FTSE rising whilst prospect of FTA seems to be fading

MK62

Mickey666 said:

IanManc said:

Mickey666 said:

IanManc said:

Mickey666 said:

If anything, I'd say the Brexit referendum was a masterclass in proving why asking the uninformed masses to make important decisions is the worst example of democracy in action.  It's all madness.

I see.

Democracy's ok, provided people aren't allowed to make choices you disapprove of. And if they do choose something of which you disapprove then they're "uninformed masses".

Interesting.

No, no, no.  You misunderstand me.  Let's be honest, the masses ARE uninformed!  And I'm as uninformed as any of them.  We all have our opinions, prejudices and dogma but what are they based on?  Really, honestly?  Hardly anyone who votes is a professional politicial or economist etc, so it's hardly surprising that the electorate as a whole is uninformed.  I'd bet that hardly anyone who voted for Brexit understood the issues that would arise out of the land border in Ireland, for example.  Why would they?  THAT'S why we have a parliamentary democracy whereby we vote for professional politicians to make the big, small and complex decisions about how to run the country on our behalf.  And even those professional politicians, despite spending all their waking hours engaged on the job, in parliamentary debates, in select committees, travelling the country etc, are not fully informed themselves, which is why they rely on advisors, experts, think tanks, the civil service etc.  It's easy to sneer at politicians as 'being useless' but the fact is that running a country and an economy is incredibly complex.  So complex in fact that even the professionals with all their expert advisors can't always get it right - so what chance has the 'man on the Clapham omnibus' got of being truly, accurately and fully informed?

THAT is why referendums are a bad thing.  Because, unless they are for something trivial and inconsequential, they put binding decision-making power into the hands of people who do not truly understand all the issues and consequences.

That's not to denigrate the 'uninformed masses', merely being honest about the reality.

You said that the Brexit referendum "is the worst example of democracy in action" and "It's all madness".

Be honest. It's not about the nature of democracy or referendums. You're only saying that because you don't like the outcome.

I don't think I've misunderstood you at all.  🙂

Well I'm afraid you have. 

You've clearly made up your mind about me (in an uninformed sort of way ) so I doubt you'll believe me but I thought exactly what I wrote about the referendum BEFORE the result was even known. 

The outcome is irrelevant to my point that putting such an important question to a population of mostly uninformed people IS madness.  And, to clarify once again, I'm including myself as one of those uninformed.

It's the PROCESS that's wrong, regardless of the outcome.

So, what you seem to be saying is the the public should have been denied any say on what, at the time, was the biggest issue of the day, as they were too uninformed to actually know what you think they should want and it should all be left to politicians?
I'd love to see your reaction to the potential situation of no referendum ever taking place in 2016, and a eurosceptic government/parliament then taking us out of the EU without a referendum......

PS......would you support Scotland leaving the UK without a referendum.....just leave it to the politicians?

Mickey666

NottinghamKnight said:

Mickey666 said:

MK62 said:

Mickey666 said:

Thrugelmir said:

csgohan4 said:

Thrugelmir said:

csgohan4 said:

LHW99 said:

UK surely makes more exports to the EU than the rest of the world?

Not according to gov.uk

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-exports-to-non-eu-countries-continue-to-outstrip-eu

Surprising given the vast area covered by The EU, however making deals with individual countries, rather than en bloc like the EU, will be very time consuming/expensive and will unlikely have favourable terms compared to the EU as they know they have the UK over a barrel. 

Only 11% of UK trade is with countries with which there's an existing EU trade agreement. The creation of the RCEP has created a headache for the EU. Now the bigggest trade area in the world. 

 While the brexiteers are sniggering in their rich holiday houses abroad, not caring how brexit affects the average Joe. 

You are carrrying one big chip on your shoulder. Time to move on. Remainers living abroad are the ones who object. As it is they they now need to meet conditions of residency. The tales of woe show how much self interest determines peoples views. Much in the same way Covid has. Time to kick American Exceptionalism a byproduct of their form of capitalism into touch. 

If anything, I'd say the Brexit referendum was a masterclass in proving why asking the uninformed masses to make important decisions is the worst example of democracy in action.  It's all madness.

