A quip I saw on a Tumblr porn blog: You could smack a random Brit in the face, with a 52% chance of them deserving it.

Yes, the Brits should have listened to the plutocrats and remained. Silly peasants. May God save the GDP.

But hey, that would be also a triumph of democracy. — ssu

Indeed.

Been hearing this a lot from the remain camp -- interesting look into the psychology of that side. The referendum was, broadly speaking, a nationalistic revolt against globalism and a democratic revolt against authority, at least in the popular mind. Maybe that's not what it actually was, but the psychology of the two sides seems pretty consistent on this. The remainers protest that people (especially working class people) don't know what's good for them, that a thing of any importance shouldn't be put to a vote, that people inhabiting a country have no right to self-determination but should be grateful to be determined by rulers, etc — TGW

Good article about this.

Good article about this. — csalisbury

This was a very lucid piece.

Nicola Sturgeon says MSPs at Holyrood could veto Brexit

@Sapientia, looks like my hope is, at least tentatively, being explored. I wonder how you feel about this. Given that Scotland unanimously voted Remain, do you think it democratic for Scottish MSPs (and presumably also their MPs) to block any attempt to leave the EU?

unanimously — Michael

What?

As in every counting area in Scotland favoured Remain.

No, I want the referendum results to be disregarded in favour of what's actually right. I just happen to believe that what's actually right is to stay. — Michael

This assumes that you value economic prosperity over adherence to democratic principles. I would consider the violation of democratic principles (as in ignoring a referendum) to be a more negative aspect of a society than a decision to do something that might negatively impact an economy.

Looking at this from afar, I'd say that the leaders of the EU are to blame. For years the Brits complained about losing their autonomy and the EU leaders knew very well that there was a large and growing contingent that wanted to exit. They refused to accommodate the legitimate concerns of the Brits and left them with the stark choice to either accept the situation as it was or make the risky decision to leave and face economic difficulties. The EU just assumed the Brits wouldn't leave, so they offered them no accommodation. This was just poor politics and leadership on the part of the EU because I think all involved still believe that a union is economically preferable. That they couldn't work it out speaks to political failure and not that the idea that economic unity was not a good idea.

Fear of economic ruin will not keep a country in the EU and fear of foreign takeover will not force people out of the EU. There is plenty of middle ground, but the middle folks didn't win the day.

Hopefully this will be wake up call for the EU so that they'll realize that if other nations begin to complain, they'll make real efforts to accommodate them.

From a US perspective, the idea of a foreign nation being authorized to direct the US in how it is to conduct its affairs is entirely unacceptable. Taking pride in being right is nothing to apologize for. If we cared what Europe thought, we wouldn't have left.

Yes, and I said at the start that I don't value democratic principles over economic prosperity. Democracy is a useful tool but it's by no means perfect. I think it's naive to follow it idealistically. People are already willing to forgo it if it would violate some moral principle, e.g. if popular opinion favoured slavery. I'm just willing to extend the list of relevant exceptions.

The EU just assumed the Brits wouldn't leave, so they offered them no accommodation.

From what I understand they did offer accommodation. I guess it just wasn't enough for some.

I wonder, given the lies and misinformation from the Leave campaign, e.g. over NHS funding and a reduction of immigration – things which were no doubt influential – do you think that there's reasons to reject the legitimacy of the result?

You're talking about things Nigel Farage, the UKIP leader, allegedly said, whose party only has one sitting member in the House of Commons. When you have over 70% turn out and more than 50% of the vote choosing to leave, then it would be wise not to overgeneralize. Farage was by no means the only face of the leave campaign and to myopically focus on him or others like him is really to smear the leave campaign as a whole.

One of the stronger ironies in this situation is that many UK businesses will need to swallow EU regulations holus-bolus or lose their biggest export markets. I'm always personally conflicted when examining decisions like this because of my own New Left roots in libertarian socialism. As an outsider I tend to give the EU high marks for green policies and consumer protection, and recognize the necessity for bureaucratization and de-politicization in these areas. On the other hand, it is impossible to overlook the yawning democratic deficit.

What worries me more than the decision is the potential for a very destructive narrativization of the result, something that some of the Trumpf surrogates on this side of the Atlantic are pursuing with vigor.

I wasn't focusing on him. The NHS funding, for example, had nothing to do with UKIP.

I wonder, given the lies and misinformation from the Leave campaign, e.g. over NHS funding and a reduction of immigration – things which were no doubt influential – do you think that there's reasons to reject the legitimacy of the result? — Michael

Lies and misinformation are part of any lively democratic campaign. It seems to me there are all sorts of ways in which opponents of a democratic result can construct a narrative of illegitimacy; I've certainly knocked one or two together in my time. But there's then got to be a basis of 'legitimacy'. If your basis isn't 'democracy' and you can't state what your alternative is, it's hard to see the argument.

There's a curiously entitled atmosphere among the English middle-classes, at least those posting on facebook and stuff, in the last couple of days, a feeling of shock that their 'Remain' sentiments' aren't somehow obviously right, that even democracy doesn't work if it produces this sort of result. Now the centrists among them are blaming (for the decisive working-class vote) the Labour leader Corbyn, who to me as a non-Labour supporter seemed the most honourable of any of the political elite in the whole shebang.

