My take...

... whatever!

I just book a vacation to London. (amazing how cheap the vacations have become in the past few days - and suspect they'll be really cheap in the near future) Not too sure if I'll have the opportunity to see someone grap an old Bulldog and put his false teeth back into his maul while trying to make it growl, but it would sort of be entertaining... I suppose.

Let's see what happens.

Good luck with estabilshing new trade agreements, stabilizing a currency, establishing security via fear and distrust, as well as having all the paperwork for visas in the event someone wishes to leave that rock.

I just ask myself how many cans of baked beans I really need, but anyway...

... I suspect that Scotland might well be making an appeal to enter the EU within the next 10 - 12 years, but let's wait and see.

Until then... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nM4wE3ef9s

Tschüss! ;)

Meow!

GREG

In the case of the EU, it is assumed that Britain has the absolute right to decide to leave, presumably forever at any time. But Scotland does not, let alone Yorkshire, or the unenlightened household. — unenlightened

A small Yorkshire First movement hasn't gained much traction: I speak from Yorkshire, as a Yorkshireman, though I am on the border with Lancashire, so multi-cultural. :) I mean, I even like Manchester. And Liverpool.

So the decision to leave has come to pass, and the sun rose as usual. The political class are going to bogged down for a couple of years negotiating this and that, so maybe we'll have some stability. I'm gong back to Kant.

I don't like referendums, and i don't respect them or regard them as democratic.

What would be a good alternative? — JJJJS

There is no alternative to the social contract that is not poor, nasty, brutish and short.

Good article: https://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2016/06/21/beyond-the-brexit-debate/

And to accept as valid is to accept as legally binding? As I've already said, this isn't true. — Michael

No, it doesn't have to mean that. That's a needlessly narrow interpretation. You know what "valid" means outside of the very specific context you've set up for it.

Or is to accept as valid to accept that the government will honour it? I'm sure they will. I haven't said anything to contradict this. — Michael

That's only part of it.

Why? If I think that the democratic decision is wrong then I'm going to want it undermined. If we voted for slavery then I'm going to want it undermined. If we voted for a decision that would lead to a recession then I'm going to want it undermined.

I'm sure you'd accept at least the first of these. Therefore you accept that one ought not accept a democratic decision simply because it's a democratic decision. Sometimes there are good reasons to want a democratic decision ignored.

So as I've said, you don't actually have a problem with wanting to ignore a democratic decision. You just don't think that I'm justified in wanting this democratic decision ignored.

But again, I question the claim that wants need to be justified. You just keep asserting that I ought want this or that without ever supporting such a claim. — Michael

Because, as I've already said, we live in a democracy, and to undermine it is to weaken it, which is a bad thing if you value our democracy as much as I do, which I suspect you do not. So, again, as I've already said, and as you must have ignored, it should only be done under exceptional circumstances, such as the legal reintroduction of slavery, which would obviously be a humanitarian crisis requiring urgent action.

Just to be clear, this is the justification you say I haven't provided.

A disappointing result. I'm glad that Boris Johnson got boo'd leaving his house. You can even hear shouts of "Bastard!". Which rights are kept and scrapped are now in the safe hands of the Tories. My town voted 68.1% leave and 31.9% remain. It was my first time voting in a referendum, and my first time voting for anything political besides voting for the Labour leader, and it seems pointless, and I got drenched in the rain.

Because, as I've already said, we live in a democracy, and to undermine it is to weaken it, which is a bad thing if you value our democracy as much as I do, which I suspect you do not. So, again, as I've already said, and as you must have ignored, it should only be done under exceptional circumstances, such as the legal reintroduction of slavery, which would obviously be a humanitarian crisis requiring urgent action.

Just to be clear, this is the justification you say I haven't provided. — Sapientia

Firstly, me wanting the government to ignore the vote doesn't undermine democracy. Only if the government actually ignores the vote would democracy be undermined – but even that's debatable, as the referendum was only advisory.

Secondly, I've already said that I'm not an idealist and so don't simply value democracy for the sake of democracy. So to say that I ought not undermine it because it doesn't value democracy is a misplaced hypothetical imperative. For it to have any grounding you'd have to first show that I ought value democracy.

Thirdly, and most importantly, you're accepting that there are occasions where the popular opinion ought not be listened to simply because it's the popular decision. So, as I've said before, you don't disagree with the fact that I want something undemocratic, you just disagree with my claim that this situation is one of those exceptional circumstances.

