Forum menu
Dawkins' saying we are all too thick to choose our destiny basically. He's an egomaniac. Though I wouldn't argue with his central point that the way we voted was deeply flawed.
Hey-ho. No point being bothered now. Bring it on, someone will get to say 'I told you so' at some point.
I am tired of hearing "The will of the people." It's on every broadcast.
"We can add all the people that didn't vote, including the youth, to the ignorant list."
Couldn't we add them to the 'not Dunning Kruger' list?
Maybe they'd done enough research to realize it wasn't a simple decision.
"We did have a two-thirds majority to join the EEC. 67.23% of votes were in favour, in 1975"
Indeed, and if we'd done the same over Maastricht nobody could have subsequently argued for a Referendum.
So that supports the point being made.
Looking back at the 1975 referendum is pretty intetesting for a few different reasons. Here is the vote distribution:
[img] 
[/img]
Some of the key areas for remaining in the EU (Scotland, Northern Ireland and London) in 2016 were also the least keen to join in 1975
We did have a two-thirds majority to join the EEC. 67.23% of votes were in favour, in 1975.
There was no referendum to take us in, Heath took us in 1.1.1973 based on a manifesto commitment.
But Dawkins proves one point very well that academics should stick to their knitting, his rant is as ill-informed as he accuses the electorate of being - just as well he had no more say than someone on the dole.
The 2016 referendum, for comparison:
[img] 
[/img]
Equally and conversely some of the pro-brexit heartlands in the North of England and Wales were quite staunchly in favour of joining the common market back in 1975. How times have changed! 🙂
He said the electorate as a whole was ill-informed/ignorant
I'd agree with that. I'd like to think I'm relatively bright, and I've learned a lot more about the EU and it's associated trappings like the EEC in the last year than I ever knew before I voted. The Leavers may cry "we knew exactly what we were voting for" when talking about leaving the single market but that's simply another lie, I'll wager that most of them had never even heard of it.
Any major new agreement like rejoining the EU should have a two-thirds majority.
But not the exit referendum, that's fine as a 50:50 split?
Overall it is the EUs fault that this happened
Overall it is the [b]government's[/b] fault that this happened. Blaming the EU is just another Leave lie. The EU has its faults, but all the issues people complained about - the real issues, I mean, not this pish about vacuum cleaner power ratings - we were responsible for all that. All of it.
the remain campaign was so fractured and complacent they failed to convince people that the status quo was the best option .
I'm not convinced that the status quo is the best option. The referendum and subsequent polls revealed that a lot of people - somewhere between a quarter and a half depending how you split it - are not happy with the status quo. It should never have been a binary choice, "massive change" or "do nothing." People want change, and they should be listened to and taken seriously. That they weren't is half of the problem.
That needs addressing rather than ignoring, and what's really annoying and shameful about this whole affair is it's totally within the powers of parliament to fix the bulk of it right now without needing to leave the EU.
The ignorant/misled claim is directed at the voting population in general and is IMO a criticism of the campaign in general rather than Leavers. And his main criticism is one of the process of constitutional change.
So that's two criticisms not leveled at Leavers, so fair and balanced IMO.
His oxford chair is for the public understanding of science, not evolutionary biology. I'm always amazed how he's pulled off a reputation as a brilliant scientist for the last 30 years, but I guess being a brilliant communicator helps.
His reputation is for both those reasons, he's a brilliant communicator on scientific matters and his ability to explain complex theories in ways which can be understood by us thickos is pretty welcome. He's seen as a brilliant scientist mostly by those outside of the scientific community.
The ignorant/misled claim is directed at the voting population in general and is IMO a criticism of the campaign in general rather than Leavers.
I've not watched the video yet, but I'd have thought it's a (valid) criticism of people, not just the campaigns. I've said this before - "the people" are not equipped to make informed decisions over massively complex issues which are in the best interests of the country. We're just not. This is why we elect representatives whose job is "politics" and who are, at least in theory, better informed and educated to do this professionally on our behalf.
Dawkins' saying we are all too thick to choose our destiny basically. He's an egomaniac.
That's not what he said at all 🙄
You obviously dislike of him, and are distorting what he actually said, to match your preconceptions.
Any major new agreement like rejoining the EU should have a two-thirds majority.
You brexiters running scared? Rightly so.
His oxford chair is for the public understanding of science, not evolutionary biology. I'm always amazed how he's pulled off a reputation as a brilliant scientist for the last 30 years, but I guess being a brilliant communicator helps.
shoulder of giants innit
his understanding of evolutionary biology is as good as his ability to explain it
selfish gene and expanded phenotype really did change the direction of science, he also heavily references & acknowledges the researchers that did the work, but he draws it together brilliantly.
god delusion etc is just stating the obvious, over and over again
I studied for too many years at Oxford and it was well known Dawkins was at heart an attention seeker. Only time I met him was at the Computer Services where "three phones" Dawkins was trying to get one fixed to continue the expansion of his Media Empire.