Practically speaking, the result is going to stand and we've got to get on with it. I'm an old libertarian socialist at heart like photographer, and although I was a Leave voter, I obviously regret that some of the things I stand for - in the environmental field, for instance - are going to be in jeopardy. But that's the price of risky change.

And from what I've heard, there were those who suggested exiting would result in WWIII, arguing an exit was equivalent to a return to pre WWII nationalism. It'd be a neat trick if we could cancel any decision (democratic or otherwise) if we could just prove through some sort of post decision litigation that someone tainted the information pool. I think we've got to trust our decision makers to separate the wheat from the chaff on the front end else we'll never be able to make a final decision.

Anyway, if you reject the referendum and impose the EU on some people who are quite certain they can decide what's best for themselves without some philosopher king parenting them, I think you'll be in a far worse situation than in just exiting. Hell, just ask Her Majesty what's best and forgo all this new fangled people power stuff.

So you're not talking about any one person who allegedly made false claims about the NHS, including Mr. Farage, who has come under an avalanche of criticism for allegedly doing just this? What, then, are you talking about?

It was the Vote Leave campaign that made the false claim about the NHS.

And it isn't just allegedly:

I forget by how much, but the £350 million a week being sent to the EU was a rather large exaggeration -- and didn't, for instance, account for the x£ million being sent to the UK.

In the US, same thing: Dollars flow back and forth between the states and the federal government -- in as taxes, back out as programs, and some states donate more than they get back -- because their economies are doing well.

Lies and misinformation are part of any lively democratic campaign. — mcdoodle

Lies and misinformation end up in democratic campaigns, for sure, but I would hope that they aren't expected to be part of any lively debate! I don't know how any serious debate can take place if lies and misinformation are assumed. Can't anybody argue using honest information???

Can't anybody argue using honest information??? — Bitter Crank

Sure you can! If you don't mind losing.

That claim isn't really false, then. Just slightly misleading.

Nonsense!

There are several reasons to speak honestly or not: Speak to amuse, speak to inform, speak to persuade, speak to spur to action...

Speaking to amuse requires careful structure, but it doesn't require honest information, as long as everyone understands that a joke is in progress.
Speaking to inform absolutely requires honest information, as true as you can get it; otherwise, you are arguing to misinform, to mislead. That is done, of course -- rather regularly.
One can speak to persuade and spur to action, but IF false argument results in action (like voting to exit the EU) THEN the ill consequences can be laid on the doorstep of the speakers who used falsehoods.

Success in speaking depends on the structure of the arguments being effective and the information being true.

If one can "win" by using falsehoods, then how do you hope to maintain a civil society?

Let me put it to you this way, the unscrupulous have all of the options available to those with scruples, plus dishonesty. misinformation, misdirection, relevant omissions, and spin.

But they are usually exposed as lacking integrity, credibility, reliability, decency, honesty, probity, sincerity, honorableness and scruples.

True enough: you could get up before a court and lie, misdirect, mislead, omit, and so on. You can do this in front of a Rotary Club, a government committee, your boss, your mother, your lover, your children, your cleaning lady and get away with it as long as no attention is paid to what you said. But, as soon as your audience starts thinking about what you said today, yesterday, last week, last year... your lies will be found out. Inconsistencies, improbabilities, contradictions, suspiciously convenient coincidences, and so on will be revealed. Worst of all, your partners in deceit are likely to turn you in for their own reasons.

Why not turn you in? People who lack integrity, credibility, reliability, decency, honesty, sincerity, honorableness and scruples are unlikely to think they owe you anything. Look what happened to President Richard M. Nixon: He had some good points in his favor, but he was also running some very sleazy operations, and there was a slip up. After the slip up there was the cover-up, and round and round it twirled until the whole story unfurled, in excruciating detail, and Tricky Dick had to resign in disgrace.

There's definitely higher risk involved, thankfully the most villainous seem to be the least risk averse. The goodie goodies are the most risk averse. Just as you listed all of the horrible consequences that follow from behaving in such ways, it may indeed not be prudent future planning. Since none of us are saints, we must judge some degree of all of those unscrupulous things to be worth the involved risk.

Honestly, I think the reaction to Brexit actually happening has been really overblown by the media. It seems so obvious that the media has an agenda here. The fact is that the UK wasn't even that much of a real member of the EU anyways, choosing to opt-out of 4 out of 6 policy areas. The UK was, at best, an awkward member, and these market woes are puny compared to just a couple months earlier with what happened in China. People are really overreacting.

I actually think there is a silver lining to all this. The EU has been quite oppressive to smaller nations like Greece and remember the Greek default years (which is still happening but people seem to forget about this) and the wholly undemocratic nature of the EU itself, and what the EU is doing to Italy and Portugal -- a UK exit actually serves as a much needed experiment for other nations to exit as well and avoid the horrific things that happened to Greece that will inevitably happen to many nations in the future.

Perhaps the first post I've seen you write that I agree with. Well said.

:D Just what I was thinking.