(June 28, 2016 at 8:50 am)Mathilda Wrote: Power over other people.

That's rather obvious, since extremism only flourishes when the people are desperate. A prosperous society is their natural enemy. But presiding over ruins doesn't seem like an attractive prospect. Unless they're further gone than I can possibly imagine and are indeed sociopaths.

(June 28, 2016 at 8:42 am)abaris Wrote: Yeah, but you have to be a kingsized idiot to not know what would happen if the European market broke apart overnight.

People often say "love is blind", but I think hate is what truly blinds people.

(June 28, 2016 at 8:58 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(June 28, 2016 at 8:42 am)abaris Wrote: Yeah, but you have to be a kingsized idiot to not know what would happen if the European market broke apart overnight.

People often say "love is blind", but I think hate is what truly blinds people.

Both. Either excessive hope or excessive fear... excessive love or excessive hate.

(June 28, 2016 at 8:53 am)abaris Wrote: Unless they're further gone than I can possibly imagine and are indeed sociopaths.

I think that's the case. I often wonder about the complete sociopaths, like as depicted on House of Cards. It does not make rational sense to risk your own liberty or life for power, yet people do. But consequently, it doesn't make rational sense to do that in the quest for knowledge as a scientist might, or for someone to join the army so some politician can send them off to die so they can wave their willies at other politicians. Yet people still do. Humans are not rational agents when seen as individuals. We specialise. And specialising only makes sense when seen as one small part of a much larger population.

(June 28, 2016 at 9:09 am)Emjay Wrote:

(June 28, 2016 at 8:58 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: People often say "love is blind", but I think hate is what truly blinds people.

Both. Either excessive hope or excessive fear... excessive love or excessive hate.

It's probably not the time or place to say this but I will anyway. One thing Buddhism teaches is to look for the good in the bad and the bad in the good... to keep things grounded and neutral... as an antidote to idealisation or demonisation/devaluation. It's much easier said than done because it goes against human nature but it was perhaps idealisation and demonisation that got us into this mess - the Brexiter's make Britain great again (idealisation) and the big bad EU (devaluation) - and perhaps part of the solution is to try and find the good in the bad that we're left with. Just a thought but as I said, easier said than done.

Yep. And two other main biases I reckon is selecting only evidence that supports conclusions already drawn beforehand (confirmation bias) and explaining away all difficulties that come along afterwards with post hoc excuses (rationalization).

(June 28, 2016 at 9:09 am)Emjay Wrote:

(June 28, 2016 at 8:58 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: People often say "love is blind", but I think hate is what truly blinds people.

Both. Either excessive hope or excessive fear... excessive love or excessive hate.

I think love that is excessive is either too inappropriate or naive to be love. But that's simply because I tend to build the positive connotation that "love" tends to have into its denotation

(June 26, 2016 at 4:41 pm)Mathilda Wrote: Civil unrest will happen if the Brexit takes place (it's not assured yet). A few years down the line when people no longer have any worker's rights, no job security and are even poorer. Civil unrest happens when people are hungry and have nothing left to lose. It will be the young that riot.

A good proportion (~20% I've read, although the figures are vague) of the Leave vote was an example of civil protest. As a direct result of Austerity, many people in the vulnerable demographics (mainly the unemployed, disabled/long-term sick and the 'working class') have been systematically abused by Conservative policy, their very livelihoods and social support mechanisms fundamentally undermined or removed and this is the first time that they've had any level of direct control over subjects that are important to them. Consequently, there were many 'fuck yous' aimed at Cameron and the Conservative government; people voted out just because Cameron wanted in! The 'Bregretters' are an example of a subset of those who voted in such a way.

(June 28, 2016 at 10:19 am)Ben Davis Wrote: this is the first time that they've had any level of direct control over subjects that are important to them.

Or so they thought. Both the control part as well as the important part.

I don't judge them based on their concerns, but they are the ones having bought a ticket to worse land. They are still the first demographics to be fucked over, only with even less legal security in the future than they already had.

At fault are mainstream politicians not being able or willing to communicate with their electorate. Even more at fault are irresponsible fear mongers cashing in on legitimate concerns.

(June 28, 2016 at 10:33 am)abaris Wrote: Or so they thought. Both the control part as well as the important part.

I don't judge them based on their concerns, but they are the ones having bought a ticket to worse land. They are still the first demographics to be fucked over, only with even less legal security in the future than they already had.

At fault are mainstream politicians not being able or willing to communicate with their electorate. Even more at fault are irresponsible fear mongers cashing in on legitimate concerns.

Indeed, hence the amount of Bregret. That's why I'm please to announce that a group (including myself) have come together to sponsor a petition to trigger a Free vote (a vote of free conscience where MPs are not obligated to cast votes on Party lines) in Parliament, the subject of which will be whether or not to enact Article 50. It's very simple:

1. Representatives of the official and unofficial Remain and Leave sides made certain claims and pledges during the campaign which influenced significant numbers of voters however in the time since the referendum, during interviews with the media, Leave has reneged on many of those pledges including ones that are likely to have been most influencial.

2. Further to 1., there's good evidence that some of these claims were made cynically and dishonestly with the deliberate intention of misinforming the public about the ramifications of their vote and this behaviour has materially affected the outcome of the referendum.

3. The PM has resigned and the Labour Party organised a vote of no-confidence in their leader. The Scottish First Leader is considering whether or not to ask the Scottish people to take part in a second referendum on independence for Scotland, with a stated purpose of renewing EU membership. It's becoming more apparent that the emerging situation is damaging the UK's current and future prosperity and that our MPs should agree a common course of action that will unify our country.

4. With the country having voted to Leave, it's apparent that no-one knows what comes next, including those who would be candidates to lead the country when the party leadership contests are held. Consequently to reach a concensus and achieve the unity the country needs, MPs should enact their Parliamentary responsibilities by debating the refrendum result and agreeing a unified (non-Partisan) approach to what comes next.


To be clear, this will not be a petition for a second referendum neither a petition for the referendum results to be ignored; votes were cast in accordance with our laws & democratic rights and respect must be given that individuals have voted for whichever outcome they believed was right. Instead this will be a petition that the next step in the process be a Parliamentary debate on the referendum result followed by a Free vote by our democratically elected, representative MPs on whether or not Article 50 should be invoked.

This petition should not be construed as an attempt to sway the decision in either direction rather for the public to hold their MPs to account for the clear lack of foresight regarding the potential for the British public to vote Leave by forcing debate and clear decision-making.

It's currently under review and should be published before the end of the week.