
The British are Googling what the E.U. is, hours after voting to leave it - capote
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/06/24/the-british-are-frantically-googling-what-the-eu-is-hours-after-voting-to-leave-it/?campaign_id=A100&campaign_type=Email
======
netcan
I'm strangely moved by this whole thing. It's a pretty decent status check on
where we are with democracy ATM. I'm not against democracy, but I do think we
need to pay attention to what it can & can't do.

On one hand, this has been a model of democracy. A primary election agenda and
referendum. The phrasing of the question was simple, clear and unbiased. The
"will of the people" won over the will of the ruling structure. Most
politicians and the main parties (especially before the opportunists jumped
in) were against leaving. So was the financial sector and most big businesses.

OTOH, some of the problems inherent in democracy were also on display. A
"right to my opinion" emotional public moved by very emotional arguments.
Lies, untruths and misleading truths were the most prominent arguments on
either side. A majority of the discussion was stupid.

We haven't figured this shit out yet. Kings anyone? How about the best
wrestler gets to be in charge? ideas?

~~~
Inthenameofmine
> We haven't figured this shit out yet. Kings anyone? How about the best
> wrestler gets to be in charge? ideas?

As a Swiss citizen, I think the swiss system is very close to perfect in this
regard.

Sure, emotional and stupid arguments sometimes prevail, but most of the time
the people make the perfect decision. Public discourse is most often also very
rational, more so than most world parliaments.

Irrational arguments have been a staple of especially the British political
system. I am amazed at the low level of discussion in the UK even by their
representatives.

Direct democracy is something that has to be done regularly, otherwise you end
up with situations like the UK or California.

~~~
dharma1
The UK is a much more divided society than Switzerland, in terms of the base
level of income and education. The median income in Switzerland is double that
of the UK. Education is harder to compare, but you can't really expect the
same level of discourse

~~~
dougmany
I remember listening to a Ted talk where the speaker basically said, Get
income inequality in check by whatever means and most of your problems go
away.

~~~
keithpeter
Get hold of a copy of Tony Judt's _Ill fares the land_. It has references to
the correlation between inequality and many measures of 'problems' and tries
to make the case for a causal link. Also explains philosophical background.

~~~
dougmany
Thank you for the recommendation. I will check it out.

------
Dr_tldr
As someone with no dog in this fight, I have to say that many of the pro-stay
comments here are dismissive, arrogant, and the epitome of hand-waving "we
know best and everyone who disagrees with us is stupid or evil." It's an ugly
and insular attitude that is itself usually a sign of ignorance of the other
side's arguments and motivations. As a dev, I find it hard to believe that
someone who can be so easily blinkered and so dismissive of others is going to
be able to show flexibility and humility in their code and engineering
decisions.

And maybe you're just that good at compartmentalizing, but I wouldn't want to
risk bringing someone like that onto my team. How can you work with people who
you think are stupid and ignorant when they disagree with you, even when you
won't explain your reasoning? And how will you ever be able to switch sides
and admit you may have been wrong when you state your initial position in such
absolutist terms?

~~~
lichform
The disdain and disgust impressed on the elderly in this issue in particular
is distressing. Seeing people advocate for selective voting or implying that
the younger persons' views are worth more because of their older countrymen's
vicinity to expiration is personally upsetting as a self-loathing Millenial.

~~~
mentalpiracy
As another self-loathing millennial, it's also distressing to empirically see
the detrimental effect of my elders making extremely poor choices that will
fundamentally affect my life much more than theirs.

Nobody really wants to disenfranchise certain voters. But it doesn't mean that
we aren't frustrated with their poor choices either.

~~~
cookiecaper
This is a simple matter of disagreement. Your elders aren't "making extremely
poor choices" in an objective sense. They're making the choice _they believe_
is for the long-term interest of the country, just as you did. You should not
assume idiocy or malice on the opposing side's part just because you lost.
Informed, well-educated people can and do disagree. This _must_ be valued and
believed in a democratic society if it's not to tear itself apart.

If it were up to me, minimum voting age would be bumped to 30 and votes would
become _more_ valuable as people aged. Personal experience and history is
nothing to sneeze at. The open disrespect to just dismiss this by-definition-
wiser voting block as making "extremely poor choices" is very distasteful and
short-sighted.

~~~
vacri
I'm 43, and I think the idea of no-votes-until-30 is a crazy idea. Yes, the
young are less informed, but they're also more interested in finding
alternatives. The old are _incredibly conservative_ , and as proven in this
referendum, more fearful of diversity. They don't _want_ to deal with change,
which is a bad thing in a world that constantly changes - for example, keep in
mind that the internet is only 20 years old, as far as the public is
concerned. Cut off the young, and you take away the meat of the progressives,
and your society will stagnate. Wisdom is definitely important, but so is the
will to enact change.

And if you want evidence that the old are just as susceptible to stupid
politics, look to Fox News's target audience: the silver hair brigade. Or
talkback radio. Wisdom in personal life (everybody has one) does not
necessarily translate to wisdom in political life (where few actually do
engage).

~~~
cookiecaper
>They don't want to deal with change

Brexit is a pretty massive governance change. Everyone blames old people for
its success, so I'm not sure why the narrative is that "old people won't vote
for changes". I think it's less that older people are hostile to change as
much as they've seen enough political opportunists and fraudsters that they
have some firmness to their opinion (and again, this is a good thing). As
Brexit shows, older people often _do_ support changes that they believe would
be beneficial.

