Why. If the Leave side had lost by 4%, what would be the reaction if they hemmed and hawed while not-so-quietly demanding do-overs until their side got what they wanted?
Consider the politicians advocating to Remain had/have actual plans for how to proceed, your hypothetical situation is not comparable at all.
People who keep ignoring the fact that a supermajority wasn't required to enter the EU in the first place.
Since the United Kingdom EC referendum of 1975 was also non-binding, the UK didn't technically even require 1% of the vote to enter the EU in the first place. Just like the UK could technically decide to leave the EU with only 1% on the vote if the government so chose. In both cases the referendum was only meant to gauge public support, not legally force the legislature to do anything. In the case of joining the EU, the vote was 67% in favor (a super majority). To leave, it was only 52%.
It's as much of a farce as Democrats saying Hillary only needs 50.001% of the vote to win, but Trump must get 60% to become president, because reasons.
The UK doesn't get to decide how hard or soft Brexit will be, the EU does.
That is not true at all. The EU cannot stop the UK from leaving the single market, so if they choose this option the EU has no say at all. If the UK wants to stay in the single market, this is the best option for the EU. The EU gets money from the UK and the UK has to follow all of their regulations, but the UK doesn't get any say in the governing of the EU (just like Norway).
The only thing voters wouldn't know is how good the trade agreements will be if they leave the single market, or how generous the terms of staying in the single market are. But they have a pretty good idea of how it will work out since they know their existing WTO trade agreements (if they choose a hard Brexit) and Norway provides a good example of a non-EU member being part of the single market (soft Brexit).
Both are horrible options, which is why the very act of admitting there is no third option of "get everything we want without giving up anything" will torpedo the chances of a Brexit result in a second referendum.
Or, once the ministers have laid their plans*, have another vote to determine whether these plans are acceptable to the people. If not then the ministers will have to revise their plans. Lather, rinse and repeat.
That is the same thing as a Remain result, since the original Brexit result was only possible by lying to voters about being able to have their cake and eat it too.
People object to elites for what elites do, not who they are. That's usually the case even if we're talking about non-elites. Not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character and all that.
People object to elites based on good PR programs founded on scapegoating and pandering. Elites running those PR programs from behind the scenes are given a free pass if their propaganda is strong enough.
Indeed it is advisory. Now when we clarified this explain please how are you going to deal with the opinion of significant majority of the country?
The easiest way is probably to devise a specific plan for how to execute Brexit, and then have another referendum. If they choose a soft Brexit then the voters will know immigration policy and EU regulation enforcement will be left unchanged, and voters who cared about that will probably not vote for Brexit. If they choose a hard Brexit then those who don't want to leave the single market will probably not vote for Brexit. And many of the people who didn't even know what Brexit really was until the falling pound gave them a 15-20% pay cut will probably not vote for Brexit.
Brexit won by such small margins that any specific details about how Brexit would work in practice would almost certainly cause a second referendum to result in a strong Remain result.
The problem is that how we exit isn't up to us. We can't know what sort of terms we'll get until the negotiations are concluded, and we can't start the negotiations until article 50 is triggered. At that point it's too late, we're out in two years whatever happens.
At best we could have a list of aims which may have no resemblance to what we end up with (especially given the... optimistic... terms suggested by the leave side).
That is all true, but you would be able to see the most important goals, such as whether it will be a hard or soft Brexit. Honestly it wouldn't matter, since the vote was so close as soon as the voters had a better idea of what they were voting for they never would repeat a Brexit vote.
So you'll accept the result of the vote.... just as long as you win. [...] It was not advisory, it was not mandatory, it was a referendum. The fact you can play tricks and delay the will of the people is your lot being toss pots.
Go look up the definition of "non legally binding referendum", and then you will be qualified to continue in this conversation. Now elected officials have been informed that a slight majority of the population want to enact a major change to their country's economy and international relations, and have access to exit polls and other demographic data to get a sense of why people voted the way they did and what type of Brexit they wanted. The UK doesn't have a direct democracy for a reason, so now the professionals will take over.
This was not legally binding for the same reason you would let random citizens perform a surgery by committee.
However after an agreement is reached there should be another vote.
