It's interesting how the negative examples all look like mobile game ads.
Which isn't an accident - mobile game ads are tuned studiously on consumers actual preferences and not the preferences of designers. i.e. the people that are likely to spend actual money on the product/service being advertised to prefer the ad being portrayed here as bad.
Bluntly, being able to sidestep the whims and fashions of graphic designers is proving to be a major feature of the AI revolution.
Surely this implies these LLM generated proofs require the LLMs to have mathematical intuition . . . and honestly I don't think many people believe that, and rightly so, certainly not in the way Poincaré was on about.
Maybe it's been done, but I'd like to see an LLM recreate Euclid from questioning without having seen it during training.
> Surely this implies these LLM generated proofs require the LLMs to have mathematical intuition . . . and honestly I don't think many people believe that
Yes, I believe that, it's part of what I was implying (I believe the LLM weights have some internal representation of math in the same way brains do that allow them to produce proofs)
I think we differ on what "mathematical intuition" is then. I've seen people that do well in undergrad math degrees simply by massively memorising things and learning how to join them up to some level of degrees-of-separation, but seemingly completely fail to understand, for ezample, why even calculus is how it is. Because they are able to regurgitate the results and "produce proofs" this is never questioned.
The Euclid example also shows my bias towards spatial intuition of mathematical concepts (which is deeply unfashionable) but also exposes exactly where at least current LLMs break down; they do the symbol based pattern matching version, but they cannot leap outside of that, at least today.
This feels very related to the issues re: the presence or absence of world models in LLMs. Insofar as they have world models (or "intuitions"), these would seem to have to be primarily verbal-linguistic (or symbolic, when using math). LLM world models are not likely (currently) very spatial, in contrast to e.g. V-JEPA-2 models, which likely do have some basic spatial models (and perhaps "intuitions").
> I've seen people that do well in undergrad math degrees simply by massively memorising things and learning how to join them up to some level of degrees-of-separation, but seemingly completely fail to understand, for ezample, why even calculus is how it is. Because they are able to regurgitate the results and "produce proofs" this is never questioned.
If you want to catch them, surely you can find proofs they aren't able to produce.
I used to be a game dev, and one of the interview questions someone came up with consisted of working out the surface area of a variant of Menger sponge to some given level of depth. The bifurcation for people that could do this vs those that couldn't was incredible, and did not follow obvious trends for academic achievement. (The same interview also included the gem "How wide is a pointer?" which also catches a frightening number of people).
I think it's actually the opposite. Intuition is the only thing LLMs can do, which is why they are prone to hallucinating when they can't validate their intuition against reality.
There is an idea that human intuition, expertise, and critical thinking are largely pattern recognition. When you encounter a situation, your brain gives you a plausible starting point, based on what it has experienced before. You then continue with explicit reasoning, which is slow and inefficient, and try to validate your ideas. The more relevant the patterns you have learned are to the situation, the more likely you reach a useful conclusion.
LLMs are largely the same, except that they cannot learn from experience in normal usage. And except that they experience the world only through symbolic data, while the human brain has access to plenty of sensory data.
My hunch (or intuition, hah!) is that intuition is an instinctive mental shortcut required to navigate large problem spaces that can’t entirely fit into our heads.
Maybe LLMs do not need intuition because they can scale their “cognitive capacity” with hardware and brute force their way through these problem spaces.
> Maybe LLMs do not need intuition because they can scale their “cognitive capacity” with hardware and brute force their way through these problem spaces.
My view is that is certainly true of smaller LLMs but becomes less true as they scale up.
To quote the parent bananaflag in a sub-comment:
> I believe the LLM weights have some internal representation of math in the same way brains do that allow them to produce proofs
I think as the sort of spare space adjacent to pure language processing in LLMs grows the probability of the sort of reasoning bananaflag is getting at (or spatial reasoning, or anything else) emerging in that space grows enormously.
One of the questions for AI development over the coming months or years is going to be if deliberately cultivating the architecture of those sub models for specific reasoning types beats any emergent reasoning mechanisms or not.
Hmm we may be talking of two different interpretations of intuition here. I agree that LLM weights contain representations of abstract concepts, as a lot of prior research has shown. This surely includes Mathematical concepts.
But to me that is analogous to what human brains do, and a bit different from intuition. I think of intuition as “heuristics”, typically developed through experience, that may link seemingly unrelated concepts via vague, hard-to-define associations, but which let us make mental leaps (or shortcuts) while reasoning. (Maybe analogous to System 1 / 2 thinking.)