I know that my dad, for example, would really like to see some stuff change,
even though he's a senior citizen. But he's not excited by Bernie Sanders.

>for example, keep in mind that the internet is only 20 years old, as far as
the public is concerned.

I am 1000% behind the idea of changing the laws that govern intellectual
property and internet access, but this is not an issue that's age-dependent.
Few people in any age strata care or think about this because if their news
sources have _any_ vested interest, it's in keeping IP laws locked down as
tightly as possible. You'll find near-universal praise for copyright among
every age group, because the public is presented only one side of the
copyright debate. Laws expanding IP rights and locking down tech access
routinely pass with minimal debate or interest. The exception to this is the
hacker subculture, where it's not really an age-dependent thing either. Some
older persons involved in certain niche businesses may remember slightly-less-
oppressive copyright regimes and want to go back to that.

>Cut off the young, and you take away the meat of the progressives, and your
society will stagnate.

This is everyone else's complaint too, but it's begging the question.
"Progressiveness" is not inherently correct. Social insistence on certain
behavioral standards is good. We don't want to "progress" out of all of our
values.

>And if you want evidence that the old are just as susceptible to stupid
politics, look to Fox News's target audience: the silver hair brigade. Or
talkback radio.

I know a lot of young people who are into Fox News and conservative talk
radio. People consciously pick the news outlets that agree with them most
often because it's more pleasant to listen to someone encourage your beliefs
than discourage them. Conservative media is _not_ specifically targeted at old
people; it's targeted at all conservatives.

~~~
vacri
> _Brexit is a pretty massive governance change._

The people voting for Brexit want to stop the changes their seeing to their
country. Brexit itself is a massive governance change, but the people going
for it see it as the option to stop the change they see in the streets around
them.

> _internet = copyright issues_

Bollocks. If that's all you think the internet means to people, intellectual
property, you need to open your eyes considerably wider.

> _" Progressiveness" is not inherently correct._

Not inherently, but a) our societies are far wealthier (fiscally and socially)
and far more equitable than ever before, largely due to progression, and b)
the world changes anyway, and you have to adapt to change. If it weren't for
progressiveness, we'd still have slaves, women wouldn't be able to vote (or
work, really), Africa and Asia would still be colonised, anti-semitism would
still be the norm of polite society, so on and so forth.

> _I know a lot of young people who are into Fox News and conservative talk
> radio_

'Target audience'. You can have a lot of other members in your audience.

~~~
cookiecaper
> _The people voting for Brexit want to stop the changes their seeing to their
> country. Brexit itself is a massive governance change, but the people going
> for it see it as the option to stop the change they see in the streets
> around them._

I'm sure Brexit supporters would argue this is a mischaracterization, but even
if it's true, it proves that they're not afraid of change _per se_. They're
willing to make a massive change to the country's governmental structure and
role in the region in order to prevent other changes that they perceive as
negative from occurring. They simply have a different evaluation of the
situation than yourself. This is called a "disagreement".

> _Bollocks. If that 's all you think the internet means to people,
> intellectual property, you need to open your eyes considerably wider._

I was addressing the major fields of law that impact the internet, which is a)
tech access laws like the CFAA and b) copyright/IP law. I guess your comment
here indicates that you were thinking along the lines of net neutrality
(already the law) and municipal internet/increased ISP competition (which is a
complex issue that varies by locality and doesn't really represent a major,
large-scale legal conundrum; it's mostly just legwork and local politics to
resolve). Everyone wants improvement in that area too, but to my mind, it's
minimally important compared to tech access and intellectual property, and
it's certainly much more fractured since it's highly dependent on local
politics.

> _our societies are far wealthier (fiscally and socially) and far more
> equitable than ever before, largely due to progression_

This is a non-sequitr and far too airy to really rebut. To the extent that
changes associated with socially progressive politics have been beneficial
(and I would argue that such changes are scant), it's not due to the fact that
the positions were supported by social progressives, but that the position was
reasonable and important. You act like this is inherently the same thing, that
anything under the banner of progressivism is _automatically_ just and
important. That doesn't make any sense, which is becoming increasingly obvious
as progressives have begun to run out of reasonable things to protest.

> _the world changes anyway, and you have to adapt to change_

Sure, some things change, and many things _don 't_ change. People today are
biologically very similar to people from 5k years ago; on an evolutionary
timescale, that's a miniscule difference, so the things that were logical and
biologically compatible 5k years ago are probably pretty similar today.

It's not that people are afraid of change itself; it's simply that people
understand that changes aren't always for the better.

> _If it weren 't for progressiveness, we'd still have slaves, women wouldn't
> be able to vote (or work, really), Africa and Asia would still be colonised,
> anti-semitism would still be the norm of polite society, so on and so
> forth._

You've essentially redefined "progressive" as "positive" and saying "anything
good is progressive". Your statements here are not remotely reflective of
reality. Every positive change is not automatically the work of social
progressives. Slavery in particular drew fire from people of all ages and
economic classes; the lines were not what you're trying to imply here.

> _' Target audience'. You can have a lot of other members in your audience._

Yeah, I addressed this. This is another issue with getting definitions
backwards, something you seem to be doing a lot. Fox News's target audience is
not "old people", it's "conservatives". There are a lot of conservatives in
all age groups, despite the media's attempts to make them invisible. Old
people are _overwhelmingly_ conservative, not because they're afraid of
change, but because they recognize a lot of the proposed changes are not
beneficial.