This is obviously the most sensible option. Figure out exactly how the ministers plan on executing the Brexit, and then have another vote to see if the people still want to go through with it. Otherwise you will have a likely scenario where only a small portion of Brexit voters actually see an outcome they thought they were voting for.
But the point of the referendum was to give parliament an indication of the direction that the people want it to take. If a referendum is taken and then parliament does not follow through with the results of that referendum, then the entire point of having a democratic system is pointless.
If the UK government let the people vote on massive changes to the country while only requiring a simple majority, then the entire point of having a representative democratic system is pointless. Any country which always does what 51% of its people want at any given time is doomed.
All you are doing here is setting up a false equivalence between the level of uncertainty on each side of the debate. The amount of uncertainty between the Remain and Brexit choices are an order of magnitude different. Remain voters are not against change, only irrational change with no plan for what change is desired. The Brexit camp still has not been able to express what change they are looking for in the aftermath of a Brexit.
If the referendum had been something like a Remain, Brexit - Remain in Single Market, Brexit - Leave Single Market (Norway style autonomy), Brexit - Leave Single Market (US style autonomy), then each side of the debate could claim they actually knew what they were voting for. They wouldn't need every detail specified in the referendum, but at least this way the Brexit side could specify what they actually wanted.
As it stands, the vast majority of Brexit voters will get nothing resembling what they thought they were voting for. And any educated voter would have realized that was the only possible result if Brexit won.
Why weren't we allowed to have a vote on whether we wanted mass immigration?
Any answers? You ignorant cuck.
Because your leaders made sure there was no reasonable argument for you to vote to leave the EU based on the options given. They intentionally made sure the referendum provided only one reasonable option and made the other option as ambiguous and horribly dangerous as possible. This was a calculated move to gain a mandate from the people in order to influence parliament.
Obviously, this strategy backfired horribly since the populace voted for the irrational option anyway.
I voted to remove the sovereign state which governs my life from a federal Europe that, had it been implemented properly, I would have fully supported, but in reality is a technocratic playpen increasingly driven by the desires of large corporations to do as they please with scant regard to the primary responsibility that it ought have to the people who are already in Europe.
But you didn't vote to do this. At best you voted to lose representation in the EU. It is still quite likely that every single regulation and immigration policy the EU imposes on the UK will still be there post-Brexit.
If your countries stays in the single market then the EU will still impose its regulations on your country, and collect money from your government. The only difference is you will have no representation in these decisions which significantly affect your country. Your country is still figuring out if it will remain in the single market perhaps for years, so claiming any voters knew what a Brexit meant (other than rhetoric platitudes) is simply wrong.
Ah, yes the old "they had no idea what that meant". "They are ignorant". But of course YOUR SIDE was well informed and enlightened. Disgusting.
You keep saying this like one side could never be more informed than the other. I laid out an actual argument for why one side is more informed, but instead of either refuting it or acknowledging its accuracy, you fall back on claiming I have bias without supporting arguments. And then you throw in inflamatory language such as "disgusting" thinking this can substitute for an actual argument.
There is a difference between voters who vote for a platform with actual concrete plans, and voters who vote based on platitudes and fear mongering. Calling out the latter is the responsible thing to do, not a disgusting display of bias.
They were voting on this: "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?".
But they had no idea what that meant. They might have well said they were voting for "Tree purple four" (yes that was meant to be gibberish).
It is like voting for someone who only says "I will make your life better" and thinking that is a platform. Everyone who votes this way is an uneducated and deeply dangerous voter (regardless of how much formal education they have had).
There is one thing that is in common for you types: your insistence that the "other" side was misinformed or manipulated and too ignorant to understand. You just can't comprehend that others made a rational decision based on their worldview.
Explain to me what Brexit voters were voting for. Were they voting for a "Hard Brexit" or a "Soft Brexit"? Were they voting for access to the single market similar to Norway, or for more autonomy like the US? Did they want complete control over immigration, or accept EU control of immigration in order to keep the single market?
You are lying if you claim anyone knew what they were voting for. This is not an opinion, it is a fact. Because the UK still doesn't know what type of Brexit it wants. If the Brexit supporters had provided a real plan for breaking away from the EU then I would agree with you that there were two legitimate sides to the referendum and that the other side simply disagreed with me (instead of being misinformed). But as it stands, it is not opinion that every person who voted for Brexit had no idea what they voted for. Because no human on this planet knew what Brexit means, and that stands true even today.
