As a pro-European obviously I am not exactly delighted about the way things went, but it is entirely wrong and misguided to blame people's lack of education. The whole campaign from both sides was woeful and the general level of debate in the media was all about (usually incorrect) soundbites. My perspective from an area that voted overwhelmingly (70%) to leave was that whereas for a significant proportion it was all about immigration, for others it was the disconnect from a London-based political elite. Ultimately the leave campaign had something to 'sell' (getting control back) whereas the remain campaign foolishly went for the 'we can't afford to leave' argument rather than try and sell the virtues of belonging to a (admittedly flawed) continent-wide co-operative body.
To back up Dev's point (sorry!), if May follows up her words with actions, the reason why a lot of those who voted to leave (but not about leaving the EU) made the right choice and Westminster may actually realise the damage they have done to the 'regions'
Rant over. More importantly what was the beer like in the Vere last night if we've finally got rid of Green King?
@Ciderk1d said:
arnos_grove, to long to para phrase (There is plenty of information available about the in and outs of the EU) genuine reply, I'm currently swatting up and hands on towards another professional IT certifications, so just respect my vote, like I would yours.
Please stop generalising that all remain voters are accusing people of being thick or racist. I'm not doing that. I'd just like someone to give one or two reasons why it's going to be better. You raised the subject again despite your hectic schedule - I wouldn't have asked otherwise.
Neither of us need to respect each other's vote by the way, just the result.
Oh @Chris . I'm sure if the general man in the street was using the Guardian as there main, totally unbiased source for all things EU many more could have been more informed. I'm very surprised you know a lot of people who considered themselves informed enough. Maybe one of them was the pot hole man because if he thinks that's his biggest issue he's informed enough.
I wanted more main stream media and the leading politicians on both sides to educate rather than politic. I didn't hear one person who could see valid arguments to both sides. I know everyone had to choose an answer but no-one was 100% on either side. Someone who said I can see these valid points on remain but these on leave are weightier to me would have carried alot of gravity for me. Just ignoring the other side of the debate made me suspicious.
The very nature of a referendum campaign forces politicians to simplify complex decisions into simplistic soundbites to try to catch the attention of a largely half-listening at best population. You are right there were legitimate arguments both ways - drowned out by lies and exaggerations. A very good reason why referenda are very bad ways to make difficult complex decisions.
I'm not sure it forces politicians to dumb down but I find it pretty sad that they quite clear have. The Twitter generation has made it far too easy to excuse the longer debate.
I don't think we will see a referendum on anything ever again but I really hope politicians and the media do try to make an effort to educate on these matters. The aggression shown in the two recent referendums is awful to see and no-one should die because of a view on something.
@drcongo I wasn't aware of that Ebbr Vale and Cornwall situation. It's almost laughable. Most leave voters who I have spoken to, did so as a 'two fingers' vote. I don't know who that was aimed at if I'm honest, and it looks as though that particular council didn't know either. I think the above was fairly typical
An important lesson for politicians in this, is that many voters will respond to a simple narrative. No matter how wrong it is. Viewing the other side of the pond - Donald Trump. Whilst his messages will often be inflammatory and deliberately divisive, they are simple in delivery. It means that those who previously felt marginalised by politics due to talk of GDP and inflation now understand at least part of it.
With regards to the EU referendum many people voted only on the aspects they understood e.g. immigration, money (saved by coming out of the EU),the NHS, even if the facts were wrong.
@devc I would love to know the thinking from that particular gent on the pot hole situation. It would good to have a separate conversation on how he came to that conclusion? My guess is "EU doesn't stop immigrants coming in, so we have to spend money building houses for them, so there is not enough money to fix the potholes?"
I think that's a general problem with the media @Right_in_the_Middle , not specific to the referendum debate. People who are certain about things seem more confident, and therefore seem more informed than people who have more nuanced views or are willing to say they don't know - and therefore are over represented when TV shows look for expert guests. It also provides more of a headline grabbing story than 'a bit of this and a bit of that'. I've read a good pop-sciencey-type book about this but I can't immediately remember what it was called.