This boils down to simple political disagreement, and you're trying to
generalize it over every demographic that's more likely to belong to your
political opponents. Many would call this "ageism"; may want to watch it
before your progressive brethren catch wind.

------
mc32
Isn't that expected? People who voted for the establishment status quo want to
know what might happen in the years to come now that the vote has gone against
them.

Voting to stay meant no change, therefore they knew more or less the outcome,
but now that the outcome is opposite their votes, they want to look into the
repercussions --this informs that it's likely they stay vote didn't
investigate the alternative before voting and likely voted out of custom to
stay.

But way to go WaPo and imply naïveté on the Brexiters.

~~~
notatoad
I think you're drawing conclusions based on your biases just as much as wapo
is. You don't know who is googling the EU right now, or what their motivations
are.

Just as much as some remain votes were blind votes for the status quo, some
leave votes were blind votes for change.

~~~
mc32
Right... But then again, I'm not a journo at the WaPo. They are making these
implications without knowing who... However I find it likely the Stay voters
would be interested to know the implications of the vote now that the vote has
gone against them.

------
Analemma_
Here's a Leave fellow who says he just did it as a protest vote thinking it
wouldn't actually pass.
[https://twitter.com/AdamWSweeney/status/746269140915208193](https://twitter.com/AdamWSweeney/status/746269140915208193)
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. The most important international
agreement in the UK's history torn up because people thought this was a
Buzzfeed poll.

~~~
_9MOTHER9HORSE
On the contrary, the fact the EU had enormous power over British people, yet
barely anyone knew what it was, what it did, or why it was important, was a
compelling reason for the UK to leave.

~~~
a-priori
Or, perhaps, it's a compelling reason why things like this shouldn't be
decided by referendum.

~~~
TearsInTheRain
how should they be decided then?

~~~
toomuchtodo
By representatives. You need a buffer between raw emotion and action.

Otherwise, this happens.

~~~
jazzyk
How is this "raw emotion", though? Leaving the EU has been discussed for a few
years now, quite widely.

Also, "raw emotion", direct democracy (in Switzerland, for example) can work
very well. Direct democracy may not scale well, hence we need representation,
but big issues should be left up to the people to be voted on.

In the end, I believe, the people in the UK voted against not so much the idea
of EU, but rather expressed their frustration with the EU's inability
(unwillingness?) to fix its problems. It's been brewing for a while.

------
katpas
One of the original suggested referendum questions was "Do you think that the
United Kingdom should be a member of the European Union?"

It was rejected in favour of "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of
European Union" because "some participants in our research did not know that
the United Kingdom is currently a member of the European Union."*

If that wasn't evidence the referendum was a bad idea...

*[http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file...](http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/192075/EU-referendum-question-assessment-report.pdf)

~~~
ozborn
That's not evidence in my book.

If you check the history of the European Union
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_European_Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_European_Union))
it is history of various agreements between an ever-changing set of member
states. Eventually (1992) there is the Maastricht Treaty that creates called
the European Union, but that has been amended various times. To complicate
things there is also the European Economic Community (renamed to European
Community) and member states are in/out of various important provisions of
European governance such as the Euro or the Schengen Agreement (like the UK
and Ireland). The Schengen Agreement I believe includes even some non-EU
members.

So people googling for "What is the EU" isn't proof of stupidity in my book.
They may haven been familiar with critical elements of the EU (which were the
deciding factors for their vote) but want to understand the full implications
of this historic vote.

------
emsy
What I're read so far about pro-leavers:

-They are stupid.

-They are xenophobic racists (over 50% of the population!).

-Trump welcomes the Brexit, so being pro-leave is stupid.

-Old people vote "leave" since they don't have to face the consequences as long as the young people, and old people have no clue.

-"Leave" votes come mainly from E.U. subsidized areas, thus they bite the hand that feeds them.

-Pro-leave doesn't even know what the E.U. is.

I have read a lot of insults regarding either position, but the attribution of
stupidity comes almost always from the "Remain" camp. Which comes close to
saying: there are no reasons to vote for leave, so they must be stupid. How
stupid.

~~~
Daishiman
Well, what _are_ those reasons that are so impactful that people should have
voted "Leave"? Because I have not really heard a single informed argument
about that, and the public discourse for Leave has shown an enormous gap in
knowledge about what the EU actually is.

~~~
nickik
If you don't search for it, you want find it. I am not sure if the "Leave"
people voted for it for the right reasons or the wrong reasons (xenophobia).

I think its fairly easy to make a case of why the EU is a bad institution. I
have made so here and other places. I think people are blinded by the idea of
the EU but ignore the actual EU. Can anybody deny that the EU has shown
horrible management in everything related to economics? We have a Great
Depression level crisis and now a horrible slow recovery. 90% of this hole
crisis could have been avoid if the EU and specially EMU were such horribly
setup institutions. The EU is not really democratic either, when it should be
the most democratic. It should improve on the state of institutional
democracy, while in reality its a very clear step back. Take a look at Swiss
Federalism and Direct Democracy, its a much better set up for a system but
many of the ideas are nowhere to be found in the EU.

Britain has economic problems right now because a lot is changing, but I see
no reason that the long term growth should be negatively impacted by this. In
the long term I think it can be a net positive. It all depends on how Britain
will operate going forward.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
The people of the UK voted for the Conservatives, on an explicit platform of
austerity.