There is a good reason to be fearful, but not a good reason to be manipulated by those pedaling fear. The politicians pushing Brexit were exposed in the days after the vote because of their lack of a plan on how to accomplish the Brexit. Pedaling fear is a good way to win elections, but it is a very poor way to govern.
UK voters had no idea what they were voting for with Brexit, which literally means every single voter who voted for it was hopelessly either uninformed, misinformed, or acting in their own selfish interests at the expense of their society. Every single one, without a single exception. The vast majority were either uninformed or misinformed, often because politicians played on their prejudices and fear.
It is important to note that we know without a shred of doubt that every vote for Brexit was an uninformed vote, because there was no solid plan for leaving the EU. Even if Brexit works out, it was still an uninformed vote. You don't get credit for being lucky.
Every job I've ever gotten, even those where I was hand selected by someone internally and handed to a hiring person who was told "hire this person" or where I happened to send an application directly through their mailing address or web page has involved going through HR... who believe it or not, often have some degree of control in the process.
I guess you don't know the joys of job hunting and the games some HR folks like to play: "Here I have a check-list of questions I am required to ask, unless you meet the job description perfectly you won't get the job, and if we think you are lying... you won't get the job."
I've had multiple folks who have bent over backwards for me over the last few months, each of which I know would be happy to work with me. It wasn't their insufficiently super recommendations that sank my candidacy, but the HR folks.
I don't agree with everything the GP said, but by your 50's even a decent network would have plenty of people who can mostly ignore HR folks. By this time it is filled with VP's, directors, and C-level execs. I am only in my 30's and an AVP at my company (financial services, so these silly AVP titles seem to be important) and if HR got in the way of one of my hiring recommendations our CTO would make heads roll. You can have whatever fancy title you want, but if you aren't powerful enough to override HR you have no power (or even respect) in your company.
A deep network doesn't automatically mean open positions or those contacts being in such a place in the food chain where they can do much to create available headcount.
Yes it does, since if no one in your network is at such a place in the food chain by your 50's you have a very shallow network. If after 30 years of experience your entire network is a bunch of senior level developers that is not a deep network.
All of that said, there are still plenty of reasons why even a deep network would not help in finding a job. You could move across the country or to a new country for a spouse's job. You could have mismanaged your career enough to only have skills in a dying niche. You could find yourself without work during a deep recession, where hiring freezes and tightening budgets are the norm.
The overall lack of sympathy of the GP is inappropriate, but his general message is basically correct.
TensorFlow is what everyone is using because it works well and it has a nice license to go with it. Besides, willingly becoming reliant on anything Microsoft makes is a devil's bargain.
Oh yes, because willingly becoming reliant on anything Google has never led anyone astray. Google's history of ongoing support for their products is legendary.
I am hoping Samsung will have to release an amazing loss leader version of the Note brand in order to improve their reputation again. In this case the consumers win big time. I'm hoping they finally bump up the device size a little and go with a 4000+ mAh battery for starters.
"[We have a phone that in fact can replace your PC]...the same way we have a tablet that can replace your laptop" So technically he's correct, just not in the sense he wants to be.
My Surface Pro 4 has replaced my laptop. Although it hasn't replaced my iPad, my Note 4 phablet did that.
You just made a fallacy. Global warming is not binary. A 3 warming is much worse than a 2 warming. And we must do both, reduce emissions and adapt to the warming.
I agree, we should do both, although I feel a more accurate ratio would be 20 warming with little work on reducing emissions, and 18 warming with significant emission reduction by developed nations. We need to realize only about 15% of the world's population can be considered developed, and almost no matter what we do emissions will skyrocket as the other 85% catches up over the next 100 years. I hesitate to say reducing emissions in a significant way is hopeless, but that is nearly the case.
Which is why the US must act now to fight global warming.
Or more reasonably the US must accept that global warming will happen, and the focus needs to be on mitigating the damage not feebly trying to prevent it.
Slashdot Mirror
You just restated my point with more words.
No, I was pointing out why no one is ignoring the 1975 vote, since support for entering the EU was overwhelming.
