British Migrants?

let's not forget this, the UK voting to leave the EU in part due to undue influence of an overseas unelected body seems a touch hypocritical...:
"The UK froze the Gaddafi regime's assets in the country and joined France in leading the push for military intervention against Libyan government forces.[7] A group called "Topple the Tyrants" occupied Saif al-Islam Gaddafi's London mansion and called on the Gaddafi family to leave Libya.[8]

After weeks of lobbying by the UK and its allies, on 17 March 2011 the United Nations Security Council approved military intervention in Libya"

 

@sanj , fully agreeing with your points, would be interested to see evidence of stupid people being more likely to vote leave rather than remain.

Also, perhaps there are pros to leave we are overlooking? I mean, more than half of voters clearly wanted to leave.. We can blame it on propaganda, misinformation and intellect all we want, but a better economic situation isn't the only thing people worry about. Also the UK had historically been a bit of a "problem child" of the EU..

 

Damn immigrants coming taking our jobs /s

 

Ive already said repeatedly there were valid points for people to choose to leave, just as there were valid ones to stay too. I'm not in any way saying there was no justification for the leave camp at all

small examples of evidence of stupidity:
- farage as the face of the movement, considering the nonsense and straight out lies he has said in the past let alone re brexit
- large jump in people go ogling what the vote even means after more than half the country voted to leave
- one of the biggest campaign slogans about thrre being an extra 350mn/wk for the nhs was always a lie and if anyone bothered spending some time researching they would have found this out. this 350m stat was even printed on a large red bus used to ferry around 2 major brexit campaigners, bor is Johnson and Michael Gove. the 2 of them have separatEly been found in the past to openly lie about statistics and to have no respect for facts and truths getting in the way of their desired outcomes. within 24 hours of the vote farage publicly admitted the 350m nhs claim was a lie and a "mistake" despite them claiming it for months and it being one of the cornerstones of the campaign.
- leave group did not have remotely enough of a plan or analysis of how downsides would be managed and when one of their main voices was questioned about this lack of plan and the concerns many highly qualified and independent people/groups with no vested interests had about a lack of plan etc he replied "people have had enough of experts". can you imagine someone deciding to make up a new and unverifiable way to say treat cancer and deciding that the concerns of says professors of oncology were not relevant because people are sick of experts?



even if someone leaned towards leaving the EU how could they in good conscience vote to support these idiots?

 

Given the plunge in the UK currency one would hope that there are a bunch of UK manufacturers gearing up for expansion right now.

Although one would hope that there is a focus on a Rolls Royce vehicle level of quality control...

 

[QUOTE="sanj, post: 239492, member: 182] can you imagine someone deciding to make up a new and unverifiable way to say treat cancer and deciding that the concerns of says professors of oncology were not relevant because people are sick of experts? [/QUOTE]

You mean like naturopathy?

 

Same thing occurred/is occurring with Trump - and was illustrated just yesterday with unabashed arrogance and snobbery on the ABC radio - John Feine and another like-minded "professor" - representing the so called higher educated folk; basically labeling anyone as stupid, uneducated and a redneck for wanting to vote for Trump - and is happening/happened with the Brexit....

A lot of people voted to leave - and not for economic reasons.

You don't need to be higher educated or a critical thinker to want the right to run your Country as you see fit, without influence from an elite small group, and with their group needing serious reforms.

 

Actually, we do it here all the time. We might not call everyone who doesn't think, talk and behave like we do as idiots, but it is well and truly implied.

 

Did you see the news last night showing grief-stricken British soccer fans when they lost a soccer match in France.

 

And it happens among all groups and all social strata.

For example, 'according to latte drinkers' is a common phrase used by commentators who want to align themselves with non uni. educated people.

No different from the anti-Trump brigade.

 

Naturopathy what? As an alternate to cancer treatment? Don't tell me that

 

People waste money on Naturopaths? I thought eating a paw paw every day cures cancer? Who needs to spend money visiting a quack?

 

@Angel - just hang out under high voltage power lines with your mobile phone to your ear during a thunderstorm.

 

elections are not won with the majority ... but with more vocal minority

 

I thought that was cyclists or greenies

 

Perhaps to qualify to vote you are required to spell your own name

 

You must be speculating there. I can give you an example/anecdote of where that is not the case: 2016 democratic nominee elections. Sanders base = vocal minority. Current proceeds means Hilary Clinton has all but clinched the nomination (she has a vote majority). A vocal minority is still a minority.

Also my original point stands, propaganda goes both ways. Those voting to stay in the EU would have been subjected to propaganda too. Propaganda by definition, is neither necessarily good or bad. Simply over-biased and often misleading and/or factually lacking information.

Something I noticed about those that are the "I know whats right for the gun control/islam/brexit debates" types of people...

Spoiler

Perhaps one of the funniest ironies about "smart" people is that they often ignore the fact that they're also subject to propaganda, and that they, as humans, also naturally look for arguments, stats and info they already agree with, to reinforce their beliefs/opinions.

 

It is your speculation that sanders base was more vocal than Hillary's. Or propaganda? I don't think I need to give examples of how many 18-24 year olds did not vote in this referendum.

 

Nope, sanders supporters are more passionate/vocal about their support and had a higher propensity to talk about their support.. Hence why he outraised her and outspent her. He also had a LOT more donations from people, who were very vocal about their support. Hilary had a lot of donations from companies, in Super-PAC funding.

Long story short, people would speak more/be more vocal about how great sanders is. Media was on Hilary's side. You could argue propaganda existed from a grassroots level in favour of sanders and propaganda was heavily skewed towards Hilary from a media-perspective. Theres actual data on how little media representation Sanders had and how heavily biased articles tended towards Hilary.

Social media was much more rife with sanders support.