Only 37% of the population was needed for this, but this is because the UK
voters had been apathetic about the opportunity to reform the voting system.

So how can they claim to be disappointed by the EU adopting the same polities?

~~~
nickik
Because the EU is soled on a platform of European Unity and how they are the
highest achievement of the European Political classes.

The UK has a reason for their bad system. They have a very gradualist history.
Compare it to France, where we are talking about the Republic 5 right now.

If we are doing a project for European Unity is should actually be better then
everything else. It should be better then Switzerland, not worse then the UK.

------
davidf18
The BrExit vote was caused by the same problem that enables Trump (and
Sanders) to win so many votes. The British Elites, like the Republic Elites
are ignoring the pain caused to the working class through trade agreements and
(in the case of BrExit) immigration from poorer parts of Europe. In different
ways the EU integration put an additional burden on the already struggling
British working class.

As a specific example, the immigrants, who came to the UK for jobs drove down
wages for the working class with additional competition while at the same time
putting a lot of pressure on budgets for the National Health System and social
services.

The British Elites ignored the complaints of the working class while not even
increasing the budgets for social services and the National Health Service
proportionate to the additional demand caused by immigration.

It is this total lack of sensitivity of the British Elite to their fellow
citizens that caused the BrExit.

Similarly, the "rise of Trump" is because Paul Ryan, the billionaire Wall
Street hedge fund owners, and other Republic Elites have totally ignored the
feeling of the working class. They have created trade policies which have
"exported" American factory jobs while at the same time wanting to cut the
social services that workers need precisely because of policies of elites
(Republic and Democratic) to export their working class jobs.

For example, when Carrier air conditioners closed their Indiana factory and
exported the jobs to Mexico, it was only Trump that complained repeatedly. Not
Paul Ryan, Not billionaire Paul Singer, not Cruz, not Jeb Bush, not Rubio. The
total cluelessness of the Republic Elite is why Trump won the nomination.

The rise of Sanders is because the Democratic elite refused to listen to among
others, the young, for whom the cost of education has increased significantly
and who are unable to buy homes, etc, because of rising student debt.

In the cases of the British Elites, the Republic and Democratic Elites, they
all appear to care more for "The City" and Wall Street Bankers than they do
working class citizens and the young who are attempting to start their lives
as their parents had.

~~~
cname
I'm confused. Are you saying that Trump is _not_ part of what you're calling
the "Republic Elite"? Or that he's not part of the billionaire class? That
he's not highly connected? Are you saying he actually _cares_ about the
working class?

I don't understand how average Americans can buy into this idea that Trump is
some kind of outsider. He rubs shoulders with all kinds of rich, powerful, and
connected people, including presidents.

The idea that people are enamored with Trump because he represents their
interests just doesn't add up. At the most, I can see how people might find
his off-the-wall antics and constant flip-flopping somewhat entertaining, but
surely that's not a good reason to put him office.

~~~
krapp
>I don't understand how average Americans can buy into this idea that Trump is
some kind of outsider.

It's because Trump is politically incorrect. He dresses like the just got off
shift at the factory and makes jokes about his dick size and most importantly,
when he speaks, he doesn't come off as being more informed or articulate than
his supporters.

All it takes for a politician to convince Americans they're not part of the
"elite," is to act like a convincing caricature of "the common man."

~~~
areyousure
> He dresses like the just got off shift at the factory

This comment baffles me, because one of the most consistent aspects of Trump's
image is always being in a suit and tie.

I just searched for "Donald Trump" on Google Images. Nearly every picture has
him in a suit and tie. The first wherein he was visibly not wearing a tie or
bowtie was #70 (but he was still in a suit). #139 was the second picture
lacking a tie (but still in a suit). #176 was the first picture featuring a
person without a suit, but it was Michael Moore alongside Donald Trump (still
in a suit and tie). #551 was the first image where he was not in a suit, but
it was a caricature drawing. #603 was the first photo of Donald Trump where he
was not in a suit; it was this picture: [http://government.northcrane.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/01/...](http://government.northcrane.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/01/jacksontrump.jpg)

#693 was the second and only other picture in the first 700:
[http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/5580938f69beddba025...](http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/5580938f69beddba025e62f2-480/donald-
trump-playing-golf.jpg)

It seems to me that Trump always wears a suit, except when he's golfing, and
is always wearing a collared shirt. I'd be happy to see a picture where "he
dresses like [he] just got off shift at the factory".

~~~
pessimizer
It's part of the elite narrative about what confuses rubes, so Trump must
dress that way.

The reason people are voting for Trump is because he's as openly racist as the
Republicans have gotten so far. This is the same reason why Democrats haven't
won whites since Kennedy. The question is whether Trump's supporters will
suspect that his newly found overtly racist anti-establishment stance is a
deception before the election and not turn out, or whether Hillary will make
enough Democrats sick that they won't turn out.

------
carsongross
This sort of distain-for-plebes arrogance on the part of the elites is why
they will continue to be surprised by events for the foreseeable future.