You do realise that it's the same "uninformed masses" who elect our MPs and governments don't you?........should they not be allowed to do that either?

Of course they should, that's the whole point of a parliamentary democracy.  We vote for a representative to make decisions on our behalf, on the basis that those representatives will be better informed than us by virtue of their 24/7/365 time spent on the job plus their daily access to expert advisers, parliamentary debates, select committees, the civil service etc.

We certainly don't or at least that is not what occurs. The majority of the people vote for a party, not an individual with a very few exceptions; indeed those votes are based on a feeling that the broad policies of that party are best for an individual and/ or the country, how many people read any of a party's manifesto. MPs are now supposed to be representative rather than any sort of cream of the population, and unfortunately will follow the party line as they are whipped into voting on the vast majority of issues. when MPs decide to make decisions against their party, and potentially against the majority of their constituents then things get very problematic. 

You're probably right that the majority of people vote for a party and probably don't even know the name of their MP (more uninformed-ness and why there are things such as 'safe seats'), but I didn't mention MPs, only 'representatives'. 

A political party can be our 'representative' and the principle of parliamentary democracy remains - the 'uninformed masses' defer all decision-making to parliament, with the party affiliation of their local MP being a fairly broad-brush expression of their own personal political leanings.

It seems to be a fairly good system, or the least bad on depending on your point of view.  But referendums break the system because they bypass the parliamentary process that generally does a good job of weeding out detrimental decisions, through its process of debate, expert advice, reviews and time for reflection.

In the case of the Brexit referendum, with all its complexity and uncertainty that even the professional politicians and expert consultants couldn't predict or agree about, perhaps a better approach would have been a second referendum when the detailed implications were much better known?

Thus, the first referendum could have been the simplistic in/out question, followed by the inevitable (and important) debate and negotiation of the exit deal, followed by a second referendum asking the same basic in/out question but this time in the fuller knowledge of what the detailed implications would be.

What we have actually done is ask the simplistic in/out question with little real knowledge of the eventual implications but when those implications are better known (ie 'the deal') we have deferred back to parliament to decide, rather than allow the people to decide.

Seems rather inconsistent really.

BananaRepublic

Mickey666 said:

IanManc said:

Mickey666 said:

If anything, I'd say the Brexit referendum was a masterclass in proving why asking the uninformed masses to make important decisions is the worst example of democracy in action.  It's all madness.

I see.

Democracy's ok, provided people aren't allowed to make choices you disapprove of. And if they do choose something of which you disapprove then they're "uninformed masses".

Interesting.

No, no, no.  You misunderstand me.  Let's be honest, the masses ARE uninformed!  And I'm as uninformed as any of them.  We all have our opinions, prejudices and dogma but what are they based on?  Really, honestly?  Hardly anyone who votes is a professional politicial or economist etc, so it's hardly surprising that the electorate as a whole is uninformed.  I'd bet that hardly anyone who voted for Brexit understood the issues that would arise out of the land border in Ireland, for example.  Why would they?  THAT'S why we have a parliamentary democracy whereby we vote for professional politicians to make the big, small and complex decisions about how to run the country on our behalf.  And even those professional politicians, despite spending all their waking hours engaged on the job, in parliamentary debates, in select committees, travelling the country etc, are not fully informed themselves, which is why they rely on advisors, experts, think tanks, the civil service etc.  It's easy to sneer at politicians as 'being useless' but the fact is that running a country and an economy is incredibly complex.  So complex in fact that even the professionals with all their expert advisors can't always get it right - so what chance has the 'man on the Clapham omnibus' got of being truly, accurately and fully informed?

THAT is why referendums are a bad thing.  Because, unless they are for something trivial and inconsequential, they put binding decision-making power into the hands of people who do not truly understand all the issues and consequences.

That's not to denigrate the 'uninformed masses', merely being honest about the reality.

I could not disagree more. There are countless arguments against your view. 

