Welcome to the Community

Please choose one of the options below to log in and get stuck in!

Login with PPUK

PPUK After the Brexit Referendum

edited February 24 in Policy Discussion
I posted a blog about how the EU referendum impacts upon the Pirate Party.
https://www.pirateparty.org.uk/blogs/adrian-farrel/ppuk-after-brexit-referendum

Please discuss!

Comments

  • Ooh, very interesting
  • ThyPirateDaveThyPirateDave South Wales
    edited October 2016
    "I think people have had enough of experts" was a line I couldn't believe was actually used. It absolutely destroyed the credit of the leave campaign, who had some credible people and views. I think this is a view we should continue to oppose - we value arguments from both sides on all debates.
  • ThyPirateDaveThyPirateDave South Wales
    edited October 2016
    This all does raise the question what do we do with our European policies.

    Are these now essentially international partnership policies we would seek to apply to any co-operation agreement between us and any other country/group of countries?
  • It kinda depends on what Brexit ends up being. There's not necessarily much point having a specific Europe policy if we end up completely leaving the EU.
  • Hi all , I'm a very very new member . After listening to the Council On Foreign Relations podcast about their views on current world economics ( which in my view is what the world really revolves around and the policies of the bought politicians prop up ) the elites are pretty much resigned to the fact that we are leaving the EU , in my opinion future generations will look back on this vote as one of the greatest democratic actions ever ( even if lots of people voted out for the wrong reasons without even knowing what they were voting for ) . For a party not under the jurisdiction of the elite economists and their friends in the upper echelons of government , this can have nothing but good repercussions for the pirate party in my opinion .

    The emerging markets in India is what they are focusing on now , so the EU was their failed attempt at globalisation , I'm sure as we can see in Iceland , the more people who retaliate against such policies , the bigger we become . They've had it all their own way for too long , they realise if people want to find out the truth about how badly 99% of government's and politicians sell their souls to the bankers they only have to look on the internet .
    There's a reason China and Korea keep a lid on that stuff . Seek the truth .
  • Any further restriction on political campaigning has to be seen as and justified (if it can be) as a restraint on freedom of speech. The problems of post-truth politics are fairly well understood. The solutions are less so. During the Remain campaign I and many others spent a great deal of time trying to correct basic misconceptions about the EU let alone debunking outright falsehoods. That time would have been better spent starting from a shared understanding of the status quo. Websites such as Full Fact did a good job for those who wanted to learn more. It's tempting to think that good information will ultimately drive out the bad but the scale of the campaigns and the realities of mass media ownership and control make that process haphazard.

    All that said, the campaigns ultimately came down to differences of values and priorities that mostly transcended the purely factual basis of the matter. Where voters saw themselves in society and how they saw Britain's place in Europe and the world mattered more than the precise value of the UK's contribution to the EU budget or the specifics of EU lawmaking. Elections and referendums have always been won by those who sell the most convincing narrative. What's changed is the extent to which a narrative is required to be based in reality to be convincing. (See Trump.)

    As disturbing as it is, the disparagement of experts needs to be seen in this context. In the most generous light, Gove's comment suggested not so much that expertise or facts didn't matter but that they didn't mandate any specific political position. Many people voted Leave accepting the risk or even accepting the likelihood that the economy would suffer. As a Remain campaigner I could point out that this was foolish while accepting that people had every right to run that risk (sadly for everyone, not just themselves). PPUK needs to examine what appears to be an unspoken assumption that a shared understanding of facts tends towards not just political consensus but specifically, liberal democracy. (This is Fukuyama's end of history idea.)

    Disagreeing slightly with the OP, I don't think Leavers are saying that Remainers must get behind the government's Brexit strategy (whatever that might be) but they are saying that the question to leave or remain has been settled in principle by the referendum and therefore that particular debate does not need to be continued and may harm the UK's position if it is ("talking Britain down"). The most worrying aspect of this is the implication of disloyalty or lack of patriotism by those who maintain that we should "ignore the will of the people" and remain in the EU regardless. This is particularly harmful when directed at people from minority groups whose Britishness is already questioned by ethnic nationalists. I can well understand why questioning both the principle and the specifics of leaving the EU annoys Brexiteers even to the extent of calling diehard Remainers undemocratic. But democracy is bigger than merely elections and referendums. Votes are a symptom of democracy not the cause of it. Democracy lies in the freedom to express and debate views at any time so that future actions, whether by citizens or government, can be better informed. Genuine democracy is 24/7/365 not limited to the month before a vote.


Sign In or Register to comment.