~~~
rimantas
Why not to have referendum on taxes? Care to guess the outcome?

~~~
lgieron
The Swiss held a referendum on universal basic income, and it was overthrown
by a large margin.

------
bitL
"Hey, you voted against what we recommended to you, so now we will be telling
you for the next 5 years that you are the stupid one that you don't even know
what you voted against!"

I don't get it - this is a prime example of democracy in action so why so much
outrage? Do you rather want to live in technocracy/totality and allow voting
"properly profiled" people only? "USSR is a great idea" anyone?

Get over it, as much as shocking it can be to you. You can't always profit
from every democratic decision, even if you feel it's the only correct one.
Just accept other people desire something else and pick up your next fight
properly so that you won't be as shocked as now and completely unprepared. And
next time vote politicians into office that actually have brain and don't risk
everything for their own personal agenda. It's just grotesque.

~~~
deciplex
"On balance democracy is a good thing" and "this electorate is utter shit" are
not contradictory beliefs :-)

On the face of it this seems like a terrible idea, and certainly the
politicians promoting it are fucking cretins of the lowest order. But, maybe
we're wrong! After all, the people who generally voted Leave are the same
folks who have not shared all that much in the prosperity created by global
capitalism. Come to think of it, so are most of the folks who voted Remain. It
gets a bit tiring, for the listener _and_ the speaker, when one constantly
blames so many of society's ills on wealth inequality and plutocracy, but
wealth inequality and plutocracy are responsible for a lot of society's ills.
I do take some solace in the fact that the rich will suffer the consequences
of this referendum the same as the poor - however they can withstand it better
than the poor, too. I don't think the average Briton is going to be better off
for leaving the EU, but if this convinces the ruling class that they should
try fucking everyone else over a little bit less (I doubt it will), maybe it
will end up having been worth it.

------
unit91
Sanity check: Google searchers aren't necessarily voters. The UK had a massive
(72.2%) turnout, which still leaves 13 million potential voters at home [1]. I
think it's reasonable that those least-likely to vote on this issue also might
be a large contingent of those who don't even know what the EU is. Moreover,
Google searchers aren't necessarily in the electorate. They might be kids,
etc.

1\. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/23/high-turnout-
for-...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/23/high-turnout-for-eu-
referendum-vote-could-break-uk-records/)

~~~
therealdrag0
Exactly. A lot of people are reading way to much into this.

------
twoquestions
"People of $MY_IDENTITY believe a thing, so I'll vote for it no matter what
$OTHERS say!"

I thought before reading that story that the above was a bad caricature, but
holy shit. How can you not know what the EU is if you're in a member country
and can read? It's like an American not knowing what Congress is!

~~~
pessimizer
If you google "What is cancer?" after being diagnosed with it, does that mean
that you don't know what cancer is, or that you don't know about it in the
detail that you now expect to need?

The upper middle class think that everyone who works with their hands is a
failure, and are willing to believe the worst about them.

~~~
DanBC
People were lied to. Some of them believed the lies.

Borris and Farage said that £350m will go to the NHS. Here's a picture of
Borris by a sign that he had created for his campaign:

[https://twitter.com/mgtmccartney/status/746245181532418048](https://twitter.com/mgtmccartney/status/746245181532418048)

It says "Let's give our NHS the £350 million the EU takes every week"

Here's a picture of their campaign bus:

[https://twitter.com/mgtmccartney/status/746245181532418048](https://twitter.com/mgtmccartney/status/746245181532418048)

That says "We send the EU £350 million a week

Let's fund our NHS instead"

What have the Brexit campaigners said the day after the referendum?

Here's Farage explaining that saying it was a "mistake" to say the £350m per
week would go to the NHS.

[https://twitter.com/GMB/status/746218028195426305](https://twitter.com/GMB/status/746218028195426305)

------
alexcason
"Even though I voted to leave, this morning I woke up and I just — the reality
did actually hit me," one woman told the news channel ITV News. "If I'd had
the opportunity to vote again, it would be to stay."

~~~
arethuza
#WhatHaveWeDone seems popular on Twitter, as is #notmyvote

~~~
chki
Which might be posted by those who voted "remain" as well, because people feel
that they belong together although they voted differently.

------
taylorwc
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the
average voter."

\- Winston Churchill

~~~
DonaldFisk
He also said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those
other forms that have been tried from time to time."

"Perhaps the late Lord Attlee was right," she [Mrs Thatcher] observed, "when
he said that the referendum was a device of dictators and demagogues."

~~~
pessimizer
Obligatory horrific Churchill quote: "I do not agree that the dog in a manger
has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a
very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a
great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of
Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the
fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to
put it that way, has come in and taken their place."

------
downandout
This is the problem with popular votes on issues with far-reaching and complex
consequences. There are certain matters that are better left to elected
politicians. If one were to have a popular vote as to whether or not we should
dissolve the IRS in the US, that measure would likely pass because "yay no
taxes!" but would result in the collapse of the US government.

I'm not sure that individual voters that have no conception of the myriad
issues associated with this decision should have been allowed to vote on it.

~~~
thesimpsons1022
it's taboo to say this but I've been reading a lot about Ancient Rome before
Ceasar and yearn for that type of government. I know people have a disdain for
aristocracy but people in charge were raised knowing they'd be powerful. As
such, they'd be extensively educated both academically and in Roman culture.
(Also sometimes moving to Greece to study at the best universities in the
world). There was also no partisanship as each senator made the moves that
benefitted them or their people the most.

~~~
ecdavis
> There was also no partisanship as each senator made the moves that
> benefitted them or their people the most.

How would you describe the populares and the optimates?