You clearly believe that there exists a group of experts with our best interests at heart. In truth there is no such thing. There are groups of knowledgeable people, each with their own vested interests and biases. Thus government scientists have almost always spent their entire working lifes in public institutions with no experience of the private sector. Economists practice the ‘dismal science’. Place ten economists in a room and you will get ten viewpoints. Economic forecasts are usually abysmal, and if they are  right it is more by luck than good judgement. Most of these experts are from a well off middle class background, mostly educated privately, mostly male, mostly white. Why on Earth should we say that only these people have the right to make fundamental decisions about our future? 

Secondly, this isn’t an economic issue, it’s an economic, political and cultural issue. The issue in many people’s view is about whether or not we want complete economic and political union with the EU. In other words, do we wish to become a province in a large state, governed by that state. That is a decision for everyone to make. 

Thirdly, it is well known that parliament is very unrepresentative of the people when it comes to the views of MP’s on many issues. Normally this does not matter. I am quite happy to delegate most decisions to parliament, such as the appropriate punishment for speeding, or the funding of universities. But our relationship to the EU is more fundamental. Note that the last election threw out many Labour MP’s because they opposed Brexit, and that was making it impossible to implement Brexit. 

As you have great faith in experts, do you not recall that before we voted to leave, all the experts were saying the consequences of voting to leave immediately after the vote would be dreadful, never mind what would happen after leaving. They were wrong. Do you not recall that most experts said Boris could not get the deal he has got? The EU said it was impossible. Parliament said it was impossible. The great and the good said it was impossible. 

All too often I have seen experts angrily stamping their feet, pompously stating opinion as if it is fact, telling us that we are not educated enough to decide our own futures, and calling us racists and thick. As someone with a science PhD whose best mates at school were anglo asians, I find such comments misguided. 

I genuinely do not know how this will turn out. I voted leave as I thought that on balance it was for the best. Boris got us a better deal than I expected, unless you are a fishing person, and there will of course be some negative consequences. I didn’t expect a vote for leave, and I’m still astonished at events. One more reason to raise a glass tomorrow night. 

BananaRepublic

Mickey666 said:

It seems to be a fairly good system, or the least bad on depending on your point of view.  But referendums break the system because they bypass the parliamentary process that generally does a good job of weeding out detrimental decisions, through its process of debate, expert advice, reviews and time for reflection.

In the case of the Brexit referendum, with all its complexity and uncertainty that even the professional politicians and expert consultants couldn't predict or agree about, perhaps a better approach would have been a second referendum when the detailed implications were much better known?

Thus, the first referendum could have been the simplistic in/out question, followed by the inevitable (and important) debate and negotiation of the exit deal, followed by a second referendum asking the same basic in/out question but this time in the fuller knowledge of what the detailed implications would be.

What we have actually done is ask the simplistic in/out question with little real knowledge of the eventual implications but when those implications are better known (ie 'the deal') we have deferred back to parliament to decide, rather than allow the people to decide.

Seems rather inconsistent really.

That could never work. The only reason we got the current deal is because Boris played the mad man role. At the outset they adopted an aloof condescending attitude, they dictated the agenda, they took control and expected us to concede. That is perhaos because May was very weak. The EU genuinely believed Boris might do a no deal, and consequently at the last minute they agreed to a deal that they said was out of the question. They were frightened of the consequences of no deal. They dropped their principals which they said were red lines. Of course Boris made concessions, but so did they.

You are suggesting a gentlemanly chat to reach an agreement which is then put to the people. It couldn’t happen. Norway pays large sums to the EU and has to abide by its rules. Switzerland has freedom of movement of labour, and various treaties. Canada negotiated a good deal, but it took eight years, and they are not on the EU’s doorstep. 

Mickey666

BananaRepublic said:

Mickey666 said:

IanManc said:

Mickey666 said:

If anything, I'd say the Brexit referendum was a masterclass in proving why asking the uninformed masses to make important decisions is the worst example of democracy in action.  It's all madness.

I see.

Democracy's ok, provided people aren't allowed to make choices you disapprove of. And if they do choose something of which you disapprove then they're "uninformed masses".

Interesting.

