Does the taxation of robotics make any sense

[soldar]

11 Brexit promises the government quietly dropped
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2018/mar/28/11-brexit-promises-leavers-quietly-dropped
Leaving aside the £350m for the NHS, Brexit has promised quick and easy trade deals with the EU and the rest of the world, an end to ECJ jurisdiction and free movement, and British control of North Sea fishing. None of this has come to pass. Here are 11 key abandoned claims

[Zero999]

Ryanair are cunts and I'm glad to see the back of them.

People talk a lot of doom and gloom about Brexit, and the rest of the EU clearly blame the UK, but once the UK leaves, a lot of it will happen will be determined by the EU, rather than the UK: deal or no deal. The UK clearly don't want a border with the EU in Ireland, and nor does Ireland and there needn't be one, if the EU permits it. There could be huge barriers on trade with long queues in the ports or goods might be waved though, with no checks.

I can't believe people are now comparing the UK with a communist state. I agree the UK government have gone total retard on Brexit but comparing it to Cuba is beyond parody. Well perhaps if they don't honour the referendum result, a more fair comparison can be made to an authoritarian state. My hope is for another referendum. I can see how that would be unpopular, but I think it's the least worst option, at the moment.

[apis]

People talk a lot of doom and gloom about Brexit, and the rest of the EU clearly blame the UK, but once the UK leaves, a lot of it will happen will be determined by the EU, rather than the UK: deal or no deal. The UK clearly don't want a border with the EU in Ireland, and nor does Ireland and there needn't be one, if the EU permits it. There could be huge barriers on trade with long queues in the ports or goods might be waved though, with no checks.

You seem to be in denial about this. It's understandable.

The UK wants a border with the EU (brexit). The republic of Ireland is a member of the EU. It follows that the UK wants a border with the Republic of Ireland. The UK can either put it between Norther Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (well, they really can't because of the Good Friday Agreement), or they can have it between Great Britain and Ireland (backstop). It's entirely up to the UK. (The EU would prefer no borders at all, of course).

The EU is just waiting for the UK to make up their mind and get on with it. (They won't let you delay forever.)

EDIT: For your convenience I'm gonna post this video again since it explains the situation better than I can.

[Zero999]

I've never heard of the term "maximum Brexit" before and isn't a term used by the British. We have hard and soft Brexit, which represent a continuum ranging from total isolation from the EU, to leaving in name only and remaining in the single market and customs union. Of course that patronising video doesn't explain this.

In reality no one wants a border through Ireland. So why not put it through the Irish sea? No, the DUP doesn't want that, even though most of the UK would be happy with it. Others have proposed a gap in the border with the EU, between Northern and the RoI, but the EU won't allow that and oddly enough that video hasn't covered it, perhaps because it doesn't fit in with their political views? If the UK leaves on the 12th without a deal, Northern Ireland could theoretically keep the borer open, but the Republic would no doubt close it.

My own view is we should not leave, but if the public can't be persuaded, then we must do so properly. The UK should leave the Irish border open, then Ireland and the EU can make the decision whether or not to close the other side.

[rstofer]

My hope is for another referendum. I can see how that would be unpopular, but I think it's the least worst option, at the moment.

But the people already voted to leave!  Should the UK go to 'do-overs' like the ROI?

There has been some ugly comments made re:  the UK and the UK voters over the last two years.  I would imagine some moderates are pretty unhappy with leaders of the EU.  What happens if the margin to leave (even with no deal) increases.  Substantially...

Another 3 year delay?  I was hoping this thing would be implemented in my lifetime so I could see how it worked out.

I know, the young people are convinced the old people who voted leave are dead or dying off but if they stopped to think, there are more old people being created just by virtue of the aging 'boomer' generation.  As I understand it, the young people think they can sway the vote.  Where were they during the first vote?  Are they actually going to vote on the next go-around?

A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality.