~~~
thesimpsons1022
these weren't parties really. it's similiar to saying you are a populist. To
me bernie sanders and trump are both populists yet have vastly different views
and would never be considered the same party.

edit: as it says on wikipedia, " ...the designation populares refers as much
to political tactics as to any perceived policy."

------
99_00
The subtext of the article seems to be that British voters don't know what the
EU is despite voting to leave it.

But their evidence doesn't show that. Yes, there is a spike in people googling
"what is BREXIT" and such things. But how many voters are doing that search?
What percent of voters are uninformed? No one knows, so why write an article
about it?

This is low quality journalism.

------
api
Pundits need to stop it with this "mock the unsophisticated yokels" click-
baiting and trolling. _Of course_ people are Googling about the EU after a
major upset referendum about the EU.

One reason "insane" anti-establishment positions like this are winning (even
when they are insane) is because pundits stubbornly refuse to actually listen
to peoples' reasons for supporting them. Instead they mock them as backwater
idiots and insult their intelligence.

I don't know UK politics well enough to say for certain, but I know in the USA
Trump is largely a FU vote against an establishment that's allowing vast
swaths of the country to collapse into permanent depression while ignoring the
problem and horribly distorting the economy to keep Wall St. pumped up at the
expense of things like housing affordability. I can't stand him myself but I
know where the support is coming from, and if nobody listens to these issues
we're going to have President Trump in November.

~~~
coldcode
48% voted to stay, now they are Googling what happens next to them. It's a
stupid article.

------
advertising
My first impression of the result was shouldn't there be a requirement for a
larger difference than 1 - 2% for something like this to pass? A majority of
at least 65% for example? I don't know what I'm talking about really but that
seems logical, what do you all think?

~~~
thesimpsons1022
The number is arbitrary though. Why not 60 or 63 etc..? I don't think it
should even have been voted on. Direct democracy makes no sense when 99 pct of
those voting don't understand the issue. We are dealing with extremely complex
economic and political webs. When experts are ignored everyone fails.

------
mladenkovacevic
In my jumbled mess of thoughts this is a rough list of priorities that should
be addressed at before democracy can work in a "more perfect way" and can't be
misused by the power-hungry elites or the disgruntled masses led by dangerous
clowns:

1) Wealth Inequality brought on by unfair access to opportunity (This one item
needs its own list of priorities in order to be figured out... Basic income?
Better social support in the form of jobs, education, health? Fair legal
treatment?.. too long to list here)

2) An uninformed populace (Removal of "personalities" from politics. Maybe
even a shift from voting for people but rather for issues. Engage people in
political life often, not just when elections roll around. A more responsible
media landscape - Less Kardashians and much less opinion or propaganda
journalism.)

3) Get money out of politics or at least enforce mandatory transparency of
financial influence in politics

4) Ability to delegate your voting power to someone you trust (it could be a
group or an individual). If you're on social assistance and your priority is
to survive, you might not have time to be informed about every single issue.
You could however empower an individual, association, union or another entity
that you feel represents your interests to vote on your behalf).

------
at-fates-hands
So when googling something is an indication of what people _actually know_??

This only tells you what people were _looking for_ not what articles they read
or what conclusions they drew from the actual articles they read. We have
truly jumped the ship if people are drawing conclusions based solely on what
people are searching for in Google.

Here's your sign. . .

------
xirdstl
Or, you know, this could be an uptick from the percentage of people who did
not bother to turn out to vote. Spin the narrative however you like.

------
sinuspi
I'd actually modify most referenda and other public elections to include a
brief quiz about the choice taken.

For example,

I VOTE:

[_] LEAVE [_] REMAIN:

My choice above means (choose one): (_) more welfare; (_) less welfare.
Foreign trade will be (choose one): (_) simplified; (_) complicated. etc.

If the quiz choices don't match the vote itself, the vote is INVALID.

Thus the amount of uninformed votes would be reduced to zero.

Of course the options would have to be agreed upon by both sides.

"Oh, but someone could easily be taught to 'cheat', you could tell someone
what answers to pick!" Well, sure. Good luck convincing an immigrant to tick
the "(_) less jobs for immigrants" box.

------
coryfklein
> Awakening to a stock market plunge and a precipitous decline in the value of
> the pound that Britain hasn't seen in more than 30 years

There's a tad bit of sensationalism here. Yes, this is a HUGE drop to happen
in one day, but the British Pound is only ~1.5% lower than the low of 3 months
ago (when compared against the US dollar).

[https://www.tradingview.com/chart/34OYpFIv/](https://www.tradingview.com/chart/34OYpFIv/)

[http://imgur.com/6IyjxnX](http://imgur.com/6IyjxnX)

------
DominikR
Why can't these people just accept a democratic decision without painting
those who voted in an undesired way as retards?

Every major voting decision in the last 10 years was painted (in basically all
media) as the smart and educated ones vs the retards, bigots, racists or even
nazis.

With this attitude we are one step away from abolishing democracy altogether.
Obviously because we must protect the stupid ones from their own opinions.

I originally came from a Communist country and I've got to say that over the
years all mayor western publications have turned into something resembling the
Soviet Pravda.

~~~
sbmassey
Western culture as a whole pretty dumb these days - we used to have the Bible
and the classics as common cultural touchstones, but nowadays the only shared
culture is idiotic stuff like Star Wars, so most people get their fundamental
ideas of how the world works from there, rather than anything that touches on
the real world.

------
bllguo
I'm confident in the future this will be a case study on the failings of
democracy. I absolutely do not believe all 52% of leave voters realized the
economic repercussions.