No, no, no.  You misunderstand me.  Let's be honest, the masses ARE uninformed!  And I'm as uninformed as any of them.  We all have our opinions, prejudices and dogma but what are they based on?  Really, honestly?  Hardly anyone who votes is a professional politicial or economist etc, so it's hardly surprising that the electorate as a whole is uninformed.  I'd bet that hardly anyone who voted for Brexit understood the issues that would arise out of the land border in Ireland, for example.  Why would they?  THAT'S why we have a parliamentary democracy whereby we vote for professional politicians to make the big, small and complex decisions about how to run the country on our behalf.  And even those professional politicians, despite spending all their waking hours engaged on the job, in parliamentary debates, in select committees, travelling the country etc, are not fully informed themselves, which is why they rely on advisors, experts, think tanks, the civil service etc.  It's easy to sneer at politicians as 'being useless' but the fact is that running a country and an economy is incredibly complex.  So complex in fact that even the professionals with all their expert advisors can't always get it right - so what chance has the 'man on the Clapham omnibus' got of being truly, accurately and fully informed?

THAT is why referendums are a bad thing.  Because, unless they are for something trivial and inconsequential, they put binding decision-making power into the hands of people who do not truly understand all the issues and consequences.

That's not to denigrate the 'uninformed masses', merely being honest about the reality.

I could not disagree more. There are countless arguments against your view. 

You clearly believe that there exists a group of experts with our best interests at heart. In truth there is no such thing. 

Not so.  Indeed I explicitly wrote " . . . the fact is that running a country and an economy is incredibly complex.  So complex in fact that even the professionals with all their expert advisors can't always get it right . . . "
I happen to agree with much of what you say, but you're avoiding the issue of referendums opening up important and highly consequential decisions to the 'uninformed masses'.  
Perhaps I'm being unfair on the 'uninformed masses'?  Perhaps they should be considered more like the 'self-appointed experts' they are all believe they are and just let sociology average everything out.

Anyway, it's all done now and the sensible thing is to make the best of it that we can.

Xbigman

There is too narrow a focus to this discussion.

David Cameron saw the alarming rise in UKIP support and made the offer of a referendum to slow it down. It worked with the conservative/Lib Dem coalition taking power and UKIP coming nowhere. Cameron misjudged just how strong anti EU feeling was and lost the referendum. Suggesting the referendum should never have taken place when it would have boosted UKIP dramatically and changed the political landscape is nonsense. 
A UKIP government (more likely a coalition with UKIP as significant members) would have done the hardest of hard Brexits. I voted to leave but I see that outcome as a bad thing. 

The idea of a second referendum to decide how we left the EU is one that I would have supported. But that was never on offer. Remainer MPs, in a majority in parliament, insisted that there be a remain option on the ballot. In short they wanted to rerun the 2016 referendum in the hopes of overturning it.
NOT holding that form of second referendum was a good call.


Darren

NottinghamKnight

Mickey666 said:

BananaRepublic said:

Mickey666 said:

IanManc said:

Mickey666 said:

If anything, I'd say the Brexit referendum was a masterclass in proving why asking the uninformed masses to make important decisions is the worst example of democracy in action.  It's all madness.

I see.

Democracy's ok, provided people aren't allowed to make choices you disapprove of. And if they do choose something of which you disapprove then they're "uninformed masses".

Interesting.

No, no, no.  You misunderstand me.  Let's be honest, the masses ARE uninformed!  And I'm as uninformed as any of them.  We all have our opinions, prejudices and dogma but what are they based on?  Really, honestly?  Hardly anyone who votes is a professional politicial or economist etc, so it's hardly surprising that the electorate as a whole is uninformed.  I'd bet that hardly anyone who voted for Brexit understood the issues that would arise out of the land border in Ireland, for example.  Why would they?  THAT'S why we have a parliamentary democracy whereby we vote for professional politicians to make the big, small and complex decisions about how to run the country on our behalf.  And even those professional politicians, despite spending all their waking hours engaged on the job, in parliamentary debates, in select committees, travelling the country etc, are not fully informed themselves, which is why they rely on advisors, experts, think tanks, the civil service etc.  It's easy to sneer at politicians as 'being useless' but the fact is that running a country and an economy is incredibly complex.  So complex in fact that even the professionals with all their expert advisors can't always get it right - so what chance has the 'man on the Clapham omnibus' got of being truly, accurately and fully informed?

