Today's Vote

Actually maybe I'm wrong on how informed 'remainers' are, even those that are actually protesting...

https://youtu.be/qIjUESuwqes

yes indeed there are less well informed on both sides of the argument! can't we accept that?

Paul. think I am better in control of the facts than probably 90% of the people in the country - whether that be those who voted leave or voted remain. Why? Because its my job to be in control of the facts on this issue, and public policy issues more generally. I don't think saying that is arrogance or condescension actually. I think its just a recognition of one of my relative strengths.

I also probably know less about football and rugby than 90% of the Welsh male population. If someone questioned my comments about football or rugby - saying I didn't understand past form, or the rules, or whatever.. they would probably be right. It wouldn't be condescending on their part to point out where they thought my errors were.

Now on the issue more generally of whether the "Remainers" tended to be better informed than the "Leavers". I could go on anecdotes. Or I could go on statistics. On average, we know from multiple large surveys that Leavers are much less educated than Remainers. We also know that they are much less engaged in politics. And that they make more mistakes on factual issues related to things like EU powers, immigration etc. So to generalise, on average, I think we probably can say Leavers as a group were/are less informed than Remainers.

Having said that, perhaps the most informed person I know is a Leaver (I'm actually going to Brazil with him for 2 weeks in a little over 3 days). He understands the institutions and regulations, the options and issues, and the range of potential consequences good and bad. Its simply that he makes different judgements on the likelihood of some of these outcomes, and places different weights on the various issues. Similarly, I'm sure there are Remain voters who have looked very little into this and are voting remain so "we can still go on holiday to Spain".

So, what we're talking about here is averages, not everyone on either side. Which means please don't see my comments as a personal attack on you (I realise I'm making an assumption about your vote here given the personal way you have taken this). I think from our interactions on here, we'd realise that we are both reasonable, considered people who look at the issues - even if we reach very different conclusions. I'm sure Wizard feels the same.

Paul. think I am better in control of the facts than probably 90% of the people in the country - whether that be those who voted leave or voted remain. Why? Because its my job to be in control of the facts on this issue, and public policy issues more generally. I don't think saying that is arrogance or condescension actually. I think its just a recognition of one of my relative strengths.

I also probably know less about football and rugby than 90% of the Welsh male population. If someone questioned my comments about football or rugby - saying I didn't understand past form, or the rules, or whatever.. they would probably be right. It wouldn't be condescending on their part to point out where they thought my errors were.

Now on the issue more generally of whether the "Remainers" tended to be better informed than the "Leavers". I could go on anecdotes. Or I could go on statistics. On average, we know from multiple large surveys that Leavers are much less educated than Remainers. We also know that they are much less engaged in politics. And that they make more mistakes on factual issues related to things like EU powers, immigration etc. So to generalise, on average, I think we probably can say Leavers as a group were/are less informed than Remainers.

Having said that, perhaps the most informed person I know is a Leaver (I'm actually going to Brazil with him for 2 weeks in a little over 3 days). He understands the institutions and regulations, the options and issues, and the range of potential consequences good and bad. Its simply that he makes different judgements on the likelihood of some of these outcomes, and places different weights on the various issues. Similarly, I'm sure there are Remain voters who have looked very little into this and are voting remain so "we can still go on holiday to Spain".

So, what we're talking about here is averages, not everyone on either side. Which means please don't see my comments as a personal attack on you (I realise I'm making an assumption about your vote here given the personal way you have taken this). I think from our interactions on here, we'd realise that we are both reasonable, considered people who look at the issues - even if we reach very different conclusions. I'm sure Wizard feels the same.

Ok I really do understand that you are very much better informed than most (I'm genuine here by the way - no sarcasm) - I totally accept that, and appreciate your respectfully written comments. But through your knowledge and opinion you believe we have very much done the wrong thing, and I accept that also. The trouble is that for whatever reasons (and you've pretty much explained what you think they are) the remain campaign lost the democratic vote. Not you, but calling everyone else who didn't vote that way... xenophobic, rascist and moronic is a tad harsh to say the least! and surely we agree on that otherwise I'm sure you wouldn't choose to spend 2 weeks in Brazil with someone like that!

Paul

What I think Cambo is trying to say is that leaving will have a greater impact on those who wish to remain than what the impact would have been for leavers if we had chosen to remain.

I have never seen UK media take an interest in EU politics as it has done in these past few days. Given we are going to have this until at least October it may give the UK electorate the opportunity to actually see what EU politics was all about. It really does surprise me that some say the EU is undemocratic but when you compare it to the UK system it has an elected head of state and proportional representation in its parliament. That is hardly less democratic.

The big issues (in a political sense) seem to be a misunderstanding of the EU Commission and what it actually does. It is no different to the UK Civil Service in that it proposes legislation following direction from the head of state (European Council). It is much less bureaucratic than the UK (27,000 civil servants for 500m compared to 500k for 65m in the UK). Any legislation it proposes must be approved by the parliament and the council of ministers who are both directly elected by the electorate.

It is a done deal now. There can't be no backtracking and we need to accept it and move on. The real issue for me is we need to understand what relationship we will have with the EU because quite frankly I am of the opinion they will want to make an issue of the UK and show that if you leave you end up with very little.

Regardless of the result, look at what this thread has descended into. And it's not just this forum. This is perfectly representative of the current public divide.

People are getting abused on the streets, fear and anger are rampant, and hatred of the "other half" is bordering on irreparable. I hope we can move past this, but part of me thinks that we won't. We're in for at least a decade of this new, toxic, xenophobic, class-divided Britain.