~~~
twinkletwinkle
Maybe they had an idea and don't care?
[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c1adcce2-397e-11e6-9a05-82a9b15a8e...](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c1adcce2-397e-11e6-9a05-82a9b15a8ee7.html#axzz4CWIHe58u)

"the piles of ballot papers told their own story about those parts of Britain
that felt comfortable in a modern, connected world, and those which felt cut
off from the fruits of globalisation. Voters in London and Scotland, the two
most prosperous parts of the UK, turned out in large numbers to deliver a
clear message that they wanted to remain in the EU and its huge single market.
But elsewhere — in the old industrial centres of the north, the small towns of
the Midlands and the faded seaside resorts — the ballot papers were stacked
high in favour of Leave, rejection of an establishment that had let them
down."

------
ionised
We need some form of modern Sortition;

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition)

------
BRValentine
Haven't read all the comments here, but isn't it possible or even likely that
it's Remain voters having an "oh shit what next" moment that are Googling the
EU and the implications of leaving, as opposed to ignorant abstainers and
Leave voters checking up on the consequences of their vote after the fact?

The article doesn't actually take a position, but the tenor of the viral
social media chatter seems to assume the latter case.

------
_audakel
Going out on a tangent - Would California be more successful leaving the US as
an independent country?

As things stand, California is currently the eighth largest economy in the
world on their own. 17 of the top 30 U.S. tech companies are in California,
which should come as no surprise. Tourism, entertainment, biotech, and
agriculture are multibillion dollar industries already. Aerospace and defense
contracts still rake in around $25bn a year. And many state business leaders
are increasingly showing a real commitment to renewable energy.

Overall, while I believe there is definitely more potential for a social
democratic style of government if California were its own country, the changes
would not be that drastic. Barring a major collapse, California would, like
Canada, still remain in the U.S.'s economic and cultural shadow. And who
knows? Secession might be the best thing to happen to other states like Texas,
New York, and Massachusetts. Who else would be capable of filling the void
left in the energy, media, and technology industries? There is certainly
upside in such a move but also a great deal of risk.

~~~
superswordfish
I forget the exact amount (it's likely changed), but CA is one state that is
subsidizing the rest of the country. It was somewhere in the ballpark of $0.20
received for every $1.00 given.

------
mungoid
I have no real reason why I think it would work well, but I have always felt
that voting on anything should only be allowed to the people that can show a
half decent knowledge of that topic and not for people that just go with the
first thing they hear. You might as well flip a coin at that point. If you
want to vote, do your part as a citizen and learn about what it is you are
voting on, how it will impact you and your country as a whole and if you don't
want to do that, don't vote.

Democratic countries gave power to the people, but we basically give it right
back because "its too hard", or "i dont have time", etc. so we only vote from
our gut feeling and follow the loudest voice. Gut feeling is fine in a fight
or flight sense, but not for policies that impact the whole country.

IMO I would think decisions like this and many others would benefit from
something similar to the scientific method. Construct your proposal, share it
with everyone, let them critique it, revise, share, etc. and then vote.
Biggest thing is taking ego out of the equation.

------
JoeAltmaier
You decide to go on a trip, next you get out a map. This makes perfect sense,
and in no way reflects poorly on the British people.

~~~
thomasahle
If you decide to jump over a cliff, you really should havr looked at the map
first. Just to check how high the fall would be.

~~~
vacri
When I travel through a new country, I look at a general map first. When I get
to a new area in a country that's now in my direct personal experience, I look
at a more detailed map.

~~~
thomasahle
"What is the EU" isn't a detailed map. It's the most general for the purpose.
"How many times a year does the chamber of ministers meet" would be a more
detailed local map.

------
advertising
Some voter demographic info - [http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-
politics-36616028](http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36616028)

\- Rural areas mostly voted to leave

\- Younger voters voted to stay, but turnout by younger voters was lower

\- Of 30 areas with the fewest graduates (I assume this means college? wasn't
clear) 28 voted to leave

------
ash
From the video:

> No country has ever left the European Union before and hasn't used article
> 50.

I'm not sure about article 50, but Greenland left the EEC (EU predecessor) in
1985.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_the_European_U...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_the_European_Union#Greenland)

------
pessimizer
The WaPo was always bad, but it's descending into linkbait shit, and every
headline is a backhanded editorial. Leave won by 4 points with a 70% turnout.
_Plenty of the people doing the googling voted stay._ I assume the stay voters
knew less about the EU than the leave voters not because of the position they
chose, but simply because it was the status quo, supported by the entire
establishment, default.

What's happening is that people who are facing what has been painted to be a
major change in their circumstances are checking the internet for as much
information as possible so they can figure out how to deal with it.

Translated into WaPo: the idiots who voted against the EU didn't even know
what it was.

------
iumtuip2001
The title is written such that they would have you believe it's the people who
voted to leave the E.U. who are doing the Googling.

How does WP know it's not the other way around? It could be it's all the
people who voted to stay...

------
MrZongle2
Odd, how in some close elections if the result is aligned what the media and
the establishment want, "the people have spoken" and grandiose words are
spoken about the power of democracy.