On the other hand, LLMs can do both: build “intuition” from patterns in data AND brute force a huge amount of potentially unrelated concepts. This gets fuzzier when we realize that even these “concepts” themselves are gleaned from patterns in data! But my point is we necessarily have to take shortcuts to scale, whereas machines can scale with hardware.
This is of course a layman theory! But it could explain why these models are progressing so fast.
Yes, in my case "intuition" comes a lot from visualizing things spatially, manipulating them, and being able to capture their properties in equations/proofs, and it's that which is (currently) conspicuously missing when dealing with LLMs. (And may yet appear with world models).
With the alternate view of intuition that many of you are describing it is clear LLMs are somewhat either there or heading there now.
This is an intriguing observation! LLMs were famously bad at spatial reasoning, until Astra which apparently has a huge improvement. I wonder if that has any bearing on the recent jump in Mathematical performance?
One thing that struck me from Dario's last podcast with Dwarkesh was that he said training LLMs on a diverse set of tasks does not make them better just at those tasks, but they get better at unrelated and other tasks overall. What you described could be a concrete example of how that dynamic works!
Your unstated major premise here is that their intent was to make a universal statement about how proofs work and not just talking to humans about how they teach humans.
Why? The entire subject of conversation is triggered by things which are not humans producing proofs.
If it's possible for a machine to produce a proof without intuition then clearly a human could also do it too. (And in fact I'd argue I've seen many people like that, simply very good at pattern matching over memorised items).
Because regardless of the point TFA is making, that interpretation makes less sense for the specific comment. It doesn’t fit with the immediate context, which was a response to a thoughtful comment about how humans do math. And it requires assuming a math professor doesn’t understand a very basic and obvious thing about their area of expertise.
That doesn’t really read as good faith engagement in the discussion. At best, it reads as being so AI pilled that you can’t even fathom that others might want to have a little side discussion about something other than AI.
That math prof was talking about his stance in discussion between mathematicians long before AI.
Plus, I studied math, I am from that environment. His description matches how math is done by people.
People who are good at pattern matching and memorize are, frankly, shit mathematicians. They are find in fun culture around math, but rarely in actual math. They cant really do it as science.
One of the major problems of Canada is it's essentially a line of provinces east-west. It means you cannot simply route around a province with unreasonable demands, everyone must be placated, and the resource region of Alberta is seriously landlocked.
This has bred an economy of rent seekers and real estate at the expense of almost everything else. There are reasons that the best and brightest of Canada enthusiastically leave en masse to the place that Canadians claim to detest most of all, which leads to a sort of self loathing complex with the ones that stay; they are utterly mystified by the idea that anyone with any skills/talent whatsoever would want to move to Canada, it's truly mind boggling. (This is why I prefer Quebec - it's got enough people in it that really like Quebec a lot).
> you cannot simply route around a province with unreasonable demands, everyone must be placated, and the resource region of Alberta is seriously landlocked.
Retconned horseshit that emanates from idiot chambers.
The US is a big country next door, and historically the two economies and trade have been very tightly integrated. So Alberta hooks into the US pipeline system, as cooperative players in a continental energy system, and so does Ontario. There was never a critical reason to make significant East/West pipelines, in the same way that the US has loads of LNG export terminals (they were actually converted import terminals), and being connected to their LNG system meant it made little sense to spend billions of new terminals.
Not to mention some geographic issues. Running a pipeline through the Canadian shield is not a trivial matter. Possible, but it's much easier though the flyover US states.
And most hilarious of all about this, the reviled national energy program (NEP) -- you know, the one that 0% of Albertans understand but they're sure it was to screw them -- was the federal government proposing a national pipeline system. Alberta had a massive tantrum about it. Instead Alberta was constrained to selling oil at a massive discount to the US for decades.
>There are reasons that the best and brightest of Canada enthusiastically leave en masse to the place that Canadians claim to detest most of all
ROFL. Good god. The fact that you're in Quebec, and you celebrate Quebec (by far the most dysfunctional part of the country, largely a welfare state propped up by the rest of Canada, primarily Ontario), has to be the most hilarious part of this comical fan-fiction nonsense.
Now you seem to have a hilarious take on Canada, but in the real world the "West" anointed the US as the centre of power (the largest population base, unharmed by two world wars in a row). This means that people from everywhere generally centralized there, for media, for technology, and so on. Thanks to the current idiocracy and the accelerating decline of that country, the whole thing has reversed.
> And most hilarious of all about this, the reviled national energy program (NEP) -- you know, the one that 0% of Albertans understand but they're sure it was to screw them -- was the federal government proposing a national pipeline system. Alberta had a massive tantrum about it.