[apis]

I've never heard of the term "maximum Brexit" before and isn't a term used by the British. We have hard and soft Brexit, which represent a continuum ranging from total isolation from the EU, to leaving in name only and remaining in the single market and customs union.

Maximum Brexit == Hard Brexit

(Over here a hard Brexit usually refers to a no-deal Brexit, so maybe they deliberately avoid that term to prevent confusion.)

My own view is we should not leave, but if the public can't be persuaded, then we must do so properly.

That makes sense.

The UK should leave the Irish border open, then Ireland and the EU can make the decision whether or not to close the other side.

That is not an option. The UK wants a border, that was the whole point of Brexit. If you leave the border to the EU open you have no Brexit at all. People and goods will enter and exit the UK without the UK's control, Brexit was supposed to prevent that.

[soldar]

The UK should leave the Irish border open, then Ireland and the EU can make the decision whether or not to close the other side.

That is not an option. The UK wants a border, that was the whole point of Brexit. If you leave the border to the EU open you have no Brexit at all. People and goods will enter and exit the UK without the UK's control, Brexit was supposed to prevent that.

UK: We don't want open borders, we want to close the border.
EU: That presents a problem because YOU have a treaty where you say you want OPEN border with Ireland which is the EU
UK: Yes we want open border with Ireland
EU: So you want to remain as you are?
UK: NO, we want to close the borders so we have control.
EU: But that contradicts what you are saying that you want an open border with Ireland
UK: Yes, we want an open border with Ireland
EU: But that is what you have now which you say you don't want. So what is it?
UK: We want open borders with Ireland but not with the EU
EU: But Ireland IS the EU
UK: You just don't like me and you are trying to make things difficult for me! It's all your fault! That is why I don't like you either! Go away! I want to close the border!


I feel like just banging my head against the wall will be less painful. 

[rstofer]

The UK wants a border, that was the whole point of Brexit. If you leave the border to the EU open you have no Brexit at all. People and goods will enter and exit the UK without the UK's control, Brexit was supposed to prevent that.

As to economic migrants, Northern Ireland isn't a high value target.  In fact, since the Brexit vote, the number of immigrants has declined by 26%

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-44642297

A goodly percentage (20%) of farm workers in NI are economic migrants.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-45722054

In total, the number of immigrants is fairly small and manageable.  Just let them move back and forth to Romania and call it good.  In farming, you're only talking about 1400 people.  Not an overwhelming issue!

As to goods and services, goods transiting NI can be tagged for inspection in one of the other UK countries.  Products originating in NI can be tagged such that no further inspection is required.  This is solvable!

Is it perfect, beyond hacking?  Of course not!  But what percentage of cargo is checked today?  How much of it is contraband including human smuggling?  The US checks just about 4% of incoming containers in the US and 1% in foreign ports.  Somehow we survive.  Trusted traders and such.  But that leaves over 10 million containers coming into the US without inspection.  Seems like a lot.

http://www.westarusa.com/u-s-lawmakers-say-new-technology-time-inspect-inbound-containers/

Before the NI border can be solved, the primary players need to sit down with the WILL to solve it.  Veradkar has no interest in solving it as long as he thinks he can use it as a lever to reunite Ireland or force NI to remain in the EU.  No technical solution was ever acceptable.

Once the exit is over and done with, people will figure out how to solve the border.  Gamesmanship will be over and the players will be facing reality.  The EU and ROI will have more interest in coming up with a workable solution since, although Brexit created the issue, it is an issue to the EU and ROI, not the UK.

One thing about getting the 'exit' over with is that all the side issues can then be ranked by importance and dealt with in a much more realistic and less political manner.  Did anybody ever believe the 'landing rights' debate?  It was absurd to think that UK airlines couldn't land in EU countries!  Did anybody think about reciprocity?  EU airlines couldn't land in UK?  That would shut Ryanair down!  It sure got a lot of press at the time.  Part of project fear I suppose.