And yet when the election is close but the result runs counter to what those
in power want....suddenly we have hand-wringing over misleading campaigns,
"uninformed voters", the perils of democracy, etc. etc.

Like clockwork.

------
hacker42
So, can they rejoin? Or will the entire country collapse due to the
awkwardness of reversing the earlier decision?

~~~
cm3
They didn't leave yet and may not. I feel like this has been used as a vehicle
for Boris Johnson to increase his chances to be prime minister and others' to
provoke changes. It seems to me that Britain didn't seriously consider the
repercussions of an exit that doesn't involve cherry-picking.

~~~
keithpeter
The referendum is advisory and not binding.

I think this particular Golem has too much momentum now to simply decline the
advice of the electorate, however it did occur to me that Cameron's 3 month
delay in applying Section 50 would allow the attention of the public to be
distracted to some extent.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The referendum is advisory and not binding.

OTOH, the referendum _did_ kill the Britain-EU agreement on new terms -- as
that was expressly conditioned on a "Remain" vote -- so while it doesn't
legally obligate the government to withdraw from the EU, in addition to
creating a strong public expectation (both in the UK and in the rest of the
EU) of withdrawal, it also makes the conditions for _staying_ in the EU worse
for the UK than they were before the referendum.

~~~
jacquesm
But not worse than leaving and coming back cap-in-hand 5 or 10 years down the
road. And as England, not as the UK.

~~~
keithpeter
I take the point, and that was a significant part of my own decision to vote
remain.

I actually think that the EU itself may scale back the political union bit and
push up the economic cooperation bit over the next decade. Then options for
the future (on all sides) may open up again.

Those options will be for the ones under 30 now to explore of course and they
voted heavily to remain.

------
jefreybulla
A little late to ask that question... is democracy ok when people don't know
what they are voting for?

~~~
MrZongle2
Is it democracy if they aren't given the opportunity to decide?

------
eternalban
"some British voters are now saying" ...

So says The Washington Post. What doesn't seem to get through to the global
elite is that regardless of the decision, the people demand constitutional and
auditable mechanisms to 'voice' their opinion.

------
Youk2016
There are 25% who didn't vote, maybe because they didn't expect the Vote to
Leave to win and just now they got worried.

Instead of this trouble, they could probably go through with fixing the EU
legislatures that they find problematic.

------
gwbas1c
Maybe things would make more sense to if EU countries went to the olympics
under a single flag? It's not like American athletes compete under the flag of
their state.

------
thinkt4nk
I've only seen percentages, not figures. I'm not sure you can even say that
these searches are being issued by people who turned out to vote.

------
oldmanjay
The establishment viewpoint seems to be that snide recrimination coupled to
rampant emotional predictions of doom is news. I don't get it.

------
alexc05
Quite possibly not the sames ones who voted?

------
hathym
history will tell if they did the right choice. right now no body really
knows.

------
cwbrandsma
I'm googling "what the F' is the BREXIT about anyway".

------
thrillgore
"What the hell did we just do guys?"

------
anu_gupta
Wow talk about someone not prepared to look at data but instead sneer and
insult . Quelle surprise (that's French by the way)

~~~
dang
We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines.

We detached this comment from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11970636](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11970636)
and marked it off-topic.

------
Maydowf
If this is for real... It is really sad. I understood that xenophobia was the
main reason Great Britain wanted to get out of EU, which is also sad.

~~~
Zpalmtree
Wanting a sensible immigration policy or control over your laws is not
xenophobia. The idea that half the country is racist is absurd, and downright
insulting. There's a reason people voted leave, and part of it is due to both
labour and conservatives constantly ignoring the working class's issues over
immigration, dismissing them as racist. You reap what you sow.

~~~
googletazer
Pretty much - Brexit is a push to (slightly) tilt the British labor market to
the advantage of the common British man - lower and middle class people who
work for wages. Less workers from Spain/Eastern Europe will re-balance the
market towards higher wages for Brits.

For the elites that will mean less profits so naturally they are opposed. If
they were smart and played their game well, they would have slightly hiked the
wages previously, thus opened some steam valves. I read the guardian (as
liberal as it gets), and vast majority of leave comments pointed to stagnating
or decreasing standards of living as the cause. Either way, democracy worked
as intended.

------
sergiotapia
People who voted remain want to see what it's all about now.

------
swamp40
They should now have a vote to rename England "Brity McBritface".

------
googletazer
Patronizing attitude towards British voters from newspapers and the elites.
Democracy happened, British people wanted to regain sovereignty over their
affairs, and they did it. Good for them.

------
marcoperaza
The left wing establishment once again shows their utter contempt for the
common people. Of course there's a lot of people searching about the EU today.
It's pretty disingenuous to suggest it's a sign that they're ignorant. But
hey, anything to defend the narrative, right?

------
tamana
As usual, WaPo is shitposting. Why are they not banned here?

Yes, people are deeply curious about the full effect of this huge proposed
change, especially the half of the entire population who voted for Stay
because they weren't too worried about the UK/EU boundary when they were happy
enough with the status quo total package.

~~~
sergiotapia
HN users in general lean heavily left (at least publicly).

~~~
saynsedit
Actually I think HN leans center. HN has no particularly inspiring agenda,
it's mostly conformity to the status quo. There are extreme left and right on
HN but they are usually down voted.

~~~
spacehome
I see a lot of people leaning left and a lot of people leaning Libertarian.
What's conspicuously absent is the religious right.