As someone above said, people are bored of the New Atheism so he needs to find a new gig, but he can recycle the old rhetorical methods by swapping religious believers for Leave voters.
Doesn't stop him being right in this case. He is right in this case.
There simply wasn't enough proper information to make an informed desicion
Rubbish. There was. you just had to be prepared to engage, think for yourself a bit and perhaps (shock, horror) listen to the 'experts'. Or you could just ignore the 'boring' stuff like facts and figures, stick the telly on for X Factor, ignore everything that contradicts your narrow life-view and vote accordingly.
The nadir for me was that stupid idiot on one of the televised debates who just cut across David Cameron saying "that just sounds like waffle to me". He was only about five seconds into an answer, but already her attention span and intellect were red-lining. This is obviously fine, no crime in being an idiot, but she was raucously applauded for cutting across someone trying to give a reasoned answer to a question she posed herself. A little bit of me died when I saw this.
The whole referendum was a stupid. Cameron only promised it to appeal to the swivel-eyed loons in his own party. Most of the 'great' british public would never have really considered the issue before. The question was posed in a stupid manner, the leave campaign appealed to ignorance and stupidity and ignorance and stupidity carried the day.
Over the next ten or twenty years we will be able to quantify the cost of all this. I hope Jamba, ninfan and the rest stick around as they will need be accountable.
Those complaining that Dawkins is taking a patronising position should note his comments from before the referendum:
[url= http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/eu-referendum-richard-dawkins-brexit-23rd-june-ignoramuses ]"Ignoramuses should have no say on our EU membership - and that includes me!"[/url]
Two of his points are fundamentally wrong
He suggests that the 'gate' for constitutional reform should require a supermajority, and that brexit wouldn't have happened with this, however fails to recognise that by his own criteria we would never have joined, as that was also a constitutional change that ought to have been subject to a supermajority.
Secondly, he pointed the finger at Cameron and the Tories for the referendum, described as 'running scared of UKIP - however the EU referendum act of 2015 was voted through by the commons by (iirc) 544 to 53, so the very nature of the referendum received almost unanimous parliamentary support (i.e. Except SNP) thereby nullifying his argument.
Over the next ten or twenty years we will be able to quantify the cost of all this. I hope Jamba, ninfan and the rest stick around as they will need be accountable.
Jesus, that's a bit harsh. Most of the politicians leading the brexit campaign have run away from their responsibilities already, and we're not even a year on.
The Brexit we get won't be the one promised in the campaigns. The electorate, newspapers and Farage et al will blame those who have the invidious task of implementing it.
in ten years time the historical blame will lie with TM, with a side dish of hate towards JC for not being an effective opposition.
in ten years time the historical blame will lie with TM, with a side dish of hate towards JC for not being an effective opposition.
And Cameron for calling a referendum to deal with Tory party infighting.
Why limit it to ten, twenty years - numerous studies and long term forecasts all agree that there will be short term impact but that the long term impact on the uk economy is likely to be negligible - so how about we look at thirty, forty, fifty years as well?
And Cameron for calling a referendum to deal with Tory party infighting
As pointed out above, If Cameron only called for it to deal with Tory infighting, why did nearly everyone else vote for it?
and the EU fir not giving us a dealwe we were never going to get
and of course remoaners for doing down Britain
Anyone but those who voted for this digs dinner
"He suggests that the 'gate' for constitutional reform should require a supermajority, and that brexit wouldn't have happened with this, however fails to recognise that by his own criteria we would never have joined, as that was also a constitutional change that ought to have been subject to a supermajority."
It's perfectly reasonable to beleive we should never have joined, but to also beleive leaving is a mistake.
But that wasn't his argument, his argument was that constitutional change required a supermajority, the logical fallacy was he only applied it one way.
that was not the point of the comment you quote
EDIT: see if we agree you know its true:wink:
And Cameron for calling a referendum to deal with Tory party infighting.
This is just scapegoating, membership of the EU has been a running sore for years, made worse by backsliding by governments on giving people the vote (relying the difference between a new constitution and treaty for instance). There are plenty of politicians who wanted the issue addressed once and for all - dont forget that holding an EU referendum was a LibDem manifesto commitment in 2010.
Farage et al will blame those who have the invidious task of implementing it.
No. The anti-EU mob are already crying that the remaining 27 are being vindictive by pointing out that we can't have our cake and eat it. When people realise that Brexit has been a disaster, they'll already be primed to blame the EU for that too. 🙁
"But that wasn't his argument, his argument was that constitutional change required a supermajority, the logical fallacy was he only applied it one way."
In what sense did he not apply it? He may not have said "and by the way that means we shouldn't have joined" but did he say the opposite either?
EU referendum was a LibDem manifesto commitment in 2010
Yes, but their question to the public wasn't in/out..it was
1. In - no change,
2. Out - completely
3. In - but negotiate new terms.
Ironically, option 3 is now what Jean Claude Junker wants with his Multi-Level Europe.
When people realise that Brexit has been a disaster
No evidence for that yet, and the UK economy is pretty robust with distributed sectors. Far too much scare mongering on both side.