As DevC says politicians were never going to be able to be anything other than completely committed to their side, it's the nature of a referendum. Look at the criticism of Corbyn for saying he was 7/10 in favour of remain.
Both sides ran ridiculous campaigns but as neither Dave nor Jezza really liked Europe, their lukewarm campaign squandered a close vote. For me...no-one made a case for leaving that held water and the racism (and yes...that was more of an issue than a lot of genuine Leave voters would like to accept) and division created (see also the Scottish referendum) was appalling. We will be paying for this mistake (in my view) for years. We elect leaders to make these decision in the best interests o the country...not hand it over to what was often nothing more than a national Gasroom of opinion...so I blame Cameron for this. HAving said that I am pleased with Colin Murray's decision and the very wily plan of our shiny new PM to make slightly racist Boris and other Brexiteers sort out the exit plan.
The whole problem with "simple messages", Mr Chips, is that the issues themselves are usually complex and simple messages fail to do them justice. How we stop Mr Faraj and Mr Trump from exploiting simplistic messages is a question far too complicated for me to answer.
Re Mr Pot Hole, mr chips, to be honest I didn't get the impression that he gave detailed thought to many issues but as he was bigger than me, younger than me, drunker than me and surrounded by "mates" of similar ilk, I chose not to engage him in detailed conversation and instead took the traditional British approach - shake of the head, a tut to myself in disapproval and wander off feeling slightly superior.
Full Fact also did some amazing coverage in the lead up to the vote, easily the least biased reporting there was. Anyone who read the analysis on there and then voted to leave must be insane or both a sadist and a masochist.
To say there wasn't enough information is just nonsense. It is fair to say there wasn't enough information in television news bulletins and the mainstream press, but it was all there if you cared to look.
When our press is in full propaganda mode, you can still take in more unfiltered newspapers such as the FT or even the I. I spend a fare bit of time in airports with my job and you'd be surprised how astute and calm the international press was about the debate in the weeks before. The New York Times is always a good source for international new stories.
The people have spoken, but they are not sure what they've said or why...
Problem was Lloyd, the vast majority of the voters (including those who voted both sides) did not and never were going to care to look. Which is why the outcome was based on whose soundbites were most effective rather than the detail.
There were indeed facts supporting either side and analysis of those facts, depending on weighting you give to each argument, would have supported either a remain or a leave vote.
But the truth of the referendum was that the vast majority (not all) of voters made their decision on soundbites - most of which on both sides were at best exaggerations and often downright lies. Which is why referenda are a dumb way of making a big decision.
@drcongo said:
That is a beautiful line Lloyd2084.
I had a debate with a colleague yesterday who was calling for 'them' to 'get on with serving article 50 in line with the wishes of the people'. I speculated that 'they' were playing for time as they didn't know what to do and he ended by shouting that 'the German's can do one, we'll serve it when we're ready'.
So he'd gone from demanding action to demanding delay in about 5 minutes. Perfectly sensible bloke day to day as well.
@arnos_grove; calling me out, that I raised the subject again, by replying to literally two comments, proceeding my post ?
Then referring me for saying the following, as generalising "Why do the a lot of the "Remainers", continue with this uneducated and racism stereotyping crap." Flimsy to say the least.
Mocking my study schedule, as I haven't listed my reasons, to you, who retorts "Neither of us need to respect each other's vote by the way, just the result", then candidly like someone to give one or two reasons why it's going to be better.
Really...
I will be totally honest with you, I could have listed my reasons here, why I voted leave, then I, you and everybody else fully well knows that I would have to back them all up with this and that on this forum, with links, citations etc, with someone who clearly wants to call me out on why I voted to for Brexit.
By the way, why is it going to get worse, only kidding scratch that.