[apis]

Before the NI border can be solved, the primary players need to sit down with the WILL to solve it.

The negotiations are already over. They've been at it for three years. Now we're waiting for the British parliament to make up their mind. Next week Theresa May is going to ask the EU for a delay, but it's not certain she will get one (although it's likely, because the EU is too nice/soft to just kick them out without a deal).

Not sure what you are saying about the border? It sounds like you are arguing for the backstop which is what Theresa May wants, but the British parliament voted no to her three times in a row.

[SilverSolder]

Some leave voters are changing their minds, as understanding increases.  For example:

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/i-was-strong-brexiteer-now-we-must-swallow-our-pride-and-think-again/

[Siwastaja]

Ireland IS the EU

You really don't see anything wrong in this statement?

Like, on the fundamental level.

If not, let me fix it for you: Ireland is a member of a political and economical union called EU.

EU has always been, legally is, and IMHO, should remain, a "club". This is what people voted for when joining EU. This is the EU I support.

If you start treating it as a country, you end up with such ridiculous contradictions, and unhappy people wanting to leave it before it indeed becomes a country. This is not surprising at all. Brexit has one positive side to it: it shows that it is possible to leave EU, and this means competition of ideas: EU has to prove itself useful and good for the people in the remaining EU countries, to avoid more *xits; this can only lead to more democratic, and more widely accepted decisions in the future. This kind of freedom of choice can only work to prevent a slide into totalitarism; it's a protective measure, very good to have within EU I like. I find it very peculiar how certain people flip this over and compare choosing not being a part of EU to totalitarism.

[Zero999]

The UK should leave the Irish border open, then Ireland and the EU can make the decision whether or not to close the other side.

That is not an option. The UK wants a border, that was the whole point of Brexit. If you leave the border to the EU open you have no Brexit at all. People and goods will enter and exit the UK without the UK's control, Brexit was supposed to prevent that.

UK: We don't want open borders, we want to close the border.
EU: That presents a problem because YOU have a treaty where you say you want OPEN border with Ireland which is the EU
UK: Yes we want open border with Ireland
EU: So you want to remain as you are?
UK: NO, we want to close the borders so we have control.
EU: But that contradicts what you are saying that you want an open border with Ireland
UK: Yes, we want an open border with Ireland
EU: But that is what you have now which you say you don't want. So what is it?
UK: We want open borders with Ireland but not with the EU
EU: But Ireland IS the EU
UK: You just don't like me and you are trying to make things difficult for me! It's all your fault! That is why I don't like you either! Go away! I want to close the border!


I feel like just banging my head against the wall will be less painful. 

It's not that simple.

There are not two parties in this dispute, but four: Westminster, the DUP (who govern Northern Ireland), the Irish Republic and the EU and it's impossible to please them all.

Westminster are happy with the idea of a border across the Irish sea and for Northern Ireland to remain in the customs union, allowing the internal Irish border to remain open.

The DUP are unhappy with Northern Ireland being treated differently to the rest of the UK. If the UK leave the customs union, they want to follow, but it would involve closing the internal Irish border and breaching the Good Friday treaty.

The Irish Republic don't want a border inside Ireland, as it would contradict the Good Friday agreement.

What I was proposing was Northern Ireland, along with the rest of the UK to leave the customs union, with some kind of arrangement with the Irish Republic to keep the border as open as possible, but the EU will not allow this.

Most people in Northern Ireland voted to remain in the UK, accept Brexit will happen, but want to remain within the customs union, even if the rest of the UK leaves, to prevent this problem, but the DUP are holding firm. It could be argued that the DUP are to blame here, especially as they don't represent the view of those they govern.

When the UK leaves, they will have a choice of which borders they want to close or not. They could theoretically keep the Northern Irish side open, irrespective of the EU's decision. If that happens, the EU could be blamed, as if it wasn't for them, no doubt the RoI would have been happy with an open border with Northern Ireland. I think if that happens, the RoI would rather piss of Brussels, than risk the IRA reforming.