No, it doesn't have to mean that. That's a needlessly narrow interpretation. You know what "valid" means outside of the very specific context you've set up for it.

Then what does it mean? Is to accept it as valid to accept that the government ought not ignore it? Well, I'd reject this. There's certainly no legal obligation to not ignore it. I would even say that there's no moral obligation to not ignore it.

It seems to me that this claim that I ought "accept it as valid" is one of those things we tend to say but under closer examination don't seem to be saying anything at all (like the notion of "natural rights").

Firstly, me wanting the government to ignore the vote doesn't undermine democracy. Only if the government actually ignores the vote would democracy be undermined – but even that's debatable, as the referendum was only advisory. — Michael

I know. But you want a bad thing. And it was not only advisory, since the government was always going to follow through on whatever the result was, so it's disingenuous of you to keep saying that.

Secondly, I've already said that I'm not an idealist and so don't simply value democracy for the sake of democracy. So to say that I ought not undermine it because it doesn't value democracy is a misplaced hypothetical imperative. For it to have any grounding you'd have to first show that I ought value democracy. — Michael

What's the better, realistic alternative? You as our wise philosopher-king?

Thirdly, and most importantly, you're accepting that there are occasions where the popular opinion ought not be listened to simply because it's the popular decision. So, as I've said before, you don't disagree with the fact that I want something undemocratic, you just disagree with my claim that this situation is one of those exceptional circumstances. — Michael

Of course, I thought I had already made that clear. Some things are more important, like human rights, but this clearly isn't comparable.

Then what does it mean? Is to accept it as valid to accept that the government ought not ignore it? Well, I'd reject this. There's certainly no legal obligation to not ignore it. I would even say that there's no moral obligation to not ignore it.

It seems to me that this claim that I ought "accept it as valid" is one of those things we tend to say but under closer examination don't seem to be saying anything at all (like the notion of "natural rights"). — Michael

So now you're pretending not to know what "valid" means? It doesn't mean that the government ought not disregard the result of the referendum and do the opposite if they think it best, but that is an implication of respecting the result of the referendum, and their prior explicit commitment to abide by the results.

Legal shmegal. That means nothing. They clearly do have a moral obligation to follow through on their prior commitment to honour the results. They were very explicit about that. It was all over the media.

I know. But you want a bad thing. And it was not only advisory, since the government was always going to follow through on whatever the result was, so it's disingenuous of you to keep saying that. — Sapientia

It's not disingenuous to state a fact. And I don't see what's "bad" about it. Rather I'd say that it's bad to leave. The pound and the stock market are already suffering.

What's the better, realistic alternative? You as our wise philosopher-king?

Whatever ensures that the best decision is always made. I don't know what that is, or even if it's possible.

But if you're going to say that I ought always want the popular opinion to be implemented (except when such a thing would be immoral) then you're going to have to offer a better justification than "you can't think of a better alternative". That would be a non sequitur.

Of course, I thought I had already made that clear. Some things are more important, like human rights, but this clearly isn't comparable.

It might not be comparable to human rights, but I still think that it's a good reason to ignore the popular opinion. If the popular opinion is idiotic with no concern for the economic consequences then the sensible thing to do is ignore it. It might be undemocratic, but as I've said from the start, I don't have an idealistic commitment to democracy. I'd rather have done what's actually best for the country.

So now you're pretending not to know what "valid" means? It doesn't mean that the government ought not disregard the result of the referendum and do the opposite if they think it best, but that is an implication of respecting the result of the referendum, and their prior explicit commitment to abide by the results.

I know what it means in the context of an argument; that the conclusion follows from the premises. I know that it can more broadly mean that a thing is based on truth or reason. But I don't see how any of this is applicable here.

So I'm not pretending to not know what "valid" means. I just genuinely don't know what you mean by it in this context.

Legal shmegal. That means nothing. They clearly do have a moral obligation to follow through on their prior commitment to honour the results. They were very explicit about that. It was all over the media.

As a moral anti-realist I'm going to obviously take issue with the notion of moral obligation. And even if they were morally obligated to follow through, it doesn't then follow that it's wrong for me to want them to ignore the vote.

Unless I'm morally obligated to want another to fulfil his moral obligations? Care to justify that?

It's not disingenuous to state a fact. — Michael

Do you know how many laws there are which have no basis in reality? There are countless. Google it. What you're stating is a legal technicality which doesn't reflect the reality of the situation, and we both know what that is.