Why. If the Leave side had lost by 4%, what would be the reaction if they hemmed and hawed while not-so-quietly demanding do-overs until their side got what they wanted?
Consider the politicians advocating to Remain had/have actual plans for how to proceed, your hypothetical situation is not comparable at all.
People who keep ignoring the fact that a supermajority wasn't required to enter the EU in the first place.
Since the United Kingdom EC referendum of 1975 was also non-binding, the UK didn't technically even require 1% of the vote to enter the EU in the first place. Just like the UK could technically decide to leave the EU with only 1% on the vote if the government so chose. In both cases the referendum was only meant to gauge public support, not legally force the legislature to do anything. In the case of joining the EU, the vote was 67% in favor (a super majority). To leave, it was only 52%.
It's as much of a farce as Democrats saying Hillary only needs 50.001% of the vote to win, but Trump must get 60% to become president, because reasons.
No one says this.
The UK doesn't get to decide how hard or soft Brexit will be, the EU does.
That is not true at all. The EU cannot stop the UK from leaving the single market, so if they choose this option the EU has no say at all. If the UK wants to stay in the single market, this is the best option for the EU. The EU gets money from the UK and the UK has to follow all of their regulations, but the UK doesn't get any say in the governing of the EU (just like Norway).
The only thing voters wouldn't know is how good the trade agreements will be if they leave the single market, or how generous the terms of staying in the single market are. But they have a pretty good idea of how it will work out since they know their existing WTO trade agreements (if they choose a hard Brexit) and Norway provides a good example of a non-EU member being part of the single market (soft Brexit).
Both are horrible options, which is why the very act of admitting there is no third option of "get everything we want without giving up anything" will torpedo the chances of a Brexit result in a second referendum.
Or, once the ministers have laid their plans*, have another vote to determine whether these plans are acceptable to the people. If not then the ministers will have to revise their plans. Lather, rinse and repeat.
That is the same thing as a Remain result, since the original Brexit result was only possible by lying to voters about being able to have their cake and eat it too.
People object to elites for what elites do, not who they are. That's usually the case even if we're talking about non-elites. Not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character and all that.
People object to elites based on good PR programs founded on scapegoating and pandering. Elites running those PR programs from behind the scenes are given a free pass if their propaganda is strong enough.
Indeed it is advisory. Now when we clarified this explain please how are you going to deal with the opinion of significant majority of the country?
The easiest way is probably to devise a specific plan for how to execute Brexit, and then have another referendum. If they choose a soft Brexit then the voters will know immigration policy and EU regulation enforcement will be left unchanged, and voters who cared about that will probably not vote for Brexit. If they choose a hard Brexit then those who don't want to leave the single market will probably not vote for Brexit. And many of the people who didn't even know what Brexit really was until the falling pound gave them a 15-20% pay cut will probably not vote for Brexit.
Brexit won by such small margins that any specific details about how Brexit would work in practice would almost certainly cause a second referendum to result in a strong Remain result.
The problem is that how we exit isn't up to us. We can't know what sort of terms we'll get until the negotiations are concluded, and we can't start the negotiations until article 50 is triggered. At that point it's too late, we're out in two years whatever happens.
At best we could have a list of aims which may have no resemblance to what we end up with (especially given the... optimistic... terms suggested by the leave side).
That is all true, but you would be able to see the most important goals, such as whether it will be a hard or soft Brexit. Honestly it wouldn't matter, since the vote was so close as soon as the voters had a better idea of what they were voting for they never would repeat a Brexit vote.
So you'll accept the result of the vote.... just as long as you win. [...] It was not advisory, it was not mandatory, it was a referendum. The fact you can play tricks and delay the will of the people is your lot being toss pots.
Go look up the definition of "non legally binding referendum", and then you will be qualified to continue in this conversation. Now elected officials have been informed that a slight majority of the population want to enact a major change to their country's economy and international relations, and have access to exit polls and other demographic data to get a sense of why people voted the way they did and what type of Brexit they wanted. The UK doesn't have a direct democracy for a reason, so now the professionals will take over.
This was not legally binding for the same reason you would let random citizens perform a surgery by committee.
However after an agreement is reached there should be another vote.