So you can still blame Westminster for starting this, but saying well you started it, is the standard response in the playground.

We shouldn't play the blame game, but try to seek a compromise which will upset as few people as possible and keep the peace.

Ireland IS the EU

You really don't see anything wrong in this statement?

Like, on the fundamental level.

If not, let me fix it for you: Ireland is a member of a political and economical union called EU.

EU has always been, legally is, and IMHO, should remain, a "club". This is what people voted for when joining EU. This is the EU I support.

If you start treating it as a country, you end up with such ridiculous contradictions, and unhappy people wanting to leave it before it indeed becomes a country. This is not surprising at all. Brexit has one positive side to it: it shows that it is possible to leave EU, and this means competition of ideas: EU has to prove itself useful and good for the people in the remaining EU countries, to avoid more *xits; this can only lead to more democratic, and more widely accepted decisions in the future. This kind of freedom of choice can only work to prevent a slide into totalitarism; it's a protective measure, very good to have within EU I like. I find it very peculiar how certain people flip this over and compare choosing not being a part of EU to totalitarism.

Yes that's a very strong reason behind Brexit. Although the members of the EU have a say over how it is run, the centre of power is far too distant from the people and lacks accountability. Many voted leave, because they don't like the way the EU is heading: ever closer union, which they see as the path to a superstate. One of the biggest reasons why I voted to remain was because of this, just that it's better to be on the inside and  have some say on the direction of the EU, than on the outside, but still affected by it and have no influence over it.

[apis]

The Irish Republic don't want a border inside Ireland, as it would contradict the Good Friday agreement.

What I was proposing was Northern Ireland, along with the rest of the UK to leave the customs union, with some kind of arrangement with the Irish Republic to keep the border as open as possible, but the EU will not allow this.

No it's the Irish people who doesn't wan't a border on the island of Ireland and the UK has promised there would never be a border through Ulster again, that is the problem.

The Republic of Ireland is a member of the EU and negotiate through the EU, but to all the other EU members it doesn't matter where the border is. So it is just silly to blame this on the EU.

The brexiteers should have predicted this problem, the Good Friday Agreement was a known fact. At the same time they are blocking the British parliament from making a decision and try and blame the EU for it. That requires some serious mental gymnastics and it's just plain ridiculous.

The British parliament voted no to Theresa May's deal three times in a row, are you saying that is only because DUP is against it?
"Theresa May's Conservative party has 316 seats, and it has also secured the support of the 10 seats from the DUP."
DUP doesn't have that kind of influence.

So you can still blame Westminster for starting this, but saying well you started it, is the standard response in the playground.

Why then do you insist on blaming the UK's troubles on the EU? The whole Brexit circus is characterised by lies, vitriol and smear campaigns directed against the EU and remainers. One of the remain campaigners were even murdered by brexiters. This isn't childsplay, even if it's on the same mental level.

The brexiteers doesn't simply want to the UK to leave, they want to destroy the EU. EU has a right to defend itself from false accusations and anti-EU propaganda.

UK kicks someone.
Someone: Ouch, why did you do that?
UK: It wasn't me, it was the EU.
EU: No it was the UK, here's the proof.
UK: We're both equally at fault and it is childish to say who started it.
EU:

[Zero999]

The Irish Republic don't want a border inside Ireland, as it would contradict the Good Friday agreement.

What I was proposing was Northern Ireland, along with the rest of the UK to leave the customs union, with some kind of arrangement with the Irish Republic to keep the border as open as possible, but the EU will not allow this.

No it's the Irish people who doesn't wan't a border on the island of Ireland and the UK has promised there would never be a border through Ulster again, that is the problem.

Same thing. No one in Ireland wants an internal border.

The Republic of Ireland is a member of the EU and negotiate through the EU, but to all the other EU members it doesn't matter where the border is. So it is just silly to blame this on the EU.

