Why in the argument that “Brexiteers didn’t know what they were voting for” not being

[Brentwood]

No. We voted against something. That is absolutely valid.
Not knowing the precise outcome of such a decision is not a reason to retain a status quo with which one is dissatisfied. If one reaches a condition of irreconcilability with one's spouse, one can opt for divorce. Not being precisely certain of the outcome of that divorce does not make the decision to divorce a purely nihilistic one.

People voted against something, which they can't possibly understand in enough detail. It was incredibly reckless to put this decision in the hands of laymen. The few people who understand the financial aspects of the EU in detail (professors, economists, CEOs) were dismissed as having vested interests, mocked and ignored. The idea that companies wouldn't want to produce cars in a non-EU country was dismissed, because of the quality of British craftsmanship. Straight away, Nissan are given some secret deal persuading them to stay. Now Ford are trying it on, saying that it will cost them 600m if we leacve and they want similar compensation.

So it's fine if people want to prioritise the social downsides of the EU against the financial unknowns, but it will ultimately lead to disaster

It's like persuading football fans that FIFA are a corrupt organisation who hate us because they don't have a statue of Bobby Moore in their HQ, and that we should rescind our membership. However, of course we'll still be allowed to play in World Cups and sell our own sponsorhip deals because we're England. We won in 66 and we have the best players that everyone wants to watch. In other words, sell everyone a vague, unrealistic dream and make up a load of numbers that support your argument

[Monty92]

People voted against something, which they can't possibly understand in enough detail. It was incredibly reckless to put this decision in the hands of laymen. The few people who understand the financial aspects of the EU in detail (professors, economists, CEOs) were dismissed as having vested interests, mocked and ignored. The idea that companies wouldn't want to produce cars in a non-EU country was dismissed, because of the quality of British craftsmanship. Straight away, Nissan are given some secret deal persuading them to stay. Now Ford are trying it on, saying that it will cost them 600m if we leacve and they want similar compensation.

So it's fine if people want to prioritise the social downsides of the EU against the financial unknowns, but it will ultimately lead to disaster

It's like persuading football fans that FIFA are a corrupt organisation who hate us because they don't have a statue of Bobby Moore in their HQ, and that we should rescind our membership. However, of course we'll still be allowed to play in World Cups and sell our own sponsorhip deals because we're England. We won in 66 and we have the best players that everyone wants to watch. In other words, sell everyone a vague, unrealistic dream and make up a load of numbers that support your argument

But this disregards the many voters who were aware they were being sold a "vague, unrealistic dream" (economically) and still voted out in good conscience, because for them more important issues were at stake.

[Burney]

People voted against something, which they can't possibly understand in enough detail. It was incredibly reckless to put this decision in the hands of laymen. The few people who understand the financial aspects of the EU in detail (professors, economists, CEOs) were dismissed as having vested interests, mocked and ignored. The idea that companies wouldn't want to produce cars in a non-EU country was dismissed, because of the quality of British craftsmanship. Straight away, Nissan are given some secret deal persuading them to stay. Now Ford are trying it on, saying that it will cost them 600m if we leacve and they want similar compensation.

So it's fine if people want to prioritise the social downsides of the EU against the financial unknowns, but it will ultimately lead to disaster

It's like persuading football fans that FIFA are a corrupt organisation who hate us because they don't have a statue of Bobby Moore in their HQ, and that we should rescind our membership. However, of course we'll still be allowed to play in World Cups and sell our own sponsorhip deals because we're England. We won in 66 and we have the best players that everyone wants to watch. In other words, sell everyone a vague, unrealistic dream and make up a load of numbers that support your argument

Placing huge decisions about matters the totality of which they cannot possibly understand in the hands of laymen is rather the point of democracy, old chap. If you don't like it, that's a separate argument, but hardly germane here. The logical conclusion to your argument is rule by unaccountable technocrats to whom we must acquiesce on the somewhat dubious grounds that they know what's best for us. And, since that is precisely the situation that many of us voted to reject on June 23rd, you can hardly expect that it would be favourably received now.

As to the suggestion that the experts to whom you refer did not have vested interests, it is patently ludicrous, since they clearly did. If they wished to be taken seriously as genuinely independent voices, perhaps they ought to have done more to retain some modicum of independence?

[Brentwood]

Placing huge decisions about matters the totality of which they cannot possibly understand is rather the point of democracy, old chap. If you don't like it, that's a separate argument, but hardly germane here. The logical conclusion to your argument is rule by unaccountable technocrats to whom we must acquiesce on the somewhat dubious grounds that they know what's best for us. And, since that is precisely the situation that many of us voted to reject on June 23rd, you can hardly expect that it would be favourably received now.

As to the suggestion that the experts to whom you refer did not have vested interests, it is patently ludicrous, since they clearly did. If they wished to be taken seriously as genuinely independent voices, perhaps they ought to have done more to retain some modicum of independence?