Yes, the NEP proposed extending some natural gas pipelines. You neglected to mention that it also imposed price controls and new taxes on oil and gas revenues.
Marc Lalonde, the minister responsible, literally said after the fact that the goal of the program was to shift oil and gas revenue from the provinces and industry to Ottawa:
"The major factor behind the NEP wasn't Canadianization or getting more from the industry or even self sufficiency," [...] "The determinant factor was the fiscal imbalance between the provinces and the federal government [...] "Our proposal was to increase Ottawa's share appreciably, so that the share of the producing provinces would decline significantly and the industry's share would decline somewhat."
> largely a welfare state propped up by the rest of Canada, primarily Ontario
Aside from the wrongness of the rest of your comment, you're hilariously out of date here. Ontario has become the defining political and economic disaster area in Canada.
> Aside from the wrongness of the rest of your comment
I see you've, uh, comprehensively detailed what was wrong.
Nothing in my comment was wrong.
> Ontario has become the defining political and economic disaster area in Canada
ROFL. Christ.
Ontario's "economic disaster" contributes 2x the amount to federal coffers than Quebec does, despite only being 60% larger in population. It contributes almost 3x more than Alberta, which about tracks with the population difference. In every economic metric, Ontario obliterates Quebec.
Seeing Maple MAGA nonsense from someone living in Quebec is hilarious stuff. Quebec has always been our special little welfare state, that has a government massively funded out of proportion, largely on the backs of Ontario and BC. Having you slinging stones and talking about the greatness of Quebec is...well, it's amazing stuff.
I mean...mention it? What? What a hilarious comment, that clearly derives from whatever right wing echo chamber idiot chamber you emerged from.
Aside from the fact that it's...fine... (protip - the automakers have largely ignored Trump and know he's going to die in a pile of his own feces and they'll move on). A gigantic new multi-billion dollar battery plant (still going ahead...hey, didn't multiple in Quebec get abandoned?). A new armoured vehicle plant. Two new heavy duty truck plants.
I mean, Chrysler is collapsing, but eh. They're collapsing everywhere. BYD will likely buy one of their plants.
And it's hilarious when Maple MAGA mouth-breathers always bring up the auto industry. It could disappear and we'd move on. This delusion that we're all auto workers here is comedy. I don't know a single person even peripherally related to that industry.
> or the state of your public finances.
Which makes it extra funny that Ontario bankrolls Quebec largess. I agree that should be stopped. Quebec needs to stop being the welfare project dragging the country down, which is something that would make Alberta happy as well.
Ontario contributes 3x more to federal coffers than Alberta. Now extremely simple sorts look at "equalization payments" (you know, the welfare program for Quebec), and think it's somehow paid for by the "haves", but that isn't remotely how it works. Ontario and BC contribute almost all of the money that is then handed out to welfare provinces like Quebec.
> We all suffer the weakened CAD simply to secure votes in Ontario.
LOL, wtf. You really need to disengage from whatever bullshit chamber you clearly get your "knowledge" from, because this is just embarrassing nonsense. Again, having someone from Quebec trying to claim that another part of Canada is holding them down is....good god, it is deliciously tasty idiocy.
It's funny how you cite "reality" and tell me I'm wrong, yet you haven't corrected a single thing. And FWIW, I'm firmly convinced you are an American spinning a hilarious fan-fiction, because for a Quebecer to actually say these things would be so ironic the universe would collapse on itself.
IMHO, it would be a win even if it allowed movement between Canada and the EU as freely as Canadians and Americans can currently move between Canada and the US. That would give Canadian snowbirds easier (longer) access to warm EU destinations, while those destinations would benefit from the additional revenue.
In winter even the warm bits of the EU aren't all that warm either, and no one complains about the cold like a (non B.C.) Canadian encountering European winter humid cold for the first time.
Europeans go to Thailand, even Latam etc. It's why so many were killed in the Indian Ocean tsunami.
It's something many Canadians don't want to accept, but too much of their tourist facing industry is setup to exploit and frankly con Americans.
I recall on my first trip here ending up in hospital, being mistaken for an American and shown one price list, only for my insurance company to get on the phone and promptly a new price list appeared and a lot of "We're sorry we thought you were American" from the staff.
And prior to the mobile web dealing with Ontario hotels was like haggling in a Turkish bazaar with an obnoxious layer of passive aggression on top.
> I recall on my first trip here ending up in hospital, being mistaken for an American and shown one price list, only for my insurance company to get on the phone and promptly a new price list appeared and a lot of "We're sorry we thought you were American" from the staff.