This is obviously the most sensible option. Figure out exactly how the ministers plan on executing the Brexit, and then have another vote to see if the people still want to go through with it. Otherwise you will have a likely scenario where only a small portion of Brexit voters actually see an outcome they thought they were voting for.
But the point of the referendum was to give parliament an indication of the direction that the people want it to take. If a referendum is taken and then parliament does not follow through with the results of that referendum, then the entire point of having a democratic system is pointless.
If the UK government let the people vote on massive changes to the country while only requiring a simple majority, then the entire point of having a representative democratic system is pointless. Any country which always does what 51% of its people want at any given time is doomed.
All you are doing here is setting up a false equivalence between the level of uncertainty on each side of the debate. The amount of uncertainty between the Remain and Brexit choices are an order of magnitude different. Remain voters are not against change, only irrational change with no plan for what change is desired. The Brexit camp still has not been able to express what change they are looking for in the aftermath of a Brexit.
If the referendum had been something like a Remain, Brexit - Remain in Single Market, Brexit - Leave Single Market (Norway style autonomy), Brexit - Leave Single Market (US style autonomy), then each side of the debate could claim they actually knew what they were voting for. They wouldn't need every detail specified in the referendum, but at least this way the Brexit side could specify what they actually wanted.
As it stands, the vast majority of Brexit voters will get nothing resembling what they thought they were voting for. And any educated voter would have realized that was the only possible result if Brexit won.
Why weren't we allowed to have a vote on whether we wanted mass immigration?
Any answers? You ignorant cuck.
Because your leaders made sure there was no reasonable argument for you to vote to leave the EU based on the options given. They intentionally made sure the referendum provided only one reasonable option and made the other option as ambiguous and horribly dangerous as possible. This was a calculated move to gain a mandate from the people in order to influence parliament.
Obviously, this strategy backfired horribly since the populace voted for the irrational option anyway.
I voted to remove the sovereign state which governs my life from a federal Europe that, had it been implemented properly, I would have fully supported, but in reality is a technocratic playpen increasingly driven by the desires of large corporations to do as they please with scant regard to the primary responsibility that it ought have to the people who are already in Europe.
But you didn't vote to do this. At best you voted to lose representation in the EU. It is still quite likely that every single regulation and immigration policy the EU imposes on the UK will still be there post-Brexit.
If your countries stays in the single market then the EU will still impose its regulations on your country, and collect money from your government. The only difference is you will have no representation in these decisions which significantly affect your country. Your country is still figuring out if it will remain in the single market perhaps for years, so claiming any voters knew what a Brexit meant (other than rhetoric platitudes) is simply wrong.
Ah, yes the old "they had no idea what that meant". "They are ignorant". But of course YOUR SIDE was well informed and enlightened. Disgusting.
You keep saying this like one side could never be more informed than the other. I laid out an actual argument for why one side is more informed, but instead of either refuting it or acknowledging its accuracy, you fall back on claiming I have bias without supporting arguments. And then you throw in inflamatory language such as "disgusting" thinking this can substitute for an actual argument.
There is a difference between voters who vote for a platform with actual concrete plans, and voters who vote based on platitudes and fear mongering. Calling out the latter is the responsible thing to do, not a disgusting display of bias.
They were voting on this: "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?".
But they had no idea what that meant. They might have well said they were voting for "Tree purple four" (yes that was meant to be gibberish).
It is like voting for someone who only says "I will make your life better" and thinking that is a platform. Everyone who votes this way is an uneducated and deeply dangerous voter (regardless of how much formal education they have had).
There is one thing that is in common for you types: your insistence that the "other" side was misinformed or manipulated and too ignorant to understand. You just can't comprehend that others made a rational decision based on their worldview.
Explain to me what Brexit voters were voting for. Were they voting for a "Hard Brexit" or a "Soft Brexit"? Were they voting for access to the single market similar to Norway, or for more autonomy like the US? Did they want complete control over immigration, or accept EU control of immigration in order to keep the single market?
You are lying if you claim anyone knew what they were voting for. This is not an opinion, it is a fact. Because the UK still doesn't know what type of Brexit it wants. If the Brexit supporters had provided a real plan for breaking away from the EU then I would agree with you that there were two legitimate sides to the referendum and that the other side simply disagreed with me (instead of being misinformed). But as it stands, it is not opinion that every person who voted for Brexit had no idea what they voted for. Because no human on this planet knew what Brexit means, and that stands true even today.