There were people like that Professor of EU Law, working for the University of Liverpool who was said to have had a vested interest, because his uni got some EU grant somewhere. Compare his modest University salary to the money he could make advising the UK Govt on how best to establish a post-Brexit UK, and he probably voted against his personal interests. Manufacturers telling us that they wouldn't manufacture in the UK if they had to pay tariffs on incoming materials and be charged tariffs for the suff they produce, only had vested interests, in the sense that it is obviously a high risk to their UK business operations which needed spelling out to people (which was dismissed anyway).

The way we usually make major decisions is in the HoCs after following due process, extensive cross examining, publishing detailed white papers, issuing bills and laws and generally ensuring that we actually know what we are signing up for. We don't ask the public to directly vote about whether we should invade a country, without telling them what the country is, who we're up against , who our allies may be etc. Our elected politicians debate it in parliament, consider all the facts and make the decision on our behalf

[Burney]

There were people like that Professor of EU Law, working for the University of Liverpool who was said to have had a vested interest, because his uni got some EU grant somewhere. Compare his modest University salary to the money he could make advising the UK Govt on how best to establish a post-Brexit UK, and he probably voted against his personal interests. Manufacturers telling us that they wouldn't manufacture in the UK if they had to pay tariffs on incoming materials and be charged tariffs for the suff they produce, only had vested interests, in the sense that it is obviously a high risk to their UK business operations which needed spelling out to people (which was dismissed anyway).

The way we usually make major decisions is in the HoCs after following due process, extensive cross examining, publishing detailed white papers, issuing bills and laws and generally ensuring that we actually know what we are signing up for. We don't ask the public to directly vote about whether we should invade a country, without telling them what the country is, who we're up against , who our allies may be etc. Our elected politicians debate it in parliament, consider all the facts and make the decision on our behalf

A desire to maintain a status quo that happens to suit you rather than risk the unknown is also a vested interest, I'm afraid. And if you take money from the EU, don't expect anyone to take you seriously as an independent voice on matters pertaining to the EU. Wouldn't you question someone who claimed to speak independently about climate change if you found they'd taken money from the oil industry, for instance?

The referendum took place in no small part because our parliamentary system was shown to be unfit for purpose when it came to representing the people's views. Despite a huge groundswell of anti-EU sentiment, MPs were overwhelmingly pro-EU and thus the public were being ignored - making them understandably angry. It wasn't until another party (UKIP) gained traction and potentially threatened Tory majorities that the public's feelings were even acknowledged. In effect, the referendum came about in order to meet a democratic shortfall in our system of government.

[Brentwood]

A desire to maintain a status quo that happens to suit you rather than risk the unknown is also a vested interest, I'm afraid. And if you take money from the EU, don't expect anyone to take you seriously as an independent voice on matters pertaining to the EU. Wouldn't you question someone who claimed to speak independently about climate change if you found they'd taken money from the oil industry, for instance?

The referendum took place in no small part because our parliamentary system was shown to be unfit for purpose when it came to representing the people's views. Despite a huge groundswell of anti-EU sentiment, MPs were overwhelmingly pro-EU and thus the public were being ignored - making them understandably angry. It wasn't until another party (UKIP) gained traction and potentially threatened Tory majorities that the public's feelings were even acknowledged. In effect, the referendum came about in order to meet a democratic shortfall in our system of government.

He works for a uni and the uni gets some research money from the EU. You can't dismiss somebody who has spent his life studying the intricacies of the EU because of that. Especially one who could become super rich consulting the govt on how to navigate our way out of the EU. Otherwise you could say any expert has a vested interest in anything.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Placing huge decisions about matters the totality of which they cannot possibly understand in the hands of laymen is rather the point of democracy, old chap. If you don't like it, that's a separate argument, but hardly germane here. The logical conclusion to your argument is rule by unaccountable technocrats to whom we must acquiesce on the somewhat dubious grounds that they know what's best for us. And, since that is precisely the situation that many of us voted to reject on June 23rd, you can hardly expect that it would be favourably received now.

As to the suggestion that the experts to whom you refer did not have vested interests, it is patently ludicrous, since they clearly did. If they wished to be taken seriously as genuinely independent voices, perhaps they ought to have done more to retain some modicum of independence?

No. I thought I voted for MPs who were members of parties who paid big-brained people to advise them on the best course of action. It's called representative democracy, and I kinda like it. It sits between direct democracy plebicites and autocracy.

It's worked rather well for us, certainly since the Glorious Revolution meant we had permanent parliaments.

[Ash]

No. I thought I voted for MPs who were members of parties who paid big-brained people to advise them on the best course of action. It's called representative democracy, and I kinda like it. It sits between direct democracy plebicites and autocracy.

It's worked rather well for us, certainly since the Glorious Revolution meant we had permanent parliaments.

But yet some things are more important than 'big brains'. Big brains have brought us endless regime-change wars, millions of death, chaos, Islamist barbarism and a new cold war. Brought to us by high-flying academic neo-cons and lib-hawks. Yet many ordinary people with their smaller brains don't buy this ****. They're actually smart enough to notice that after Iraq and Libya it doesn't work. Yet the 'big brains' try it again in Syria.