THAT is why referendums are a bad thing.  Because, unless they are for something trivial and inconsequential, they put binding decision-making power into the hands of people who do not truly understand all the issues and consequences.

That's not to denigrate the 'uninformed masses', merely being honest about the reality.

I could not disagree more. There are countless arguments against your view. 

You clearly believe that there exists a group of experts with our best interests at heart. In truth there is no such thing. 

Not so.  Indeed I explicitly wrote " . . . the fact is that running a country and an economy is incredibly complex.  So complex in fact that even the professionals with all their expert advisors can't always get it right . . . "
I happen to agree with much of what you say, but you're avoiding the issue of referendums opening up important and highly consequential decisions to the 'uninformed masses'.  
Perhaps I'm being unfair on the 'uninformed masses'?  Perhaps they should be considered more like the 'self-appointed experts' they are all believe they are and just let sociology average everything out.

Anyway, it's all done now and the sensible thing is to make the best of it that we can.

I'd agree with your last point.
s we seem to be focusing on economic success the that Mr. trump appears to have done very well in his time in office. 

NottinghamKnight

Mickey666 said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Mickey666 said:

MK62 said:

Mickey666 said:

Thrugelmir said:

csgohan4 said:

Thrugelmir said:

csgohan4 said:

LHW99 said:

UK surely makes more exports to the EU than the rest of the world?

Not according to gov.uk

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-exports-to-non-eu-countries-continue-to-outstrip-eu

Surprising given the vast area covered by The EU, however making deals with individual countries, rather than en bloc like the EU, will be very time consuming/expensive and will unlikely have favourable terms compared to the EU as they know they have the UK over a barrel. 

Only 11% of UK trade is with countries with which there's an existing EU trade agreement. The creation of the RCEP has created a headache for the EU. Now the bigggest trade area in the world. 

 While the brexiteers are sniggering in their rich holiday houses abroad, not caring how brexit affects the average Joe. 

You are carrrying one big chip on your shoulder. Time to move on. Remainers living abroad are the ones who object. As it is they they now need to meet conditions of residency. The tales of woe show how much self interest determines peoples views. Much in the same way Covid has. Time to kick American Exceptionalism a byproduct of their form of capitalism into touch. 

If anything, I'd say the Brexit referendum was a masterclass in proving why asking the uninformed masses to make important decisions is the worst example of democracy in action.  It's all madness.

You do realise that it's the same "uninformed masses" who elect our MPs and governments don't you?........should they not be allowed to do that either?

Of course they should, that's the whole point of a parliamentary democracy.  We vote for a representative to make decisions on our behalf, on the basis that those representatives will be better informed than us by virtue of their 24/7/365 time spent on the job plus their daily access to expert advisers, parliamentary debates, select committees, the civil service etc.

We certainly don't or at least that is not what occurs. The majority of the people vote for a party, not an individual with a very few exceptions; indeed those votes are based on a feeling that the broad policies of that party are best for an individual and/ or the country, how many people read any of a party's manifesto. MPs are now supposed to be representative rather than any sort of cream of the population, and unfortunately will follow the party line as they are whipped into voting on the vast majority of issues. when MPs decide to make decisions against their party, and potentially against the majority of their constituents then things get very problematic. 

You're probably right that the majority of people vote for a party and probably don't even know the name of their MP (more uninformed-ness and why there are things such as 'safe seats'), but I didn't mention MPs, only 'representatives'. 

A political party can be our 'representative' and the principle of parliamentary democracy remains - the 'uninformed masses' defer all decision-making to parliament, with the party affiliation of their local MP being a fairly broad-brush expression of their own personal political leanings.

It seems to be a fairly good system, or the least bad on depending on your point of view.  But referendums break the system because they bypass the parliamentary process that generally does a good job of weeding out detrimental decisions, through its process of debate, expert advice, reviews and time for reflection.

In the case of the Brexit referendum, with all its complexity and uncertainty that even the professional politicians and expert consultants couldn't predict or agree about, perhaps a better approach would have been a second referendum when the detailed implications were much better known?