That's part of the problem, the rest of the EU have to agree. If it were just the RoI, then it would be easier to reach an agreement.

The brexiteers should have predicted this problem, the Good Friday Agreement was a known fact. At the same time they are blocking the British parliament from making a decision and try and blame the EU for it. That requires some serious mental gymnastics and it's just plain ridiculous.

And the whole of EU, which included the UK at the time, should have considered this when they drafted the Lisbon treaty and Article 50, but it wasn't, because no one ever thought it would be used.

The British parliament voted no to Theresa May's deal three times in a row, are you saying that is only because DUP is against it?
"Theresa May's Conservative party has 316 seats, and it has also secured the support of the 10 seats from the DUP."
DUP doesn't have that kind of influence.

You're right, it's not just the DUP and Brexiteers, but many of the remainers too. The backstop is only one of the numbers reasons why it was rejected. Lots of the remainers want a softer Brexit deal and would never allow May's deal to pass. I personally support it, because it's the least worse option.

So you can still blame Westminster for starting this, but saying well you started it, is the standard response in the playground.

Why then do you insist on blaming the UK's troubles on the EU? The whole Brexit circus is characterised by lies, vitriol and smear campaigns directed against the EU and remainers. One of the remain campaigners were even murdered by brexiters. This isn't childsplay, even if it's on the same mental level.

The brexiteers doesn't simply want to the UK to leave, they want to destroy the EU. EU has a right to defend itself from false accusations and anti-EU propaganda.

I don't blame all the UK's troubles on the EU. I can understand why many people voted to leave. I agree with about 10% of what the leave campaign said. Sympathising with the other side and agreeing with them are different matters. Yes there was a lot of anti-EU propaganda and lies going around with Brexit, which is why I support another referendum.

I seriously don't think that many people want to destroy the EU. Perhaps some on the extreme right do, but most in favour of Brexit don't and just want to leave the EU. I don't want to destroy the EU. It just needs reform, for the good of everyone.

[apis]

I seriously don't think that many people want to destroy the EU. Perhaps some on the extreme right do, but most in favour of Brexit don't and just want to leave the EU. I don't want to destroy the EU. It just needs reform, for the good of everyone.

Not the "sheeple" who voted for Brexit, but many of the politicians and the people who are funding and organising the Brexit campaign do. After the referendum they were cheering and gleefully proclaiming that other countries would follow suit and that it would lead to a complete collapse of the union. The foreign influencers are of course from the EU's competition and many of them seem to think it is in their interest if europe descend into a circus of infighting. There are problems with EU, most people agree with that, but those problems are fixable and we would be far worse off without the EU. If the UK were campaigning for more transparency and democracy reforms I would be on the barricades with you, but Brexit is just self goal.

[Zero999]

Thinking this through again. Yes, the UK government are largely to blame for this. The reason for my defensiveness, was because I felt personally attacked, by the assertion that the UK citizens are at fault. Don't forget that the government's position is very different to that of most people, even those who voted to leave. My father voted to leave for various reasons and destroying Europe is not one of them. I voted to remain, despite my misgivings about Europe, largely because it's good for the economy, as well as hopefully being able to put the brakes on the ever closer union nonsense. There are many things I dislike about some of the Eurocrats, but I also hate many of out own politicians, especially those in UKIP.

The government should have drafted up a workable Brexit plan before the referendum. The reason they didn't was because they didn't believe the Brexit vote would ever win. Then Nigel who supported Brexit left, which was retarded. May then messed up when she called for another general election, otherwise she might've been able to get her deal though. I admit, I think the EU could have handled it better, but they're not as bad as the UK government, who have produced a catalogue of failures!

I wouldn't be surprised if there was some foreign interference in Brexit, but a lot of it came from within and has been there for a long time. I believe a lot of people weren't happy with the Mastricht treaty, then came the expansion of the EU into the former Eastern Bloc which many disapproved of, but I wouldn't advocate undoing any of that.

