https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BC_X1M1wAU

Real talk:
Someone suggested to me something earlier that made me consider that perhaps leaving EU was a better idea:
"To become a sovereign state with a bad economy with the potential to recover, or remain a part of a mediocre economy as a province within a superstate."

Speaking for myself, I would ratehr be poor and see democracy ascedant than wealthy and moribund. For me at least the in or out result wasn't so much the issue; it was the right to ask the question that mattered.

yeah, I really don't know much about what's going on, just snippets and what I had mentioned already :/
Both sides have some seriously strong arguments, but it looks like a lot of it all was powered by some huge lies too. It sounds pretty harsh what's going on. I hope everyone's gonna be alright.

Its going to be fine, eventually- hard times to come for a bit, but this has started something. Probably a fresh vote on Scottish independence, which was expected in this result. A lot of mainland countries now looking to call their own referendums, especially the Netherlands and France. Historic times. Lots and lots of salty millenials who couldn't be assed to vote scrambling for the moral high ground and bemoaning democracy with the tired old cries of racisim..

Its going to be fun watching twitter blow up over the next few days.

I am merely wondering at this point, how fast Northern Ireland and Scotland will declare their independence now.

Scotland almost certainly will want another vote, NI might be doubtful. No idea how that vote might go- but I espect that the EU's days are numbered after this. Netherlands and France look set to call votes of their own, Germany will inevitably want a vote too and the Greek question is going to grow more poigniant than ever. Scotland might find itself voting to leave with nowhere to go.

I don't want to live in interesting times...

Anyway two things need to happen for global western domination to end: 1. Trump 2. UK negotiating an out deal with the EU that leaves it with most of the benefits of membership without paying the cost. This will give ammunition to all sorts of Faragesque demagogues around the continent and the union will fall apart country by country, with the side effect of having a demagogue or populist in the likes of kremlin sponsored Le Pen in power. Oh goodie.This whole thing isn't a way to secure sovereignty for a nation, it's a way for populists to win a fight they couldn't possibly win otherwise.

Btw. Tell me with a straight face that the 'breaking point' poster isn't xenophobic and racist.

You certainly raise some good points, perhaps not in the way intended. Trump isn't an issue I will comment on, since it is a matter for the US to deal with internally, even if the sentiments bare superficial similarity. I'll deal entirely with the UK.

I'm inclined to think that by having this vote NOW we have avoided an irreversable onset of the demgoguery that you fear. I will point to the Greek situation to support this assertion; when the EU removed their elected head of state, faith in democracy was lost, and as time wore on few trusted SYRIZA to represent their interests. As a direct result of this Greece has experienced a remarkable rise of both far-left and far-right politics that go so far as to have civil unrest and representatives of the KKE and XE parties clashing violently on the streets of Athens itself.

The message for this is clear. Without a voice to represent their interests, people went to the extremes. The UK was fortunate that it had UKIP to express that concern. Like them or hate them, their politics are about as close to the center as you can hope to get on an issue this charged. The fact that both the CPB and the BNP basically vanished last election highlights people jumping ship when the vote was assured; they don't support prejudice charged insanity, but do want to be heard as a matter of principal.

Now take a look at the UK. Every political party with by far and away the lion's share of representation in the Commons was in favour of a Remain vote. However, with the Leave vote we have seen that the referendum trend did not follow party lines cleanly. There was a distinct break between the desires of the populace and the goals of their representatives. Frankly, we dodged a bullet. A refusal to give a vote would have seen a rise in extremists taking advantage of disenfranchised eurosceptics to fuel their own agendas, just as it has in Greece. Instead, democracy happened. Whether the vote was out or in at this point is immaterial- the point is that people felt their will was heard. It highlighted a break in ideals, but gave a release valve.

Furthermore, by making it plain just how far removed the UK's internal politics are from the wishes of the population it is forcing a re-think in the commons. The era of lazy populism is done; the likes of Blair and Cameron who pander to the talking points of their demographics and run on momentum rather than principal have been discredited, and heads are already rolling. This isn't isolated either, all the parties are going to either have to shape up and represent or lose voters. If the result shows anything at all, it is that the left/right divide in the UK pales in comparison to the libertarian/collectivist divide.