Thus, the first referendum could have been the simplistic in/out question, followed by the inevitable (and important) debate and negotiation of the exit deal, followed by a second referendum asking the same basic in/out question but this time in the fuller knowledge of what the detailed implications would be.

What we have actually done is ask the simplistic in/out question with little real knowledge of the eventual implications but when those implications are better known (ie 'the deal') we have deferred back to parliament to decide, rather than allow the people to decide.

Seems rather inconsistent really.

Maybe, democracy can be taken too far after all, would be much quicker to get the educated and wealthy to determine these matters. people like Boris, Rees-Mogg  etc

Mickey666

NottinghamKnight said:

Mickey666 said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Mickey666 said:

MK62 said:

Mickey666 said:

Thrugelmir said:

csgohan4 said:

Thrugelmir said:

csgohan4 said:

LHW99 said:

UK surely makes more exports to the EU than the rest of the world?

Not according to gov.uk

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-exports-to-non-eu-countries-continue-to-outstrip-eu

Surprising given the vast area covered by The EU, however making deals with individual countries, rather than en bloc like the EU, will be very time consuming/expensive and will unlikely have favourable terms compared to the EU as they know they have the UK over a barrel. 

Only 11% of UK trade is with countries with which there's an existing EU trade agreement. The creation of the RCEP has created a headache for the EU. Now the bigggest trade area in the world. 

 While the brexiteers are sniggering in their rich holiday houses abroad, not caring how brexit affects the average Joe. 

You are carrrying one big chip on your shoulder. Time to move on. Remainers living abroad are the ones who object. As it is they they now need to meet conditions of residency. The tales of woe show how much self interest determines peoples views. Much in the same way Covid has. Time to kick American Exceptionalism a byproduct of their form of capitalism into touch. 

If anything, I'd say the Brexit referendum was a masterclass in proving why asking the uninformed masses to make important decisions is the worst example of democracy in action.  It's all madness.

You do realise that it's the same "uninformed masses" who elect our MPs and governments don't you?........should they not be allowed to do that either?

Of course they should, that's the whole point of a parliamentary democracy.  We vote for a representative to make decisions on our behalf, on the basis that those representatives will be better informed than us by virtue of their 24/7/365 time spent on the job plus their daily access to expert advisers, parliamentary debates, select committees, the civil service etc.

We certainly don't or at least that is not what occurs. The majority of the people vote for a party, not an individual with a very few exceptions; indeed those votes are based on a feeling that the broad policies of that party are best for an individual and/ or the country, how many people read any of a party's manifesto. MPs are now supposed to be representative rather than any sort of cream of the population, and unfortunately will follow the party line as they are whipped into voting on the vast majority of issues. when MPs decide to make decisions against their party, and potentially against the majority of their constituents then things get very problematic. 

You're probably right that the majority of people vote for a party and probably don't even know the name of their MP (more uninformed-ness and why there are things such as 'safe seats'), but I didn't mention MPs, only 'representatives'. 

A political party can be our 'representative' and the principle of parliamentary democracy remains - the 'uninformed masses' defer all decision-making to parliament, with the party affiliation of their local MP being a fairly broad-brush expression of their own personal political leanings.

It seems to be a fairly good system, or the least bad on depending on your point of view.  But referendums break the system because they bypass the parliamentary process that generally does a good job of weeding out detrimental decisions, through its process of debate, expert advice, reviews and time for reflection.

In the case of the Brexit referendum, with all its complexity and uncertainty that even the professional politicians and expert consultants couldn't predict or agree about, perhaps a better approach would have been a second referendum when the detailed implications were much better known?

Thus, the first referendum could have been the simplistic in/out question, followed by the inevitable (and important) debate and negotiation of the exit deal, followed by a second referendum asking the same basic in/out question but this time in the fuller knowledge of what the detailed implications would be.

What we have actually done is ask the simplistic in/out question with little real knowledge of the eventual implications but when those implications are better known (ie 'the deal') we have deferred back to parliament to decide, rather than allow the people to decide.

Seems rather inconsistent really.