[soldar]

The referendum was a colossal blunder. The common person on the street is not informed or capable of making decisions on complex issues. People do not have time for that and that is why they elect representatives who can inform themselves and hire experts to study issues in depth. To pretend that the average person on the street is capable of deciding these things is just populist pandering. Representative democracy has worked well in the UK since forever and the referendum should never have taken place. Cameron will go down in history as one of the people who did most damage to the UK. 

The referendum was not binding in any way. Final responsibility for government decisions rests with Parliament and they are cowards for not doing their jobs. If they had a spine they would say "after taking the advice contained in the results of the referendum and having considered all the facts we have, we are going to do what we consider is in the bests interests of the UK". And they would show their leadership and the people would support them.

You cannot lead by following. Just to give one example, America in the 1960s was deeply racist and in favor of segregation and it took strong leaders to lead America away from that. A country needs leaders not idiots who just follow the common, ignorant man on the street.

Having made one huge blunder the correct thing to do is change course. Only a fool would insist on continuing charging ahead towards slaughter, like the Light Brigade. I forget who, when confronted with someone accusing him of having changed his mind said something like "Yes, when the information I have available changes I change my mind. What do you do?" (Searching I see it is attributed to Keynes and/or Paul Samuelson.)

I was going to copy a few significant paragraphs of the following article but I decided anyone interested really needs to read it in full because it is outstanding.  Really good.  I strongly recommend it. 

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/i-was-strong-brexiteer-now-we-must-swallow-our-pride-and-think-again/
I was a strong Brexiteer. Now we must swallow our pride and think again
If we are to leave the European Union we want a sensible Brexit. There’s no chance of that just now.

E.T.A.: I just saw this link was posted in #138 by SilverSolder. Good recommendation.

[rstofer]

The referendum was a colossal blunder. The common person on the street is not informed or capable of making decisions on complex issues. People do not have time for that and that is why they elect representatives who can inform themselves and hire experts to study issues in depth. To pretend that the average person on the street is capable of deciding these things is just populist pandering. Representative democracy has worked well in the UK since forever and the referendum should never have taken place. Cameron will go down in history as one of the people who did most damage to the UK. 

And yet the voters did right when they voted to remain in what would become the EU in a similar referendum in 1975 after Edward Heath's government signed on in 1973.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum

Seems they misunderstood that time too!  What if they had voted no?  Would they have had a do-over like the ROI?  Keep voting until they got it right?

People vote for representatives that are supposed to represent their views.  They don't elect dictators.  It makes no sense for a majority of voters to approve something only to have their elected representatives say 'no, you can't have that even though we let you vote for it'.  Woe be the representative that says 'you're too stupid to understand what you voted for'.

What they voted for was simple and didn't require any thought on their part.  Leave the EU!  Simple as that.  Do whatever is necessary to restore the UK's sovereignty.  And get it done soon!  The details are left for their representatives to work out.  But the goal remains unchanged.

[soldar]

What they voted for was simple and didn't require any thought on their part.  Leave the EU!  Simple as that.

Yeah, so what if it reignites a civil war in the Irish border? Who cares? We said we want out regardless of consequences.

Thank goodness that Parliament have not totally taken leave of their senses.

Do whatever is necessary to restore the UK's sovereignty.  And get it done soon!  The details are left for their representatives to work out.  But the goal remains unchanged.

Yeah. We voted for something impossible and our representatives better work out the details ASAP.

The voters voted for something impossible. If you have the formula to make it happen I am sure in Westminster they would love to hear from you.

Like populisms have any good record at all. I can't think of any populism that ended well and, frankly, when outsiders preach for populisms under the guise that it's "democracy" I get suspicious of their intentions.