As for the EU, this will likely trigger votes on the issue of EU membership. It is frankly sickening that democracy in the EU takes something this big to FORCE it to happen when the widespread unpopularity of the EU as an increasingly federal entity has been clear for decades. People will finally get their chance to be heard, come what may. I fail to see how allowing the democratic process to take its course is in any way a bad thing.

FYI I couldn't give a crap about the campaign posters. Both campaigns were full of lies, misinformation, and unwarrented accusations of bigotry. There is plenty of blame to dole out at both side's doorsteps in that regard.

This is the problem with direct democracy - public opinion is easily swayed by current events, celebrity demagogues and loud media campaigns. Had the vote happened half a year ago it might have gone the other way. I hear what you say about people not getting their voices heard. But does frustration dictate good choices? Is public opinion even capable of making an educated choice here? With a vote this close why should the 16m that voted stay suffer the consequences of that decision? btw comparing UK to Greece is imo totally unwarranted. Greece is a completely different people, with a different mentality and the country is in a totally different state, has a tradition of exaggerated public unrest and failed governments. I'm not saying their plight is not outrageous. I'm saying Britain is a completely different place with different extremist politics and you cannot extrapolate from the Greek crisis. I'm sorry but simply declaring UKIP close to the center of this issue doesn't cut it. They profess fact selection and intellectually offensive demagoguery to push their point, which is as far from a weighed opinion as it goes. Well for me at least.

also: You invoke the 'tired question of racism' several times over this thread and then dodge a legitimate question about it. I call for some intellectual honesty here. Equating the rhetoric used by both sides does as well. It is easily verifiable for anyone with access to the internet, what rhetoric was used by both campaigns and it is a really obvious fact that vote leave appealed to xenophobia and racism, while the other side did NOT. Why is this important? because as p much every piece of polling and research shows, immigration was the big issue here. This is what I meant by saying they wouldn't win in a fair fight - had they not summoned the lowly demon of ethno-nationalism. Because let's face it - white 45+ men where most likely to vote leave.

I would agree, but that is the nature of the beast. Funnily enough the Remain campaign seemed to feature by far the larger number of known personalities (there was a list cycled through twitter and the #chans IIRC) and had the majority of the backing for their campaign in the wider media. Additionally, there are the issues of breaking the campaigning hold in the wake of the Jo Cox murder and the use of taxpayer funding by Cameron to release campaigning leaflets. I imagine he might well stand trial for that latter issue in days to come; it is a pretty big political nono. The point I am trying to make here is that this cuts both ways. UKgov, EU et al are not above demagoguery themselves.

Regarding the criticisim of the educated choices... I have seen a lot of that today, and frankly, whilst your average voter is probably not too well informed it seems people using this argument typically try dragging academia and intellectualism into the mix, but that assumes that Joe Average is incapable of critically examining evidence and reaching a reasoned conclusion, with the person making that statement likewise assuming they have moral or mental superiority from which to issue such denouncements and tell other's what is best for them. Very elitist, along the lines of a Platonian philosopher class or that other dreaded P-word. This is the mindset that has Remain campaigners disappointed by the results arguing, in all seriousness, that older and working class people simply shouldn't have been allowed to vote. Trying to fight perceived authoritarianism with actual authoritarianism is something I'm certain I need not comment on. It is a childish, and frankly, dangerous mindset to take. One person, one vote is the only workable system.

In light of this, I'm inclined to fall back on the age old adage that whilst democracy is far from perfect, it is the best we have. People were always going to walk away from this unsatisfied, but whilst we might try to shove each other out of the boat once in a while it would be lunacy to saw a hole in the bottom. Once democracy is gone, the only way to get it back involves a lot of people dying.