There is a good reason to be fearful.
There is a good reason to be fearful, but not a good reason to be manipulated by those pedaling fear. The politicians pushing Brexit were exposed in the days after the vote because of their lack of a plan on how to accomplish the Brexit. Pedaling fear is a good way to win elections, but it is a very poor way to govern.
UK voters had no idea what they were voting for with Brexit, which literally means every single voter who voted for it was hopelessly either uninformed, misinformed, or acting in their own selfish interests at the expense of their society. Every single one, without a single exception. The vast majority were either uninformed or misinformed, often because politicians played on their prejudices and fear.
It is important to note that we know without a shred of doubt that every vote for Brexit was an uninformed vote, because there was no solid plan for leaving the EU. Even if Brexit works out, it was still an uninformed vote. You don't get credit for being lucky.
Every job I've ever gotten, even those where I was hand selected by someone internally and handed to a hiring person who was told "hire this person" or where I happened to send an application directly through their mailing address or web page has involved going through HR... who believe it or not, often have some degree of control in the process.
I guess you don't know the joys of job hunting and the games some HR folks like to play: "Here I have a check-list of questions I am required to ask, unless you meet the job description perfectly you won't get the job, and if we think you are lying... you won't get the job."
I've had multiple folks who have bent over backwards for me over the last few months, each of which I know would be happy to work with me. It wasn't their insufficiently super recommendations that sank my candidacy, but the HR folks.
I don't agree with everything the GP said, but by your 50's even a decent network would have plenty of people who can mostly ignore HR folks. By this time it is filled with VP's, directors, and C-level execs. I am only in my 30's and an AVP at my company (financial services, so these silly AVP titles seem to be important) and if HR got in the way of one of my hiring recommendations our CTO would make heads roll. You can have whatever fancy title you want, but if you aren't powerful enough to override HR you have no power (or even respect) in your company.
A deep network doesn't automatically mean open positions or those contacts being in such a place in the food chain where they can do much to create available headcount.
Yes it does, since if no one in your network is at such a place in the food chain by your 50's you have a very shallow network. If after 30 years of experience your entire network is a bunch of senior level developers that is not a deep network.
All of that said, there are still plenty of reasons why even a deep network would not help in finding a job. You could move across the country or to a new country for a spouse's job. You could have mismanaged your career enough to only have skills in a dying niche. You could find yourself without work during a deep recession, where hiring freezes and tightening budgets are the norm.
The overall lack of sympathy of the GP is inappropriate, but his general message is basically correct.
TensorFlow is what everyone is using because it works well and it has a nice license to go with it. Besides, willingly becoming reliant on anything Microsoft makes is a devil's bargain.
Oh yes, because willingly becoming reliant on anything Google has never led anyone astray. Google's history of ongoing support for their products is legendary.
Most condo towers have rules and boards that work much better in regulating live-in owners than owners with transient tenants.
Have these condo towers not updated their regulations in the last decade?
I am hoping Samsung will have to release an amazing loss leader version of the Note brand in order to improve their reputation again. In this case the consumers win big time. I'm hoping they finally bump up the device size a little and go with a 4000+ mAh battery for starters.
"[We have a phone that in fact can replace your PC] ...the same way we have a tablet that can replace your laptop"
So technically he's correct, just not in the sense he wants to be.
My Surface Pro 4 has replaced my laptop. Although it hasn't replaced my iPad, my Note 4 phablet did that.
You just made a fallacy. Global warming is not binary. A 3 warming is much worse than a 2 warming.
And we must do both, reduce emissions and adapt to the warming.
I agree, we should do both, although I feel a more accurate ratio would be 20 warming with little work on reducing emissions, and 18 warming with significant emission reduction by developed nations. We need to realize only about 15% of the world's population can be considered developed, and almost no matter what we do emissions will skyrocket as the other 85% catches up over the next 100 years. I hesitate to say reducing emissions in a significant way is hopeless, but that is nearly the case.
Which is why the US must act now to fight global warming.
Or more reasonably the US must accept that global warming will happen, and the focus needs to be on mitigating the damage not feebly trying to prevent it.