Where were you actually from? Some countries do have reciprocal deals on this sort of thing, and if you're from a country which does have a reciprocal deal, you might very much legitimately get a different price than if you're from a country which doesn't.
Months ago. I live in Quebec (which is where the hospital incident occurred).
Now thanks to the Internet it's way harder for hotel clerks to claim prices are different, which used to be exactly what they'd do, consequently it's improved dramatically on that front. I still remember the face of an Ottawa guy decades ago confronted with a european smartphone shoved in his face to show he was lying through his teeth. He clearly wasn't ready for the whole concept.
The hospital thing is standard practice in the US. The Canadian hospitals likely have to lie to get reasonable payouts from US insurance companies.
For instance, I once needed $600 of tests at the ER. The hospital billed $80K. The insurance company paid $7K. I paid $100.
Sure, the $600 does not include the ER overhead, but the $7K was still insanely inflated. The important thing is that the money ultimately came from insurance premiums, so every middleman was able to reliably extort all patients.
> For instance, I once needed $600 of tests at the ER. The hospital billed $80K. The insurance company paid $7K. I paid $100.
The other bit of the story was "we realised you might not be American from your face when we showed you the price list". (They told me Americans would have seen the same list and thought the prices were reasonable). I'm guessing you are American?
You need to understand how utterly insane this sounds if you are used to European systems.
And don't get me started on the fact Canadian healthcare doesn't actually transfer between provinces.
What? You can use your provincial health care card in any other province. My mom made an urgent care visit while in BC, showed her Alberta health care card, and got the usual service with no extra paperwork or costs. (Behind the scenes, BC would have billed Alberta for this visit)
Quebec is also about to have a provincial election where separatism, and everyone's relationship to it, is the main argument.
Many people on both sides of the Atlantic wrongly think Quebec is more compatible with Europe than the rest of Canada because they speak French, but almost the exact things Quebec separatists care most about are the things the EU wouldn't let them control.
The great confusion for Anthropic and OAI is how to break out from pure chat without signalling you in fact intend to eat all of your customer's business too.
I turned off Anthropic properly and switched all of that over to OpenAI yesterday. (I use other models for other things too, especially DeepSeek in Pi).
Honestly aside from the voice it uses you wouldn't notice a difference. Switching costs are low, vote with your wallet.
> I turned off Anthropic properly and switched all of that over to OpenAI yesterday.
Same, just a while longer ago.
I much prefer how OpenAI models write to Anthropic's, will probably revisit Anthropic in a generation or two. Context size is more limited, but no critical forgetfulness due to compaction so far, though I also like having plan files around both for future reference and improving chances of success at long form work.
Also tried out Kimi K3, was nice but slow (and apparently routed some requests to Claude anyways), GLM 5.3 was faster and still pretty good but the token allowances were kinda limited.
Ahh, that one time the Belarussian delegation tried importing so much alcohol into [host country] to give away for free to everyone at the artist party, that it was all seized at the [host country] border and caused a minor diplomatic incident. The free chocolate branded with the artist's face made it in though. Fun times.
And that wasn't the year that Belarus sent "I Love Belarus" as their Eurovision song.
lol, this took longer to land with me than it should have, being the token "not in the target demographic" guy. And now I know more than I wanted to know about the AI scene ;)
It's actually going to raise questions as to why the EU are A-OK with this now when a possible interpretation of associate membership is it's what Cameron was trying to negotiate the UK into when complete inflexibility on the EU side triggered the Brexit referendum.
All depends on what an associate member is of course.
The UK already enjoyed a large amount of unique concessions as a full member. The rest of the EU was right not to give in. Also, game theoretically it's of course more important to not make leaving (or threatening to leave) the union seem too lucrative. No such problem in negotiating tighter integration with nonmembers (and in retrospect, many of the old WP countries should've joined as something like associate members at first…)
>> Also, game theoretically it's of course more important to not make leaving (or threatening to leave) the union seem too lucrative.
Because you simply wouldn't be offered the option of just deescalating your full membership to an associate membership. If you want to leave, you leave fully, and then in time we can discuss what happens next. Also, obviously an associate membership shouldn't feel more desirable than full integration if you're eligible to both. Indeed from the UK's perspective it would be exactly the opposite to what they wanted: free labor and movement but no representation.
How so? Many EU states have benefited enormously from being on the receiving side of EU subsidies, which obviously would be out of the question without full integration. Norway, Iceland, and Switzerland have rejected membership, which essentially means that as EEA members they have to observe all the EU regulations and agreements when it comes to trade, without having any say about them. They have their reasons, but those reasons don't apply generally.
"Being misled" is obviously nonsense that deserves no further comment.
