be talking about them, they probably talk about a lot of things that aren't going to happen. And some are probably more reasonable than you are making out.
- I don't agree it's undemocratic, but yes there is poor engagement. I think that's a reason why we voted to leave, rather than a reason to leave in and of itself.
- That's less than 1% of govt spending. That is cheap. Brexit will cut growth, this money may plug the gap, we aren't going to be economically better off after leaving though.
- The EU reflects its citizens, you only have to look at Britain itself to see the same thing happening.
I get that it is a "right wing, populist" thing to oppose the EU, but there are plenty of reasons not to like it.
It's like saying that the UK isn't democratic because the house of lords isn't elected, and neither is our head of state (which is even worse, because democratically elected representatives get absolutely no say in that).
Also, we're mostly a representative democracy. That means we vote for representatives whose job it is to.. represent us. Make decisions on our behalf. etc.
Most of that stuff was in the EEC that the British did vote for. The EU did guarantee that Britain could further opt out of "ever closer union" if it wanted to.
> The EU is openly talking about a unified army, implementation of a law requiring all members to join the Euro and 'tax harmonisation': the removal of sovereign countries to set their own tax policies.
Britain also had a guaranteed opt-out of the Euro. Since Britain and France are the only EU countries with any military capabilities worth speaking out, Britain has an effective veto over any unified military policy.
> The EU is very expensive to the UK which makes a net contribution of £9 billion / year. This is money that could be spent on hospitals, teachers, police, etc.
You do know that the Leave campaign basically said the day after the referendum "oops, this part of our plank was a big, fat, steaming lie"?
> Oh I know you'll tell me elected chambers that elect councils that distribute swords allocating a table of 7 presidents who nominate a head hobbit but the EU is patently undemocratic: noone knows who's in it, what they do or how they got there. Turnout for EU elections runs around 25% in the UK: it's hardly a mandate from the people is it?
I'll grant you that the EU has a hard time trying to overcome apathy in its democratic institutions. But apathy doesn't make it less democratic.
> I know you like the EU because you see it as some hippy, huggy federation of nations
Ha ha ha. No, that's not how I see the EU at all.
Yes, but Tory Britain is even more so.