I do not consider populist democracy to be an end in itself. I consider good government, stability, order, progress to be good ends and forms of government are means towards those ends. In the UK and elsewhere representative democracy has a pretty good record while populist movements that ostensibly give power directly to the people have a pretty bad record. Outsiders preaching for populist governments and populist measures are very suspicious to me.

[SilverSolder]

the expansion of the EU into the former Eastern Bloc which many disapproved of

You are aware that this expansion was instigated and driven by the UK, with the other large members protesting?  (Tony Blair's government)

[SilverSolder]

The referendum was a colossal blunder. The common person on the street is not informed or capable of making decisions on complex issues.

The problem was that the Vote Leave campaign lied, and lied, and lied...   hardly any of the things they said turned out to be true, or implementable. 

[soldar]

The problem was that the Vote Leave campaign lied, and lied, and lied...   hardly any of the things they said turned out to be true, or implementable.

To be fair, all politicians lie whenever they are trying to get votes. A Spanish politician not too long ago acted surprised when they confronted him with some lie he had said. Basically he said nothing said while campaigning can or should be taken seriously. "Yes, we lie but we all know we are lying so it is not really a lie." Others like to maintain a polite fiction but that is the truth of it.

The Brexit tragedy is a concatenation of dishonest lies and blunders. Cameron organized the referendum, not because he was trying to solve any existing problem in the UK but because he was trying to solve a problem within his party. He thought his position, "remain" would win easily and that would shut the mouth of his opponents within his party. The whole thing backfired spectacularly.

It opened a can of worms in the UK and has created a division in society which was totally unnecessary. The leave campaign used not only lies but also illegal funds and the results of the referendum should be dismissed on that fact alone. Fake media accounts from outside come into western media and social networks with the intention of influencing results. It has been show to happen in the USA's last presidential election and in recent elections in Europe. But it is not limited to elections, it happens all the time. Fake accounts will defend positions which are contentious and create division in our societies. They do not need to advocate any one position necessarily, they just create argument and division. Russia, China and maybe others have an interest in creating divisions among us. They gain by having a divided Europe and a divided America so they just sow distrust and division. They use our own freedoms against us. They have created a divisive issue where there was none.

Most people are quite ignorant of any complicated issues and they just follow others who they trust or feel emotionally attached to. It is just human. Also we have a tendency to oppose what we consider is anyone opposed to our group. If our group says something then it is a good idea but if the same idea comes from the other side then it must be bad.

These fake accounts give credence to ideas that are just totally idiotic. People feel that if others are supporting them they cannot be entirely stupid or impossible. It is not only Brexit in the UK; we are seeing similar issues in other western countries. China and Russia benefit from any division in western countries so that is what they aim to create and they are doing quite well.

Fake Russian accounts are everywhere supporting divisive issues and Brexit is no exception. That is why I am suspicious of "concerned" accounts who defend populist "democracy" to the bitter end and let the chips fall where they may. It may be somebody with little information and simplistic views and I have to say we should be understanding and try to inform and educate rather than dismiss those people but I am also afraid we are seeing an increment of people who are not sincere in such views and cause damage by making those views look like they are reasonable and have ample support. There is a lot of agitprop being planted among us under the guise of people's free views.

British politicians have failed and have grave responsibility in this mess. Yes, politicians lie but if they go on to believe their own lies they become harmful idiots.

In the 1980s the Socialist Party in Spain based their campaign on being against NATO (and against the USA). They had no thoughts of winning the elections and this was a platform that appealed to their core voters. Then they went on to win the elections by a landslide and were more surprised than anybody else. What to do now? They could have said "no to NATO" means what is says and we will take Spain out of the western sphere but they were better than that and they did a 180 turn thereby betraying all their voters. Looking at it 35 years later it is obvious they did the best thing and having done the contrary would have taken Spain down the way of Venezuela.

Representative democracy works well when the voters trust their representatives and give them the authority to make decisions. Populist politics are destructive and that has been proven in every case where they have been tried.