Maybe, democracy can be taken too far after all, would be much quicker to get the educated and wealthy to determine these matters. people like Boris, Rees-Mogg  etc

Did you forget the smiley?
I think we'd all agreed we've rightly moved on from the days where only landowners were allowed a vote  - and that didn't include women of course.
As for the like of Boris, Rees-Mogg etc, don't forget they are only in parliament because their constituents voted for them, so that's democracy in action isn't it?  After all, it would be an unrepresentative parliament that DIDN'T include representation of such people.

Mickey666

MK62 said:

Mickey666 said:

IanManc said:

Mickey666 said:

IanManc said:

Mickey666 said:

If anything, I'd say the Brexit referendum was a masterclass in proving why asking the uninformed masses to make important decisions is the worst example of democracy in action.  It's all madness.

I see.

Democracy's ok, provided people aren't allowed to make choices you disapprove of. And if they do choose something of which you disapprove then they're "uninformed masses".

Interesting.

No, no, no.  You misunderstand me.  Let's be honest, the masses ARE uninformed!  And I'm as uninformed as any of them.  We all have our opinions, prejudices and dogma but what are they based on?  Really, honestly?  Hardly anyone who votes is a professional politicial or economist etc, so it's hardly surprising that the electorate as a whole is uninformed.  I'd bet that hardly anyone who voted for Brexit understood the issues that would arise out of the land border in Ireland, for example.  Why would they?  THAT'S why we have a parliamentary democracy whereby we vote for professional politicians to make the big, small and complex decisions about how to run the country on our behalf.  And even those professional politicians, despite spending all their waking hours engaged on the job, in parliamentary debates, in select committees, travelling the country etc, are not fully informed themselves, which is why they rely on advisors, experts, think tanks, the civil service etc.  It's easy to sneer at politicians as 'being useless' but the fact is that running a country and an economy is incredibly complex.  So complex in fact that even the professionals with all their expert advisors can't always get it right - so what chance has the 'man on the Clapham omnibus' got of being truly, accurately and fully informed?

THAT is why referendums are a bad thing.  Because, unless they are for something trivial and inconsequential, they put binding decision-making power into the hands of people who do not truly understand all the issues and consequences.

That's not to denigrate the 'uninformed masses', merely being honest about the reality.

You said that the Brexit referendum "is the worst example of democracy in action" and "It's all madness".

Be honest. It's not about the nature of democracy or referendums. You're only saying that because you don't like the outcome.

I don't think I've misunderstood you at all.  🙂

Well I'm afraid you have. 

You've clearly made up your mind about me (in an uninformed sort of way ) so I doubt you'll believe me but I thought exactly what I wrote about the referendum BEFORE the result was even known. 

The outcome is irrelevant to my point that putting such an important question to a population of mostly uninformed people IS madness.  And, to clarify once again, I'm including myself as one of those uninformed.

It's the PROCESS that's wrong, regardless of the outcome.

So, what you seem to be saying is the the public should have been denied any say on what, at the time, was the biggest issue of the day, as they were too uninformed to actually know what you think they should want and it should all be left to politicians?
I'd love to see your reaction to the potential situation of no referendum ever taking place in 2016, and a eurosceptic government/parliament then taking us out of the EU without a referendum......

PS......would you support Scotland leaving the UK without a referendum.....just leave it to the politicians?

Not at all.  If a party is open and honest about its policies and makes them clear in a general election then that election should suffice as far as the will of the people shouldn't it?  It might well be true that Cameron only yielded to pressure for a in/out referendum (unlike Blair before him) to cut off UKIP at the knees, but as we have seen it didn't work because the people got their way in any case.  People would have likely supported UKIP in the general election if it wasn't for the referendum so leaving the EU was probably inevitable anyway, would have just been a more parliamentary route.

As for Scotland leaving UK without a referendum, well given that it's the main policy of the SNP then anyone voting for the SNP pretty much know what's going to happen.  I just think all this resurgent nationalism is a sad and dangerous thing.  Heaven help us all if/when the EU starts to fall apart as many seem to wish will happen.  At a time when humanity needs to be pulling together to save ourselves from destroying our environment it seems counter-productive in the extreme to revert back to nationalistic and tribal in-fighting.  Perhaps the human race is just inherently self-destructive?