Comments
As a pro-European obviously I am not exactly delighted about the way things went, but it is entirely wrong and misguided to blame people's lack of education. The whole campaign from both sides was woeful and the general level of debate in the media was all about (usually incorrect) soundbites. My perspective from an area that voted overwhelmingly (70%) to leave was that whereas for a significant proportion it was all about immigration, for others it was the disconnect from a London-based political elite. Ultimately the leave campaign had something to 'sell' (getting control back) whereas the remain campaign foolishly went for the 'we can't afford to leave' argument rather than try and sell the virtues of belonging to a (admittedly flawed) continent-wide co-operative body.
To back up Dev's point (sorry!), if May follows up her words with actions, the reason why a lot of those who voted to leave (but not about leaving the EU) made the right choice and Westminster may actually realise the damage they have done to the 'regions'
Rant over. More importantly what was the beer like in the Vere last night if we've finally got rid of Green King?
Please stop generalising that all remain voters are accusing people of being thick or racist. I'm not doing that. I'd just like someone to give one or two reasons why it's going to be better. You raised the subject again despite your hectic schedule - I wouldn't have asked otherwise.
Neither of us need to respect each other's vote by the way, just the result.
This is quite interesting too
https://www.opencanada.org/features/brexit-post-mortem-17-takeaways-fallen-david-cameron/
He's a former Canadian High Commissioner to UK and the EU so I guess he's one of those 'experts' we must instantly dismiss.
Oh @Chris . I'm sure if the general man in the street was using the Guardian as there main, totally unbiased source for all things EU many more could have been more informed. I'm very surprised you know a lot of people who considered themselves informed enough. Maybe one of them was the pot hole man because if he thinks that's his biggest issue he's informed enough.
I wanted more main stream media and the leading politicians on both sides to educate rather than politic. I didn't hear one person who could see valid arguments to both sides. I know everyone had to choose an answer but no-one was 100% on either side. Someone who said I can see these valid points on remain but these on leave are weightier to me would have carried alot of gravity for me. Just ignoring the other side of the debate made me suspicious.
The very nature of a referendum campaign forces politicians to simplify complex decisions into simplistic soundbites to try to catch the attention of a largely half-listening at best population. You are right there were legitimate arguments both ways - drowned out by lies and exaggerations. A very good reason why referenda are very bad ways to make difficult complex decisions.
I'm not sure it forces politicians to dumb down but I find it pretty sad that they quite clear have. The Twitter generation has made it far too easy to excuse the longer debate.
I don't think we will see a referendum on anything ever again but I really hope politicians and the media do try to make an effort to educate on these matters. The aggression shown in the two recent referendums is awful to see and no-one should die because of a view on something.
That Colin Murray eh?
@drcongo I wasn't aware of that Ebbr Vale and Cornwall situation. It's almost laughable. Most leave voters who I have spoken to, did so as a 'two fingers' vote. I don't know who that was aimed at if I'm honest, and it looks as though that particular council didn't know either. I think the above was fairly typical
An important lesson for politicians in this, is that many voters will respond to a simple narrative. No matter how wrong it is. Viewing the other side of the pond - Donald Trump. Whilst his messages will often be inflammatory and deliberately divisive, they are simple in delivery. It means that those who previously felt marginalised by politics due to talk of GDP and inflation now understand at least part of it.
With regards to the EU referendum many people voted only on the aspects they understood e.g. immigration, money (saved by coming out of the EU),the NHS, even if the facts were wrong.
@devc I would love to know the thinking from that particular gent on the pot hole situation. It would good to have a separate conversation on how he came to that conclusion? My guess is "EU doesn't stop immigrants coming in, so we have to spend money building houses for them, so there is not enough money to fix the potholes?"
I think that's a general problem with the media @Right_in_the_Middle , not specific to the referendum debate. People who are certain about things seem more confident, and therefore seem more informed than people who have more nuanced views or are willing to say they don't know - and therefore are over represented when TV shows look for expert guests. It also provides more of a headline grabbing story than 'a bit of this and a bit of that'. I've read a good pop-sciencey-type book about this but I can't immediately remember what it was called.