He suggests that the 'gate' for constitutional reform should require a supermajority, and that brexit wouldn't have happened with this, however fails to recognise that by his own criteria we would never have joined, as that was also a constitutional change that ought to have been subject to a supermajority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum,_1975
[b]67.23%[/b]
His oxford chair is for the public understanding of science, not evolutionary biology. I'm always amazed how he's pulled off a reputation as a brilliant scientist for the last 30 years, but I guess being a brilliant communicator helps.
I wouldn't say brilliant, his books are a bore.
"Yes, but their question to the public wasn't in/out..it was
1. In - no change,
2. Out - completely
3. In - but negotiate new terms."
Thus splitting the 'in' vote and ensuring an out win.
Yes, but their question to the public wasn't in/out..it was1. In - no change,
2. Out - completely
3. In - but negotiate new terms.
This, inconveniently, was their [url= http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge10/man/parties/libdem_manifesto_2010.pdf ]manifesto[/url]
The European Union has evolved significantly since the last public vote on membership over thirty years ago. Liberal Democrats therefore remain committed to an in/out referendum the next time a British government signs up for fundamental change in the relationship between the UK and the EU.
We believe that it is in Britain’s long-term interest to be part of the euro. But Britain should only join when the economic conditions are right, and in the present economic situation, they are not. Britain should join the euro only if that decision were supported by the people of Britain in a referendum.
So you would accept that the out vote was for different things and the PM has no mandate to act in any particular manner then?Thus splitting the 'in' vote and ensuring an out win.
So we are all too thick or uninformed to make a choice?
Fair enough. Completely backs up my argument that the ability to vote should not be universal. Go and read "In the Wet" by Nevil Shute for a much better idea.
The whole thing is the usual spiteful sour grapes by some kid who didn't get his own way. Much the the Scots. Wonder if either those who wanted to leave the Uk or those who wanted to stay ie the losers would have been clamouring for a re-vote if they had won. Nope. Nasty spiteful bad losers.
actually the whole thing about leaving the EU was a silly argument. Both sides were talking about something different. Shall we have spuds for dinner or buy a bike. One side based their votes on a guess on how the economy might work. Of course that was like guessing the lottery numbers. The other side voted to restrict immigration based on rules that haven't been written.
No win there. Oh yeah, they chap in the clip came across as a unpleasant s876. Clever or not, he's about as likeable as Lance Armstrong.
Absolutely spot on, Mr Dawkins. He could also have picked up on the fact that if 16 & 17 year olds had been given the vote the result would have been very different. Probably.
Or if more of the 18 year olds who [i]do[/i] have the vote had bothered to, you know, go out and vote.
So we are all too thick or uninformed to make a choice?
No. But many of us are.
Either people need to learn about the issues with an open mind (as some do) or the questions need to be phrased in a way that reflects this.
So for example: "Should the UK [i]try[/i] to leave the EU?"
Or we just have representatives who listen to our wishes but use their skill and knowledge of cold hard reality to reflect those wishes but still allow the country to prosper. Let's face it, the general public have absolutely no clue as to how the EU affects the UK economy, do they?
So we are all [s]too thick[/s] or uninformed to make a choice?
The argument was that for such a fundamental change, you should need far more of us great unwashed and unknowing to vote for the change than just 50% + 1 vote.
Fair enough. Completely backs up my argument that the ability to vote should not be universal.
No it doesn't, it just means that for some votes, where the changes to be made are deep reaching and irrevocable, perhaps a single yes/no/50% advisory vote isn't enough scrutiny of the issue. That more scrutiny, and more voting, should be required. In the case of this referendum, a final vote on the 'real' rather than imagined deal vs staying in the EU, is what I would personally call for, but the great unloveable one suggests lots of different reasonable options.
Clever or not, he's about as likeable as Lance Armstrong.
Agree x 100.
That's not what he said at all
Ill-informed, Ignorant, Misled, PhD in economics etc. I don't think he's too positive of us.
"So you would accept that the out vote was for different things"
I assume so, but how would I know, the question was pretty vague.
"and the PM has no mandate to act in any particular manner then?"
It's a Referendum, it's not binding, and it was a very tight result.
If we indicated in a referendum by 2pc that we wanted to Nuke France would that be obeyed?
If we indicated in a referendum by 2pc that we wanted to Nuke France would that be obeyed?
I sincerely hope so, it's an Englishman's birthright to be at war with France.
Dawkins has got me a'sharp'nin' me ol' pitchfork.
It's this sort of intellectual elite that we need to keep darn far away from that decision making malarkey, what with it requiring a couple of brain cents to rubber together an all.
"I sincerely hope so, it's an Englishman's birthright to be at war with France."
I picked a bad example, forget that, imagine we voted to kill Jedward... No wait. This isn't as easy a point to illustrate as I thought.
"what with it requiring a couple of brain cents to rubber together an all"
I expect he's got far more brain CELLS than anyone on here as well as an ability to express facts in a clear unbiased fashion.