And I don't see what's "bad" about it. Rather I'd say that it's bad to leave. The pound and the stock market are already suffering. — Michael

That's avoiding the point. You know that I also think it's bad to leave. You need to explain why it wouldn't be bad to overturn what was clearly set up to be a democratic decision. The reason why that would be bad is because it would be to betray the 33.6 million people who took part in the vote on the clear understanding that the results of the referendum would be what determines whether we remain or leave the EU.

Whatever ensures that the best decision is always made. I don't know what that is, or even if it's possible. — Michael

Just what I expected, which is why it's sensible to stick with our democracy. When you come up with a serious alternative to contend with, I'll take it seriously, but until then, it's merely wishful thinking.

But if you're going to say that I ought always want the popular opinion to be implemented (except when such a thing would be immoral) then you're going to have to offer a better justification than "you can't think of a better alternative". That would be a non sequitur. — Michael

You've not worded that correctly, again, but I'll set that aside. The reason why you ought, as a general rule, respect the result of a referendum such as this, is because it has been made clear from the very beginning that this is to be decided by the electorate, not by politicians in Westminster. You shouldn't require anymore reason than that. It would be immoral to betray the nation, not to mention the severe consequences it would bring about as a result.

It might not be comparable to human rights, but I still think that it's a good reason to ignore the popular opinion. — Michael

I've given very good reasons as to why it would not be a good thing to do. You'd be okay with betraying the electorate (tens of millions), severly undermining the political system and authority figures such as the MPs , provoking a public backlash, riots...?

If the popular opinion is idiotic with no concern for the economic consequences then the sensible thing to do is ignore it. — Michael

Ha! Sensible?! Only if you factor out reality.

It might be undemocratic, but as I've said from the start, I don't have an idealistic commitment to democracy. — Michael

I know. You have an ideological commitment to what Michael thinks is right, and to hell with the consequences!

I'd rather have done what's actually best for the country. — Michael

What's best for the country is a much wider issue than whether we stay or leave. You're attacking the very foundation of our political system, and that has consequences which effect what's best for the country. It would definitely be worse for the country if the government foolishly decided to do the opposite of what the referendum result dictates. You remember the student riots. That was over a pledge that wasn't honoured. Can you image the backlash in this case? It would be much more severe.

I know what it means in the context of an argument; that the conclusion follows from the premises. I know that it can more broadly mean that a thing is based on truth or reason. But I don't see how any of this is applicable here.

So I'm not pretending to not know what "valid" means. I just genuinely don't know what you mean by it in this context. — Michael

Authentic, authoritative, conclusive, confirmed, credible, determinative, ultimate, final.

As a moral anti-realist I'm going to obviously take issue with the notion of moral obligation. And even if they were morally obligated to follow through, it doesn't then follow that it's wrong for me to want them to ignore the vote.

Unless I'm morally obligated to want another to fulfil his moral obligations? Care to justify that? — Michael

If you don't accept that the government ought to follow through on such a clear commitment on such an important and widely influential issue as this, then you are condoning one of the worst aspects in politics on a large scale. MPs have moral responsibilities as part of the job. They will say so themselves. Anyone with even a basic understanding of right and wrong knows that someone in such a public role has duties and responsibilities. They are expected to behave a certain way. You don't have to acknowledge it, but it is evident in our society that that is the case.

And there's obviously a link between something being bad and wanting that bad thing to happen. I shouldn't have a clear conscience if I wanted the helpless old lady to be pushed in front of a van, just because it wasn't actually me who pushed her. If I want slavery legalised, am I excused by emphasing that I only want it legalised? Of course not. It's wrong to want slavery legalised. You shouldn't want that.

The reason why that would be bad is because it would be to betray the 33.6 million people who to part in the vote on the clear understanding that the results of the referendum would be what determines whether we remain or leave the EU. — Sapientia

So? Why is it bad to betray these people? Does the "badness" of this betrayal outweigh the actual consequences of leaving?

You have an ideological commitment to what Michael thinks is right, and to hell with the consequences!

No, I have a pragmatic commitment to whatever avoids an economic recession and any other actual consequences.

Authentic, authoritative, conclusive, confirmed, credible, determinative, ultimate, final.

In a legal sense, it's none of these things. The decision rests with Parliament. Is there some other sense in which something is authoritative and final?

Sounds like more of that vacuous "natural rights"-like terminology.

