Zaphod
Jedi
I voted to leave.
And like many from both sides of this issue, I found myself in discussions with others regarding which way I was going to vote, and why I was going to vote the way I was going to vote. This may seem on the face of it like a somewhat anachronistic post, given that that vote was 2 years ago, but the issue has been so inflammatory and divisive that it's taken this long for the sane aspect of my mind to calmly analyze the dire state of affairs in my home country.
It's still almost impossible to discuss. On average it takes under a minute for a snidey, personal insinuation to creep in to the dialogue from either or both parties. I have found that quite antagonising, as people are calling me stupid - and as a result I've mostly stopped talking about it at all, rather then feel compelled to respond by pushing them up against a wall. I think both sides resort to personal attacks on their opposers, largely because they become frustrated with the fact their respective opposers have some very salient points that they can't actually answer.
To depart a little from the subject matter - as I've got older, I've found that many convictions I've held resolutely as ultimate undeniable truths in my younger years, have turned out to be nothing of the sort. there's nothing quite like listening to the undiluted, unsanitized arguments of your opposition to give you pause for thought on any debating topic. But in order to do that you first have to take the heat out of the exchange. With Brexit, this is still seemingly impossible.
I think Brexit and the EU overall, have meant different things to the two camps in this debate. The frustrating reason this is not resolving, is because in their respective universes they're both right. For the remain side Brexit is a question of economics. What buffoon would actually vote for a direction that made them tangibly poorer? And let's make no bones about it, it will - they are right about that. You vote for a direction which introduces barriers to trade that didn't exist before - it's going to hurt. How can you as a responsible, sane adult, willingly choose a state of affairs which involves the financial suffering of yourself and others, when there's another option which doesn't involve suffering? It's a compelling and undeniable argument.
For the leave camp, this isn't about economics and never was. It's about politics. When you have an external governing entity that makes policies and laws, that mean the nation states cannot make laws and policies which interfere with the external governing entity's laws and policies - of course it's coming at a democratic cost. It's the very definition of 'democratic cost'. And of course that is a problem that's only going to increase - structures like this only seek to progress. It's also a compelling and undeniable argument
But when faced with the referendum we were faced with a binary 'stay or leave' vote. But the two camps are not different sides of the same coin - they are sides occupying different coins entirely. Remain wouldn't vote to lose democratic autonomy and leave wouldn't vote to make people economically suffer.. and neither camp did - they were voting in a parallel understanding to the one their opposition thought they were
So we have a division in our country, where there can logically be no bridge because both sides are seeing the same word 'EU', but with an entirely different conceptual definition and back-story, both of which are correct. Many have spoken on how the lead up to the referendum felt like a lot of people shouting hot air - the reason for this is that they were only talking about their camp's definition of what Brexit was about. Only appealing to their own voter base - never the opposition because how on Earth can they when for them, the EU is not about 'x' it's about 'y'?
I write all this and from my perspective, and at this point, it's the dire objective truth of the UK's position - as I see it. But the paradox is, that it doesn't help me at all. My position on my coin floating in a void is still sacrosanct; untinged by my assumed understanding of the opposition's frustrations.
You cannot sacrifice democratic autonomy for anything - for me, that's the point that history has been trying to say in 8 foot tall neon lettering for thousands of years.. and it makes me seethe that people honestly think that a column of figures with a sum at the bottom is the only thing you need to look at when it comes to colossal societal decisions such as Brexit or the EU.
400 years of sacrifice, bloodshed and suffering - we spent in Europe, just extracting the church from the state and that's just one of the pillars of the democratic society we enjoy today. All of that suffering has provided us with a gift - national democratic autonomy - and no one has any damn right (certainly not elected officials) to sell that down the river. It is both our right and our duty, to protect that at any cost; it is the greatest gift we can hand on to future generations, and as a responsible adult, I had to vote leave
.. but it still keeps me awake at night
And like many from both sides of this issue, I found myself in discussions with others regarding which way I was going to vote, and why I was going to vote the way I was going to vote. This may seem on the face of it like a somewhat anachronistic post, given that that vote was 2 years ago, but the issue has been so inflammatory and divisive that it's taken this long for the sane aspect of my mind to calmly analyze the dire state of affairs in my home country.
It's still almost impossible to discuss. On average it takes under a minute for a snidey, personal insinuation to creep in to the dialogue from either or both parties. I have found that quite antagonising, as people are calling me stupid - and as a result I've mostly stopped talking about it at all, rather then feel compelled to respond by pushing them up against a wall. I think both sides resort to personal attacks on their opposers, largely because they become frustrated with the fact their respective opposers have some very salient points that they can't actually answer.
To depart a little from the subject matter - as I've got older, I've found that many convictions I've held resolutely as ultimate undeniable truths in my younger years, have turned out to be nothing of the sort. there's nothing quite like listening to the undiluted, unsanitized arguments of your opposition to give you pause for thought on any debating topic. But in order to do that you first have to take the heat out of the exchange. With Brexit, this is still seemingly impossible.
I think Brexit and the EU overall, have meant different things to the two camps in this debate. The frustrating reason this is not resolving, is because in their respective universes they're both right. For the remain side Brexit is a question of economics. What buffoon would actually vote for a direction that made them tangibly poorer? And let's make no bones about it, it will - they are right about that. You vote for a direction which introduces barriers to trade that didn't exist before - it's going to hurt. How can you as a responsible, sane adult, willingly choose a state of affairs which involves the financial suffering of yourself and others, when there's another option which doesn't involve suffering? It's a compelling and undeniable argument.
For the leave camp, this isn't about economics and never was. It's about politics. When you have an external governing entity that makes policies and laws, that mean the nation states cannot make laws and policies which interfere with the external governing entity's laws and policies - of course it's coming at a democratic cost. It's the very definition of 'democratic cost'. And of course that is a problem that's only going to increase - structures like this only seek to progress. It's also a compelling and undeniable argument
But when faced with the referendum we were faced with a binary 'stay or leave' vote. But the two camps are not different sides of the same coin - they are sides occupying different coins entirely. Remain wouldn't vote to lose democratic autonomy and leave wouldn't vote to make people economically suffer.. and neither camp did - they were voting in a parallel understanding to the one their opposition thought they were
So we have a division in our country, where there can logically be no bridge because both sides are seeing the same word 'EU', but with an entirely different conceptual definition and back-story, both of which are correct. Many have spoken on how the lead up to the referendum felt like a lot of people shouting hot air - the reason for this is that they were only talking about their camp's definition of what Brexit was about. Only appealing to their own voter base - never the opposition because how on Earth can they when for them, the EU is not about 'x' it's about 'y'?
I write all this and from my perspective, and at this point, it's the dire objective truth of the UK's position - as I see it. But the paradox is, that it doesn't help me at all. My position on my coin floating in a void is still sacrosanct; untinged by my assumed understanding of the opposition's frustrations.
You cannot sacrifice democratic autonomy for anything - for me, that's the point that history has been trying to say in 8 foot tall neon lettering for thousands of years.. and it makes me seethe that people honestly think that a column of figures with a sum at the bottom is the only thing you need to look at when it comes to colossal societal decisions such as Brexit or the EU.
400 years of sacrifice, bloodshed and suffering - we spent in Europe, just extracting the church from the state and that's just one of the pillars of the democratic society we enjoy today. All of that suffering has provided us with a gift - national democratic autonomy - and no one has any damn right (certainly not elected officials) to sell that down the river. It is both our right and our duty, to protect that at any cost; it is the greatest gift we can hand on to future generations, and as a responsible adult, I had to vote leave
.. but it still keeps me awake at night