Unfortunately the losing side of the population will simply have to deal with that and come to terms with the loss; there is no other recourse, unless they plan to attempt to force another referendum. Scotland is an interesting case in that it was already a semi-independent entity and may well have a referendum on remaining a part of the UK as a result; something that they're absolutely within their rights to do if it is within the will of the people to do so. There is nothing to say that come a decade or so, the UK may not re-apply to join a reformed EU with success. Indeed, I'm inclined to think that the federalisation of Europe is inevitable, in time. It is simply the case currently that the majority believe the EU as an entity is not worthy of representing them. I believe that this will play out elsewhere in Europe as other countries demand their say in the wake of this.

Sorry, lots of text, but this is important so I hope you don't mind me rambling.

The Greek situation was not intended as a direct equation of like-for-like, but rather an example paraphrasing the UK's potential situation should the vote have been renaged upon again. Cultural differences are pretty much irrelevant in that regard; historically, when rulers do not represent their people, the only way to forestall an eruption of violence is 1) democratic options, or 2) autocratic options. Given the choice between the three and how that normally plays out, UKIP is a pretty reasonable voice to be the release valve, and relatively harmless in the larger scale since their actual voter base is tiny, EU issues aside. They hold no seats and gained most of their backing from disenfranchised members of the big three who will go right back to voting for the big three with the BREXIT assured and a re-shuffle on the cards. UKIP will fade, its job done.

" a really obvious fact that vote leave appealed to xenophobia and racism"

In a word: Bullshit. This is a silencing tactic wheeled out to try to shut down people who regard unchecked immigration as an issue worth addressing. Let me get this straight; I believe there absolutely ARE a small minority of genuine racists who backed the Leave campaign based on pure xenophobia. However, HALF THE POPULATION that does not make. To dismiss their concerns out of hand by tagging it racisim is some intellectual dishonesty of your own.

There are plenty of reasons why uncontrolled immigration is a terrible idea, not least of which that the extant infrastructure of the UK (roads, housing, sewage treatment and power generation capacity, hospital capacity specifically) simply cannot grow fast enough to accomodate the expected rise with our current financial limitations. Social cohesion issues are beginning to develop throughout Europe as a result of this, and whilst I expect this isn't as widespread as many Leavers would have believed, they are again important issues that are frequently shut-down on the basis of xenophobia. There is a decent body of evidence to suggest that a large percentage of migrants are in fact moving for economic reasons rather than as genuine refugees- this is backed by the demographics, where as many as 80% of migrants are males aged 14-35. Not women, or children, or old people who might be also be expected to flee a war zone, but working age men who you would expect to be fighting. Sauce here: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statis.....lum_statistics

Bear in mind these are the ones that arrived through ligitimate channels. A great many more are completely unaccounted for.

I welcome you to pose me some direct questions if you feel I haven't addressed a point to your satisfaction

as for the first 3 paragraphs, I think you seem to have misread my intention. I'm not arguing against democracy or voting rights for the working class. I'm arguing against direct democracy. Fine - call me elitist for pointing out the obvious: that the average Joe knows nothing about politics and that his vote is easily swayed either way by whoever's best at sensing his current sentiment. Notice the question marks in my last post? They are there to signify my position on this issue - I'm not satisfied with the way the world is but I can't think of a better way of organizing it. I can't think of a better way of deciding on such important issues as EU membership. All I'm saying is, it is frustrating to see how people with petty agendas, knowing how to tap into popular resentment can influence decisions of this magnitude. You seem very confident in group wisdom and I wanted to challenge that. Instead I get a tirade and a mindset label ;)

">To dismiss their concerns out of hand by tagging it racisim" - never once have I done that. I have not commented on the validity of the population's concerns until later down this post,

>"silencing tactic" - as above, I did not say voters are being racist or xenophobic. I think only one thing I wrote can be read this way - the voting demographics, which shows male, white 45+ predominantly voting to leave and women, youngsters and minorities voting stay. There is a whole other dimension to this vote other than sovereignty and sticking it to the elites.

What I did actually write was that the rhetoric of that campaign was >clearly< xenophobic and racist, a tactic chosen DELIBERATELY by people you call relatively moderate.