The Levellers and the Chartists wouldn't buy this 'big brain' elitist crap, Ganps, and neither should you. Liking Europe has *nothing* to do with supporting the ruling class technocracy of the EU machine. If you support the people of Europe, then support them, not the ****s in Brussels who keep overturning referendums they don't like - in Ireland, France, NL and Greece.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

But yet some things are more important than 'big brains'. Big brains have brought us endless regime-change wars, millions of death, chaos, Islamist barbarism and a new cold war. Brought to us by high-flying academic neo-cons and lib-hawks. Yet many ordinary people with their smaller brains don't buy this ****. They're actually smart enough to notice that after Iraq and Libya it doesn't work. Yet the 'big brains' try it again in Syria.

The Levellers and the Chartists wouldn't buy this 'big brain' elitist crap, Ganps, and neither should you. Liking Europe has *nothing* to do with supporting the ruling class technocracy of the EU machine. If you support the people of Europe, then support them, not the ****s in Brussels who keep overturning referendums they don't like - in Ireland, France, NL and Greece.

1. I'm just saying I prefer representative democracy to direct democracy, Ash. I don't know enough about most policy issues to make an informed decision, I'd rather just elect an MP to make those decisions for me.

2. I take your point about the Levellers, though. Though if I remember the Putney debates correctly, they wanted one man (but not woman) one vote and annual parliaments. Again, they wanted to elect MPs, not have plebiscites on everything.

3. The lifestyle I had between c.1994 and c.2007 was all because of the EU. The first GB free sound system (Spiral Tribe) left for France and Spain c.1992 because of the Criminal Justice Act and started a free party scene. They didn't have free festivals in Europe but the Spirals started them - Teknivals. More and more English rigs (sound systems) came out and more and more natives started joining in, getting their own rigs and starting to live in vehicles. Before long we had 40-50k people coming to Teknivals in France. We had free sound systems from all over Europe, many with a mix of nationalities. That was my adult life, mate.

And I'm afraid it was inseparable from Brussels. (A bit like I couldn't have been a squatter before that without a govt and the City of London to pay my giro.)

We felt European, we felt united. For the first time ever - because of the lack of lyrics in tekno music - we had a properly united pan-European youth counter-culture movement/lifestyle. And it wouldn't have happened without the EU.

I was a Euro-raver then. Yes, I was British (which gave you a certain kudos coming from the country which started it all, which was nice.) But I was European first and foremost. It would never have happened if we'd needed the visas that are being talked about. You needed to be able to jump on a bus/train/plane or drive to Dover or Calais at the drop of a hat.

I'm not saying I support the EU machine and the technocracy. And I know in the real world the EZ will never get the full fiscal and political union it needs to make it work.

But had you asked any of us Teknival Euro-ravers back then if we could unite Europe into one country, we'd have all said yes.

As I say, I know this could never happen in the real world, but I'm just trying to explain how we felt. We all felt me had far more in common with each other than with most people from our respective countries.

It was a beautiful feeling, Ash. I can't really describe it and we didn't think about the politics of it all, just out-witting the local fuzz. But I guess we saw no difference between a govt in Brussels and the one in GB which had criminalised our lifestyle and thrown us out of the country.

If you'd said to us that the EU machine was the price we had to pay - that it was the undemocratic EU or no more Tekkies and the end to our friendships - then we'd have chosen the teknivals and EU every day of the week.

If you wanna waste five mins watching a montage vid of what we were doing (set to Moby, not Tekno music), have a look here:

https://vimeo.com/35344156

As I say, we didn't think about the politics but felt we were all citizens of the same of the same country. While we'd talk about how the rave laws were changing in various countries, I don't think any of us ever mentioned Brussels/the EU once in 2 decades. As I say, we weren't political. We just wanted to find a field, put up the rigs and get munted for the next 1-3 weeks before moving on and doing it again.

I know we can never have a proper, single European country but if I could vote for one, I would. Because that's what my adult life, in it's pathetic, hedonistic way, was devoted to.

[Ash]

People voted against something, which they can't possibly understand in enough detail. It was incredibly reckless to put this decision in the hands of laymen. The few people who understand the financial aspects of the EU in detail (professors, economists, CEOs) were dismissed as having vested interests, mocked and ignored.

These anti-democratic impulses are similar to the arguments used against the Chartists, the Suffragettes and all the way back to the Levellers. Only the elite capitalists, financiers and political classes, we are told, (whose wisdom, of course, brought us the great crash of 2008), can be allowed to decide the destiny of all, and the common man and women must defer to their betters. And that destiny is to be a Europe united under an unelected and unnacountable leadership.

The same experts, by the way, whose policies have devastated the economies of southern Europe and pretty much destroyed Greece, while placing blame on the Greek people.

Yes, there will be a short-to-medium term economic hit to leaving the single market. No, it is not essential to exist in a supranational state (where not everyone shares the benefits). Yes, there is every reason to be confident that new trade deals can be struck both elsewhere and with a Europe that will still want to trade with us, assuming the government is committed to competently persuing this.

And yes, there are definitely vested interests squealing the loudest. From bankers and their billions of bonuses to the middle-class with their cheap au-pairs and builders.