This referendum would only be (a bit more) valid in my opinion if it was followed by a general election. The Establishment always has, and will do what it wants regardless....
Tin-foil hat? Why resort to pejoratives? I said that tongue-in-cheek. If you think widespread manipulation of public opinion doesn't go on, then I'm afraid you're wrong. If you think it's all 'conspiracy theory' then you are grossly ignorant. But then, if we were talking about a S. American, Arab or Russian dictatorship all of sudden that possibility would seem reasonable. It can happen everywhere but your own country. Very naive to say the least. It would have been foolish to have every newspaper back Remain. The bias would be obvious. Those papers are controlled opposition. By co-opting the Leave argument they can suitably sabotage it, while at the same time creating the illusion of 'genuine democratic discussion'. It's strategy 101. But then, you wouldn't understand that because you refuse accept that your world view might be wrong. Anyone who talks about this stuff is immediately dismissed as 'tin-foil hat' - very democratic and fair of you I must say! By the way, I'm not a supporter of UKIP or Farage. To assume that he is the standard bearer for all people who feel the EU doesn't serve the interests of the nation, is quite frankly simple-minded. In fact, I think Farage is controlled opposition. I agree with your last statement. It works both ways. Which is why I think democracy is a failure. People are generally not intellectually sharp enough to make decisions of such national importance. Both sides of the argument were by-and-large based on empty sloganism, unexamined arguments and ad hominem attacks. How many people studied the arguments in a scholarly way to make sure they reached a sound conclusion? Exactly.
Oh absolutely I agree that the newspapers are controlled to suit establishment interest, I don't think there can be a shred of doubt there. (And indeed, one of my worldbuilding blog posts is based on that fact). But I think the assumption that the Murdoch-owned press only backed Brexit in order to secretly support Remain is a bit too far towards the David Icke end of the spectrum to be plausible. Remember, this is a man whose hatred for the EU is on public record many times over, and is about as close to a real-life supervillain as we're ever likely to get. Murdoch's power and influence cover the UK, and not the EU, and he knows it - so of course he wants the EU out of the picture, and he'll lie and cheat his way there if needs be. Ditto Boris Johnson, the real-world Petyr Baelish, who'd gladly watch the country burn if he could be king of the ashes. For the record, I did study the arguments in a scholarly way before making my decision - but then, as a PhD politics student, it's basically my job. Edit: In any case, I think we're getting a bit off topic here.
I'm glad you studied the arguments. But you are wrong to say that David Icke is some sort of standard for those ideas. It's actually quite lazy to use his name instead of socratic questioning or a counter-argument. It's a kind of 'I'll try and associate my opponent with someone who is publicly ridiculed' type of thing. Not cool man. What would your tutor say if, in one of your write-ups, you said, 'It's a bit Hitlery innit'? It is plausible. If I know that people like you have a kind of template thought pattern, a kind of default way of thinking that automatically disregards certain things, I could easily manipulate you by opposing something that I'm secretly part of. If you think that kind of manipulation isn't possible, well, I won't state the obvious. If you think secrecy isn't used for strategic advantage, then I'm afraid you're a little bit inexperienced (no offence mate). I still believe it is controlled opposition. I don't buy into the pantomime (which is essentially what I think it is). You're welcome to though. I don't want to create any animosity with you. You're entitled to your opinions and I respect that. But this is me, this is what I think and you can ridicule it all you like. You've been reading Owen Jones, yeah? Good stuff. Reading his latest at the moment. Great book. Tip of the iceberg though.
Okay. Will leave you to get back to your original discussion. I apologise for the tangent. Take it easy mate.
Hi, Actually guys I think you're over-estimating the intelligence of the campaigners on all sides. It's beginning to look as though they all went to clown college - and failed! My best guess is that the Leave campaign had no plan whatsoever of how to actually go through with it. They never got beyond their own rhetoric. And if their spokesman is now replying to the UN telling them they're in no hurry, they haven't even worked out that while they might have won the referendum, they aren't the government. They don't get to make that sort of call. UKIP as far as I know is not in power and Boris is not PM. So the actual mechanics of leaving come down to the conservatives and Cameron - and they've got a one word mandate given to them - leave. But leave what? The union? The Common market? The Shengin zone? Migration? They literally don't know! Worse still, the Leave campaign doesn't know. It turns out according to Al Jazeera, that they weren't united in anything but that one word - leave. They had no agreement among themselves as to what they wanted to leave. Some were anti migration. Some pro soverignty. Some wanted out of the Common market, some wanted to remain. As for the Leave campaign's claim that shit wouldn't happen, it already has which is why people are starting to show signs of buyer's remorse. My guess is that Cameron will be on the idiot box in the next few days pleading for calm while the Conservatives start planning the government's plan of action and arguing as to who takes Cameron's place. They probably won't reach agreement, especially when every option they have, leaves them bleeding. Kill migration for example, and the NHS runs out of doctors. Keep it, and those who voted leave because of the overwhelming tide of migrants flooding the country in their view, are going to be pissed. Leave the Common market and the economy fails and the Welsh farmers run out of subsidies. Stay and the economy survives and the farmers are happy but those who wanted out of it thinking - for some unknown reason - that they would be stronger negotiating new trade deals alone, will be pissed. Likeliest outcome in my view is that in a few weeks Cameron or his successor will have to call a snap election with every party developing policies on the fly for how to leave, while trying to break the bad news to the new losers about how little they will hopefully lose. UKIP will not survive. Oddly, Europe could end up the big winners. They'll probably only lose Britain in name but retain most of the key features of the union with the UK, while every right wing nationalist party across the continent will take one look at the mess Britain's in and realise they aren't going to get far with policies for leaving. They will lose a lot of support, and proposed referenda will be dropped fast. All the EU has to do is be seen to be supportive, make noises about democratic reform, and watch the UK sink. As for the media, maybe in the short to medium term they are going to be punished - all those that endorsed leaving that is. Having pushed hard to leave, and sent Britain into rough seas, they will be blamed. And if it can be shown that they lied - God help them! Look, that's just my rough panhandle on where this is going for the next few months. But I think this entire mess may end up as a salutatory lesson for the world. Be careful what you wish for - you just might get it! Of course another lesson may also apply - vote in anger, repent for the next few generations. Cheers, Greg.
Please focus on the publishing aspect of brexit in this thread. There's eg. this thread for general discussion: https://www.writingforums.org/threads/england-left-the-e-u.146883/
[QUOTE="But you can bet your life on it that if Remain had won and there was now a petition from Exit, the media would be portraying it as unreasonable; they would say, 'Exit voters are sore losers. The people have spoken and that is final'.[/QUOTE] Absolutely.
Honestly I don't think it's going to make much difference. Especially if we end up staying in the single market, only thing that will change is we don't have a seat at the table.
Since books are relatively inexpensive, I don't think it's possible to tell with any confidence whether having less money around would result in more or fewer book sales. You might get a version of the "lipstick effect"--the idea that people buy more small luxuries when they don't have enough money for the big ones. (The lipstick effect has been somewhat debunked, but it's a handy phrase for the concept, even if people don't actually buy more luxury lipsticks during a recession.)