Let me explain why this made me so upset - calling all sides equally corrupt, lying, bigoted you name it is a tactic used by demagogues without a good argument to support their cause. Bring everyone to your level - it is the same tactic used by climate change deniers and the likes. It strikes me that you'd refuse to acknowledge how there was a qualitative difference between the two campaigns. and it's all in stark contrast to the rest of your reasoning.

>"HALF THE POPULATION" - 16-17 mil is not half the population. it's more like 25%.

If you were a male aged 14-35 from Syria would you stay and fight or run? Now this actually shows a hint of possible xenophobic reasoning -to put it mildly- bringing up that statistic. A journey of 2,5k miles on foot and the disproportion between kids, old people, women and strong healthy males seems to be a puzzle! Unless you back that up with research saying these people are moving for economic reasons I'm inclined to call bullshit.

also this: http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cp.....pita_624gr.png the whole unchecked migration issue is blown out of proportion. Syrians, Afghans, Iraqis and Iranians predominantly choose Sweden and Germany as their final destination.

Btw I was rooting for the UK to leave - no more exceptions #goodriddance ;) in all honesty the EU needs shock therapy. oh and while I would very much like to see a federal Europe, I don't think it will happen in the predictable future.

I haven't slept in some time so my arguments are less coherent than they could be, so I will choke down some coffee and clarify a few points.

"it is frustrating to see how people with petty agendas, knowing how to tap into popular resentment can influence decisions of this magnitude"

Admittedly I fear I misunderstood the sentiment you were getting at, and am happy to readily agree that politicians make use of whatever zeitgeist is currently the trend to further their own ends. I've spent much of the day arguing against a self appointed prolitariat who think they know what is better for everyone else regardless of what everyone else thinks, so I will have to beg your forgiveness for jumping to a hasty conclusion in the regards of 'average' voters. I do not however think that there is a way of addressing this without making unacceptable compromises to other areas, namely freedom of the press and freedom of speech, or limiting voting by demographics. I believe the best that can be done is to attempt to enforce a standard of objectivity, and allow others to reach their own conclusions based on healthy scepticisim and reason. In this, censorship is the enemy, and silencing even wild and disgusting opinions does not eliminate them, but rather propegates an echo-chamber mentality where they cannot be properly challenged.

***

"never once have I done that. I have not commented on the validity of the population's concerns until later down this post"
"did not say voters are being racist or xenophobic."

Seems to be DAMN heavily implied here: "it is a really obvious fact that vote leave appealed to xenophobia and racism". One would think a campaign appealing to xenophobia and racists would attract latent xenophobes and racists to vote for it, no? I would ask for further clarification on your statements regarding the leave demographic having a differrent dimention. I think I know what you're getting at, but would like to be sure before weighing in my oar.

I understand that you were referencing the leave campaign in light of your statements about demagogues and how politicians can appeal to easily swayed voters and corrupt them to extremes, but I think that you're painting with far too broad a brush on this issue. Probably the overwhelming majority of people voting leave are not motivated on race for the sake of race, but out of genuine concern that there are some issues it is no longer acceptable to talk or take action about. Immigration definitely being one of these.

And I am sorry, but yes, I will assert that both sides are equally corrupt and bigoted in their own lights. Elements of both sides manufactured alarmism to support their cause, to the point where discerning which figures are crap from ones of merit became almost a matter of opinion when sources back both numbers. The Leave campaign played upon fears of EU federalisation leading to loss of democracy; the Remain campaign played on fears of economic instability and veiled (and not so veiled) threats of sanctions. The Remain campaign breached agreements in respect of Jo Cox to step down campaigning, and further used taxpayer's money to dishonestly fund its own ends. The Leave vote made false promises to a disenfranchised North East regarding fishing quotas. The Remain campaign was happy to complain about the 'little Englanders', itself a rather demeaning and somewhat bigoted label that dismisses the concerns of the opposition with a presupposision of xenophobia.