What's best for the country is a much wider issue than whether we stay or leave. You're attacking the very foundation of our political system, and that has consequences which effect what's best for the country. It would definitely be worse for the country if the government foolishly decided to do the opposite of what the referendum result dictates. You remember the student riots. That was over a pledge that wasn't honoured. Can you image the backlash in this case? It would be much more severe.

I've already said that if the consequences of ignoring a leave vote are worse than the consequences of leaving then I would want us to leave.

But as I've said before, you haven't primarily been criticising my belief that it's best to stay than to leave (even given the referendum results). You've primarily been criticising that I'd want the referendum result to be ignored for anything other than a moral reason.

If you don't accept that the government ought to follow through on such a clear commitment on such an important and widely influential issue as this, then you are condoning one of the worst aspects in politics on a large scale.

You've already accepted that there are exceptions to this. You just disagree with my claim that the economic and other consequences of leaving are justifiable exceptions. I think that they are, because I'm a pragmatist. You think they're not, because clearly you're an idealist.

Does this mean that the UK has their own Independence Day? 8-)

This and this are prime examples of why the idealistic notion that the country should be unquestionably governed by popular opinion is absurd. Lots of people just don't think things through and act on impulse or without enough relevant information. Why should this be honoured? Simply because it's the popular opinion. That's a clear non sequitur.

The issue of staying in or leaving the EU is far too important an issue to be put to a national referendum and voted on by the uninformed and those who might be motivated by emotions or bigotry. That's why we elect a small group of people to make these decisions for us. They can then actually discuss the issue in depth and seek expert advice before coming to a reasoned decision.

Democracy is a buzz-word, and and only starts to have real application when the constituency is already established. We decide, only when it is already decided who 'we' are. This makes a referendum on who 'we' shall be pretty much of a sham. — unenlightened

The above quote has been posted to The Philosophy Forum Facebook page. Congratulations and Thank you for your contribution!

More like Abandonment Day.

Ouch :-$
It will get better, I promise. It is impossible to see the storms edge that yield sunshine while walking through the middle of it. But have faith that there will be better days than today ahead. (L)

I'm selfishly focusing on the fact that my RMB savings took an overnight sterling-equivalent jump of 5-10%.

Benkei should be rolling in anytime to say the Netherlands are already printing the posters for their own extraction from the EU. 8-)

The issue of staying in or leaving the EU is far too important an issue to be put to a national referendum and voted on by the uninformed and those who might be motivated by emotions or bigotry. That's why we elect a small group of people to make these decisions for us. They can then actually discuss the issue in depth and seek expert advice before coming to a reasoned decision. — Michael

This is a laughable fantasy.

Which part? That it's too important to be put in the hands of the uninformed? Or that Parliament can make reasoned decisions with expert advice?

This is a laughable fantasy. — jamalrob

First to confirm you are living in the USA, second to confirm that what Michael is saying looks a lot like our form of "Democracy".

So? Why is it bad to betray these people? — Michael

I can't believe you even have to ask. You see no problem with deceiving an entire nation over an important decision such as this? Even going so far as holding a referendum in which 33.6 million people voted, only to then betray them by going back on their word, disregarding the result they promised to honour, and doing the complete opposite? Some things can't be explained, you just have to have a sense of what's right and wrong, you have to have principles and a conscience.

Does the "badness" of this betrayal outweigh the actual consequences of leaving? — Michael

Yes.

No, I have a pragmatic commitment to whatever avoids an economic recession and any other actual consequences. — Michael

So, what about the consequences that I mentioned? I think they outweigh the consequence of an economic recession, which might or might not happen.

In a legal sense, it's none of these things. The decision rests with Parliament. Is there some other sense in which something is authoritative and final? — Michael

Yes, practically speaking, which is the only sense that matters. Clinging to what the law says doesn't make the least bit of difference. Parliament has said they'll honour the vote whichever way it goes, so it is obvious that it's really up to the public. Your tactic here is not going to succeed. There is nothing stopping you from accepting what the government has said as valid, from accepting the result as valid, like the rest of us, except your stubbornness.

I've already said that if the consequences of ignoring a leave vote are worse than the consequences of leaving then I would want us to leave. — Michael

I don't understand you. You're saying that if the consequences of the government disregarding a leave result are worse than actually leaving, which I think they would be, then you would want to leave. Why? That makes no sense. You want the UK to remain in the EU, yet you'd actually change sides and want to leave, rather than accept it as an unfortunate outcome (since overturning the result isn't a realistic option, and would be political suicide).