 Populist, nationalist, divisive issues and parties are gaining strength and Russia and China are simply delighted with what is going on.

[soldar]

I found an interesting article in the New Yorker Why facts don't change our minds.

The gist of it is that being social animals gives us a very big advantage as knowledge does not need to be in every one of us but individual knowledge add to the knowledge of the group. This is good for all of us but leads to the individual illusion that we individually know much more than we actually do.  People think they know how simple things like a flush toilet or a zipper work but they don't and cannot explain it when asked. When the crisis in Crimea most people could not place Crimea on a map and the greater their ignorance about the Crimea and its position on the map the more they were in favor of going to war over it.

As an individual I can benefit from the knowledge of engineers who design and build automobiles, computers, mobile phones; doctors who can operate and treat diseases, etc. All those things would be totally out of my reach individually. Now, I can choose what car to buy or what doctor to go to but I am not qualified to take their place.  And if I choose wrong I might pay a price. If I choose to follow a quack that says he can treat my brain tumor with bleach and some magic incantations I might suffer consequences. My point is that I should not try to become a brain doctor/surgeon myself but I should try to find the most competent doctor.

Politics is the same. It is absurd to pretend every citizen should have deep knowledge of economy, international politics, etc. As citizens we should try to choose those who sound honest, knowledgeable and responsible and those who are elected should do their best to be well informed and make the best decisions.

To pretend all voting citizens should be deeply and solidly informed on all matters of government is silly and unrealistic. People do not have the time or the inclination to do that. Come on. Most people cannot explain how a toilet works, where Ukraine is or what is the problem with Brexit.  They have not the foggiest idea.

It is the political class who have failed here which may be just the UK degrading into a more natural state of things. Good government is rare and requires continuous effort to keep that way. If you look at the world it seems bad, corrupt, inefficient government is much more common. Populism tends to degrade the quality of governments. But some people would like to see the Cultural Revolution all over again.

Getting back to the article, it says we think we know more than we actually do because we rely on what others in our group know and when confronted with information which contradicts what we know not only do we not question our beliefs but we re-affirm them.

"You can't reason a person out of a position where they did not arrive by reason."

Or, as Paul Simon might put it, a man believes what he wants to believe and disregards the rest.

[rstofer]

Politics is the same. It is absurd to pretend every citizen should have deep knowledge of economy, international politics, etc. As citizens we should try to choose those who sound honest, knowledgeable and responsible and those who are elected should do their best to be well informed and make the best decisions.

To pretend all voting citizens should be deeply and solidly informed on all matters of government is silly and unrealistic. People do not have the time or the inclination to do that. Come on. Most people cannot explain how a toilet works, where Ukraine is or what is the problem with Brexit.  They have not the foggiest idea.

The voters don't need to know that stuff, they hire people to make it happen.  Politicians work for the voters, not the other way around.  Sometimes they seem to forget that fact.

When I worked for a living, way back when, the boss would come in with a project, a schedule and a hope for the cost.  He wasn't worried about design issues, code compliance, contractor selection, materials or any of that technical stuff.  He really didn't care how hard it was, he wanted it built and it was my problem to work out the details.  That's why he was paying me!

If I didn't deliver on a project, I would be down the road.  It was a simple relationship.  I built stuff, I got paid!

Same with politicians:  Voters tell them what they want and leave the details to them.  But the goal is to get it done!

Politicians need to remember who they work for.  If the fail to do so, they won't be politicians long.  The next round of elections in the UK should be very interesting.

Heck, the next elections in the US should be interesting.  Some serious campaigning should be starting up pretty soon.

[soldar]

Bosses who demand impossible things from their subordinates do not remain bosses for very long.

People who demand impossible things from their government are going to be very disappointed.

This is just silly talk.

the best way to understand Theresa May’s predicament is to imagine that 52 percent of Britain had voted that the government should build a submarine out of cheese.