With regard to the forum, I think we should set an example. Let's stop this vitriolic talk and try to have a sensible discussion about the way forward.

Paul

What I think Cambo is trying to say is that leaving will have a greater impact on those who wish to remain than what the impact would have been for leavers if we had chosen to remain.

I have never seen UK media take an interest in EU politics as it has done in these past few days. Given we are going to have this until at least October it may give the UK electorate the opportunity to actually see what EU politics was all about. It really does surprise me that some say the EU is undemocratic but when you compare it to the UK system it has an elected head of state and proportional representation in its parliament. That is hardly less democratic.

The big issues (in a political sense) seem to be a misunderstanding of the EU Commission and what it actually does. It is no different to the UK Civil Service in that it proposes legislation following direction from the head of state (European Council). It is much less bureaucratic than the UK (27,000 civil servants for 500m compared to 500k for 65m in the UK). Any legislation it proposes must be approved by the parliament and the council of ministers who are both directly elected by the electorate.

It is a done deal now. There can't be no backtracking and we need to accept it and move on. The real issue for me is we need to understand what relationship we will have with the EU because quite frankly I am of the opinion they will want to make an issue of the UK and show that if you leave you end up with very little.

It is you that has misunderstood what the EU Commission is. It bears almost no relation to the UK Civil Service. Each country's government nominates a Commissioner and it is the Commissioners who propose new laws and policies. The elected MEPs have no role in proposing laws. In the UK laws are put before Parliament by the government or private member''s Biils, whereas in the EU they are formulated by unelected Commissioners.

Not too difficult to understand, even for us thicko leavers.

Then again, you have displayed a supernatural ability over the years to get not only the wrong end of the stick, but the wrong stick, so your obtuse behaviour in this matter comes as no surprise,

Mr Blue Sky

It would appear the EU Commission is a bit too difficult for you to understand. The EU Commission is made up of two parts. The first is the group of commissioners that you refer to. These are appointed by the member states (each member state appoints its own commissioner) but must be approved by the parliament and the council of ministers. The other part of the EU Commission is the 27,000 civil servants that support the work of the Commissioners. If you want to break it down, the EU Commissioners are analogous to the permanent secretaries and the EU Commission itself to Whitehall, neither of which are elected

The truth, is as always, somewhere in the middle. There is nothing quite like the European Commission. It is not simply a civil service - it does have a unique role in the formulation of EU regulations. However, it is not an "unelected European government" as it's legislative agenda is ultimately determined in consultation with the governments of the member countries of the EU (sitting in the Council of the European Union) and legislation may be debated, amended, and rejected by MEPs and the Council of the European Union.

I think when people argue that the EU is "undemocratic" they generally do not understand this set up. I think - and I agree this is just my assertion - that many people repeating this mantra think that the "unelected bureaucrats" of the Commissioner are judge, jury and executioner when it comes to legislation.

The truth is that nothing can happen without the approval of our elected MEPs and elected governments. They are the real driving force behind Europe.

What is fair to say is that this system is very complex and is incredibly poorly understood. I think the latter is in large part due to a failure in civics education in this country (How many people know the process of legislation passing the Welsh or UK parliaments to become law, let alone that of the EU?). It also reflects a rather insular UK media and polity - more interested in purely domestic US political issues than issues in Europe that have immediate effects on us. All we get is the rather misleading and hyperbolic stories from our Eurosceptic press.

To me that was actually one of the stronger reasons to leave. The fact we don't feel a big enough part of a European polity to understand and pay attention to a set of institutions taking fairly important (although not the most important) decisions on policies. Given the benefits I think we obtain(ed) from EU membership, I think the solution was to engage more in that politics and polity. Others could disagree.

If that is what this referendum had been fought over.. it would have been a much more honourable and honest fight!

Regardless of the result, look at what this thread has descended into. And it's not just this forum. This is perfectly representative of the current public divide.

People are getting abused on the streets, fear and anger are rampant, and hatred of the "other half" is bordering on irreparable. I hope we can move past this, but part of me thinks that we won't. We're in for at least a decade of this new, toxic, xenophobic, class-divided Britain.

With regard to the forum, I think we should set an example. Let's stop this vitriolic talk and try to have a sensible discussion about the way forward.

Quite! All these vitriolic rants from people on both sides really won't help our current situation, nor will they bring people back together. If anyone follows Scottish politics, you'll see just how bitter they've all become after the independence campaign, with no signs of that rift healing.

Regardless of whether you agree/disagree, changed your mind or didn't really understand what you were actually voting for, etc. etc., the decision has been made. So unless we have a re-run of the referendum when we know more details, let's just get on with it and make this work.

I think there is a twist in this yet...What if a general election is called and the Tory party lose their slim majority? Who is going to trigger Article 50? With the amount of flux in the political landscape in this country at the moment, nobody could predict the outcome of a general election. I think the Lib Dems are positioning themselves very well as the party to oppose Brexit and could do very well out of this if a general election is called. How does Bojo take power and convince the electorate he has a mandate to rule, he'll find it very difficult considering he had little to do with the manifesto and mandate upon which the current government was elected.

Not saying it won't happen, but the outcome is not foregone and there is lots more to come. There is no precedent and so it's all to play for and the power brokers know it; it's a classic power vacuum and history tells us that traditionally from power vacuums come extreme governments or leaders. Basically the rule book is out the window and anything can happen.

Have to say 'i'm finding it all fascinating even though my personal views are that the current mood of the country is very worrying and taking a dangerous turn.