But as I've said before, you haven't primarily been criticising my belief that it's best to stay than to leave (even given the referendum results). You've primarily been criticising that I'd want the referendum result to be ignored for anything other than a moral reason. — Michael

I don't know why you feel the need to clarify what I'm criticising. It should be clear by now. Obviously I'm not criticising your belief that it's best to stay in the context of the referendum. But I am criticising your desire that the referendum results be disregarded in favour of your personal belief about what is right.

Clear enough? Can we not keep going round in circles, clarifying and clarifying and clarifying, rather than tackling the content?

You've already accepted that there are exceptions to this. You just disagree with my claim that the economic and other consequences of leaving are justifiable exceptions. I think that they are, because I'm a pragmatist. You think you're not, because you're an idealist (or maybe "moralist" is the better term). — Michael

Yes, I think we've established that I think that there are some important exceptions, and that I don't think that this is one of them, and that therefore what you desire is not justifiable. What you call "pragmatism" I call mere narrow-mindedness, lack of foresight, and lack of moral principles.

I don't understand you. You're saying that if the consequences of the government disregarding a leave result are worse than actually leaving, which I think they would be, then you would want to leave. Why? That makes no sense. You want the UK to remain in the EU, yet you'd actually change sides and want to leave, rather than accept it as an unfortunate outcome (since overturning the result isn't a realistic option, and would be political suicide). — Sapientia

I want the UK to remain in the EU only because I believe that the country will be better off for it. If, however, the country will be worse off if Parliament ignores the vote to leave than it would be if we left then I'd want to leave. I'm being consistent with my reasons for choosing a side.

What about this doesn't make sense?

But I am criticising your desire that the referendum results be disregarded in favour of your personal belief about what is right.

No, I want the referendum results to be disregarded in favour of what's actually right. I just happen to believe that what's actually right is to stay.

I think it's stupid to accept a popular opinion simply because it's the popular opinion.

Clinging to what the law says doesn't make the least bit of difference. Parliament has said they'll honour the vote whichever way it goes, so it is obvious that it's really up to the public. Your tactic here is not going to succeed. There is nothing stopping you from accepting what the government has said as valid, from accepting the result as valid, like the rest of us, except your stubbornness.

I know that Parliament has said that they'll honour it. I haven't denied this. And I've already said that I will accept that they'll honour it. But I still want them to ignore it.

But you've been talking as if "accepting" the result means something other than accepting that it was made and will happen. This is the type of "accepting" that doesn't seem to mean anything.

I can't believe you even have to ask. You see no problem with deceiving an entire nation over an important decision such as this? Even going so far as holding a referendum in which 33.6 million people voted, only to then betray them by disregarding it and doing the opposite? Some things can't be explained, you just have to have a sense of what's right and wrong, you have to have a conscience.

Is that your answer to moral anti-realism, then? Not a reasoned defence of realism; just a claim that it's something you either "sense" or don't?

So, what about the consequences that I mentioned? I think they outweigh the consequence of an economic recession, which might or might not happen.

And I think that they don't.

I want the UK to remain in the EU only because I believe that the country will be better off for it. If, however, the country will be worse off if Parliament ignores the vote to leave than it would be if we left then I'd want to leave. I'm being consistent with my reasons for choosing a side.

What about this doesn't make sense? — Michael

It doesn't make sense because the country would be worse off in either case, just more so if the goverment did the opposite of the results, so you shouldn't want either outcome. You should still want to remain. It's a matter of accepting one of two bad results, not a matter of switching desires from remain to leave.

You cray cray?

No, I want the referendum results to be disregarded in favour of what's actually right. I just happen to believe that what's actually right is to stay. — Michael

Sure, whatever. You're still wrong though, because it's only right to stay in the context of the referendum. The government taking action against the will of the people, who they themselves allowed to determine whether we stay or leave, would be unacceptable, and bring about detrimental consequences. Hence it should not be desirable.

I know that Parliament has said that they'll honour it. I haven't denied this. And I've already said that I will accept that they'll honour it. But I still want them to ignore it. — Michael

Which is wanting a bad thing, especially in light of the Parliament having said that they'll honour it. You want a dishonourable government, and I do not.

But you've been talking as if "accepting" the result means something other than accepting that it was made and will happen. This is the type of "accepting" that doesn't seem to mean anything. — Michael

Respecting the result. Not merely accept it while wishing to undermine it. The other people in this discussion have had no trouble understanding this phrase. I even used it in a sporting analogy to show its use in other contexts. I think you do understand what is meant. A good sportsman is not a sore loser, they respect the result, and they understand what is expected of them by participating. It's the same thing with the referendum. The ground rules are laid out at the beginning and the result is final.