The Martin Lewis blog was a pretty good example of what you are looking for, even if he does focus on his hobby horses somewhat http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2016/06/05/how-to-vote-in-the-eu-referendum/
As DevC says politicians were never going to be able to be anything other than completely committed to their side, it's the nature of a referendum. Look at the criticism of Corbyn for saying he was 7/10 in favour of remain.
Both sides ran ridiculous campaigns but as neither Dave nor Jezza really liked Europe, their lukewarm campaign squandered a close vote. For me...no-one made a case for leaving that held water and the racism (and yes...that was more of an issue than a lot of genuine Leave voters would like to accept) and division created (see also the Scottish referendum) was appalling. We will be paying for this mistake (in my view) for years. We elect leaders to make these decision in the best interests o the country...not hand it over to what was often nothing more than a national Gasroom of opinion...so I blame Cameron for this. HAving said that I am pleased with Colin Murray's decision and the very wily plan of our shiny new PM to make slightly racist Boris and other Brexiteers sort out the exit plan.
The whole problem with "simple messages", Mr Chips, is that the issues themselves are usually complex and simple messages fail to do them justice. How we stop Mr Faraj and Mr Trump from exploiting simplistic messages is a question far too complicated for me to answer.
Re Mr Pot Hole, mr chips, to be honest I didn't get the impression that he gave detailed thought to many issues but as he was bigger than me, younger than me, drunker than me and surrounded by "mates" of similar ilk, I chose not to engage him in detailed conversation and instead took the traditional British approach - shake of the head, a tut to myself in disapproval and wander off feeling slightly superior.
Full Fact also did some amazing coverage in the lead up to the vote, easily the least biased reporting there was. Anyone who read the analysis on there and then voted to leave must be insane or both a sadist and a masochist.
To say there wasn't enough information is just nonsense. It is fair to say there wasn't enough information in television news bulletins and the mainstream press, but it was all there if you cared to look.
When our press is in full propaganda mode, you can still take in more unfiltered newspapers such as the FT or even the I. I spend a fare bit of time in airports with my job and you'd be surprised how astute and calm the international press was about the debate in the weeks before. The New York Times is always a good source for international new stories.
The people have spoken, but they are not sure what they've said or why...
I'm a big fan of Full Fact
Problem was Lloyd, the vast majority of the voters (including those who voted both sides) did not and never were going to care to look. Which is why the outcome was based on whose soundbites were most effective rather than the detail.
There were indeed facts supporting either side and analysis of those facts, depending on weighting you give to each argument, would have supported either a remain or a leave vote.
But the truth of the referendum was that the vast majority (not all) of voters made their decision on soundbites - most of which on both sides were at best exaggerations and often downright lies. Which is why referenda are a dumb way of making a big decision.
That is a beautiful line @Lloyd2084.
I had a debate with a colleague yesterday who was calling for 'them' to 'get on with serving article 50 in line with the wishes of the people'. I speculated that 'they' were playing for time as they didn't know what to do and he ended by shouting that 'the German's can do one, we'll serve it when we're ready'.
So he'd gone from demanding action to demanding delay in about 5 minutes. Perfectly sensible bloke day to day as well.
@arnos_grove; calling me out, that I raised the subject again, by replying to literally two comments, proceeding my post ?
Then referring me for saying the following, as generalising "Why do the a lot of the "Remainers", continue with this uneducated and racism stereotyping crap." Flimsy to say the least.
Mocking my study schedule, as I haven't listed my reasons, to you, who retorts "Neither of us need to respect each other's vote by the way, just the result", then candidly like someone to give one or two reasons why it's going to be better.
Really...
I will be totally honest with you, I could have listed my reasons here, why I voted leave, then I, you and everybody else fully well knows that I would have to back them all up with this and that on this forum, with links, citations etc, with someone who clearly wants to call me out on why I voted to for Brexit.
By the way, why is it going to get worse, only kidding scratch that.
@Ciderk1d Time to research, time to broadcast, but no time to give even a hint of a reason (your prerogative of course) for your position.
Ah well.