Neither of these sides are clean in this, demonstrably so. You're right to say demagogues thrive on that. BUT, *your* assersion at a qualitative difference seems to me like a subjective matter that you're going to have a hard time quantifying in a meaningful way. Both campaigns were by their nature based at least in part on intangible feel-mongering.

Take for example the claim of xenophobia in the Leave campaign. For brevity sake I'll use the example you've directly quoted; the 'Breaking Point' poster, which I really don't see as prejudiced. In poor taste maybe, and alarmist, but I think the focus of your point leans far too hard on the fact that the people in it are asian, and not that the Leave voters would regard the immigration issue as a problem even if the people portrayed in the poster were blue and had flippers. If you want to secondguess them on that, it seems to me that you're the one presuming ill intent on their behalf; the poster itself is just a photograph of something that actually happened being used to demonstrate a point. No more racist than the ones on the BBC, except apparently until Farage stood in front of it. It changes the context, certainly, but it is still just a picture.

And that is why I said I couldn't give a shit about it. The waters were too muddy to get a reliable fathom of and will probably remain that way for some time. I preferred to focus on the democracy side of that since it is comparatively cut and dried issue of a failure to represent.

***

"16-17 mil is not half the population. it's more like 25%."

Half the voters then, since you rightfully point out that the turn out wasn't 100%. I am however inclined to believe that those who didn't vote for whatever reason should not be counted for sake of clarity amongst those who did; they forgo their right to complain or laud the result through inaction.

***

"If you were a male aged 14-35 from Syria would you stay and fight or run?"

Fight. Call me an internet tough guy all you like for that, but it would take a special sort of callousness on my part to leave my family to suffer in the midst of all that, especially where children or spouses might be involved. At the very least I'd be more inclined to seek refuge in Turkey or Cyprus if I was a refugee, rather than moving through the entirity of the EU to reach the more prosperous northern countries. The intent of a refugee is usually to return to their homeland once it has stabilised, no?

"Now this actually shows a hint of possible xenophobic reasoning -to put it mildly-"

To be fair I was rather snide with my last post so I had that coming.

You seem to conflate xenophobia with 'someone against uncontrolled immigration' but I think this is a false equivelancy. I'll go into more depth on the point below.

I don't imagine that it is an easy journey for them, but that is absolutely no reason to give economic migrants access without going through the same system of checks and processes that everyone should. We did not invite or ask them to undertake the journey, they took that upon themselves with personal gain in mind.

"Unless you back that up with research saying these people are moving for economic reasons I'm inclined to call bullshit."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w.....-a6836306.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/420a9b5e-.....#axzz4CYHtpRcZ
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w.....-a6828821.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-34395745
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/migrant-cr.....nistry-1521215

I'm trying to include a variety of sources and as many direct quotes from the EU itself for this one to back up the following points to avoid accusations of bias.

I can do you one better; the EU vice president giving a rough estimate that 60% are migrants for primarily economic reasons. Apparently it is also very difficult for the EU to ascertain with certainty a migrant's country of origin. This is important, since not everyone migrating to the EU is from a country currently engaged in conflict or persecution, and as such is not by definition a refugee. This is especially true of immigrants arriving from Turkey, Morocco and Tunisia. The EU believes a large number falsify their country of origin to claim refugee status- yet the ones who arrive often do so with valuables such as iphones. Germany and Denmark seem to have started confiscating these to cover the cost of providing lodging, yet it seems these are not the trappings of people fleeing a war.

Don't get me wrong on this. I know damn fine that there are plenty of genuine refugees, and they absolutely should be given asylum if they request it, but I believe that the evidence is compelling enough to ask for substantiation of claims before giving the nod to just anyone. There is a real possibility that without economic migrants clogging up the works it would be possible to help many, many more genuine refugees. The problem is identifying one from the other.

This should be seen as an overall positive for Great Britain. Markets rebound, it's what they do. Businesses in GB aren't just going to up and leave when they've already invested so much. It may take some time, and a lot of people will be unhappy (never really growing up with, or understanding sovereignty) but it's for the best. I'm confident in that.

Happy Independence Day!!!