Is that your answer to moral anti-realism, then? Not a reasoned defence of realism; just a claim that it's something you either "sense" or don't? — Michael

What I've said doesn't entail moral realism. We have a sensibility regarding moral matters regardless of what is really right or wrong, or whether there even is such a thing beyond what we think and feel and treat as such. You know this as well as I do. We've both experienced it, felt passionately that something is right or wrong. In addition to that, there are evidently social norms, which are arguably right or wrong, but can still be acknowledged without conceding moral realism. One of those norms being an expectation that public authority figures behave in a certain way.

The issue of staying in or leaving the EU is far too important an issue to be put to a national referendum and voted on by the uninformed and those who might be motivated by emotions or bigotry. That's why we elect a small group of people to make these decisions for us. They can then actually discuss the issue in depth and seek expert advice before coming to a reasoned decision. — Michael

The thing is, it's too little, too late for that. Labour didn't promise a referendum, but Labour lost the general election. You can't always have things your way. I wouldn't have minded much if we never had this referendum, but clearly the nation felt otherwise. Once it's on the table, there's no going back. You can't realistically go through all of that only for the government to say "On second thought, we've changed our minds: fuck you, we're staying". It should only be desirable in the sense of what might have been, not as an option going forward.

The issue of staying in or leaving the EU is far too important an issue to be put to a national referendum and voted on by the uninformed and those who might be motivated by emotions or bigotry. — Michael

Been hearing this a lot from the remain camp -- interesting look into the psychology of that side. The referendum was, broadly speaking, a nationalistic revolt against globalism and a democratic revolt against authority, at least in the popular mind. Maybe that's not what it actually was, but the psychology of the two sides seems pretty consistent on this. The remainers protest that people (especially working class people) don't know what's good for them, that a thing of any importance shouldn't be put to a vote, that people inhabiting a country have no right to self-determination but should be grateful to be determined by rulers, etc.

I'd like to suggest that precisely these attitudes are what fuel and keep hot the leave sentiment and the rise of nationalism. And let's be real, you're all being pretty repulsive right now (on many other things too, like claiming that older people shouldn't vote [nor,I guess, should any demographic that votes for the wrong policies]). When looking at statements like these, a leaver can genuinely ask, well, why shouldn't we despise you? You clearly hate us and have an active interest in taking away our political powers, as well as the powers of the British people to retain their own sovereignty under their own political impetus. So who are you going to blame when you're this appalling, and the authoritarian knives come out when, for the first time in decades, you are the losers of the culture war?

Not British, never been to the UK. However, this:

I'd like to suggest that precisely these attitudes are what fuel and keep hot the leave sentiment and the rise of nationalism. And let's be real, you're all being pretty repulsive right now (on many other things too, like claiming that older people shouldn't vote [nor,I guess, should any demographic that votes for the wrong policies]). When looking at statements like these, a leaver can genuinely ask, well, why shouldn't we despise you? You clearly hate us and have an active interest in taking away our political powers... — The Great Whatever

more or less sums up why there is such virulent populist anger in the United States and Europe right now. If you do something that makes people angry, and your response to their anger is to keep on doing the thing that's making them angry, there will eventually be an explosion, and said explosion will be aimed directly at you. You can't just keep doubling down on what you're doing in response to people getting pissed off at you and not expect a backlash!

Regardless of value judgments, the above implication holds for most arenas of human behavior. When I was a teenager, and I wanted to piss someone off, I would keep doing the same annoying thing over and over and over and over again, watching as the person in question went from mildly annoyed to irritated to enraged. This works on the scale of societies as well. Again, this is simply a fact. You piss people off with no regard to their reasons for being pissed off (besides "You're stupid and evil") and eventually, they're gonna come after you.

Excellent decision by Great Britain. It's a nice smack in the face to those glib, corrupt, and incompetent bureaucrats in Brussels who've been shoving terrible austerity and immigration policies down the throats of their member states this past decade. It's also great to see Obama and Merkel eat humble pie after they patronizingly made silly warnings to the British if they voted leave. This is a triumph of democracy.

How excellent is it for Great Britain, if now Scotland opts to leave?
But hey, that would be also a triumph of democracy.

Let's see if this triumph of democracy gives us the next global economic recession. Because it's a perfect reason to panic and send down first the markets, then the economy.

I expect Scotland will call another vote on disunion and will pass it.