It literally privileges people in countries outside the EU by giving them more rights than those inside.
Which many people inside the EU would observe seems completely consistent with EU behaviour.
Edit to add: "Being misled" would refer to the way the EU was sold to many participants in earlier decades as an economic union, and not an all encompassing political one, with it simply ratcheting that way. Whenever objections occurred referenda would simply be repeated until the populations complied. It's far from the exercise in democracy that proponents promote. (This is distinct from saying it is _all bad_).
> It literally privileges people in countries outside the EU by giving them more rights than those inside.
Mostly, like, the right to have, say, your own standards on chemical safety, tho. That is generally not something that most people would _want_; it basically just means you lose your job because import/export becomes, if not impossible, at least bureaucratically expensive enough that people will just buy from elsewhere.
Your position seems so astonishingly alien that I don't even know how to start replying. It seems biased against the entire concept of how human cooperation works.
> This is the other part: if associate membership is a thing then won't half of the EU start thinking that's their future?
Presumably by "half of the EU" you mean (sometimes) euro-sceptic states like Hungary or Poland? Well, these are not in EU because some illuminati/lizard people tricked them into joining and now won't allow them to leave, like some of their politicians would like you to believe, but because they enjoy billions of subsidies per year.
I would like to make a slight correction: the hungarian public opinion was never, ever euro-sceptic. This was one of the major reason the previous government was voted out, because they didn't reflect the will of the people. Opinion polls regularly poll 70-80% of EU approval despite being decade-long propaganda trying to change peoples' minds, making Hungary de facto one of the most pro-EU countries in EU.
There is a strong case that much of the eastern bloc were tricked into joining, by the UK, in order to weaken the Franco-German efforts for ever closer union.
Could you elaborate regarding how exactly were eastern bloc countries "tricked" into joining by the UK? And what prevents them from leaving now that the tricksters from UK have long since left themselves?
> the tricksters from UK have long since left themselves?
This wasn’t intentional of the people who started the cogs turning, it was meant to be an empty gesture to get elected, no one expected it to actually pass.
There is always the debate around "Europe of two speeds" - where there is a deeply integrated core of nations, maybe even going towards "United States of Europe" and the others tightly associated, but not fully integrated.
Of course the set of countries and level of integration depends on whom you ask
Maybe, and that might actually be okay from the EC’s pov. There’s a fairly old proposal for a ‘two speed EU’; a core that accelerates towards near-federalism with a more eurosceptic periphery.
Right. The oddity now is the euroscepticism is rooted in the countries previously considered the core.
I am of the view the UK should never have joined as a full member, and it would have been better to establish the two speed membership way back then, allowing France and Germany particularly to engage in further integration without mutual interference involving the UK.
Let's face it, UK never was "full member", for all means. But that's beside the actual point: the German/French euro-skeptics see their countries paying the eastern block a lot of money, sees that same block totally ungrateful about it (ooga booga colonialism), but at the same time don't notice their own employers happy to have such markets at their fingertips - because said markets grab also jobs at their expense, again something the eastern block actively ignores. At the same times the ruling parties everywhere won't touch a running system (even when it's barely running) to not lose their hard won privileges, and the rightwing grows claiming imaginary but heartwarming solutions.
I don’t think Cameron did much serious negotiation on this front. He resigned the evening of the referendum results.
It was a deliberate choice by his successors to pursue a hard Brexit. A softer Brexit was always possible and likely would have been more acceptable to the EU, as it would have had less financial impact and disruption to trade.
You've got it wrong: "After the deal had been approved, Cameron described it as giving the United Kingdom "special status within the European Union" and immediately declared that both he and the UK Government would campaign for a "Remain" vote in the referendum within a "reformed European Union"."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%932016_United_Kingd...
There's no planet on which Cameron's visit that time was regarded by anyone on any side as anything other than a failure. Cameron was simply putting a face on it.
It has pissed off the EU (understandably), pissed off his own supporters, and pissed off his enemies.
The point is that the referendum was an unconditional 2015 Conservative manifesto promise, and was going to happen anyway, regardless of how Cameron's renegotiations with the EU went (sources here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49726666)
The outcome of the negotiations may have affected the course of the Leave and Remain campaigns, but it was not the trigger for the referendum itself.
This is was about immigration. I don’t understand why people are still in denial about this. I am pretty sure it would have happened anyway regardless of what economic concessions UK would have got. It’s worth to note that the immigration is still an issue in the UK and the EU and I think more EU members will leave because of this.
Exactly. And, let's face it, democracy. Either the people in the UK wanted freedom of movement or they didn't, and they voted on that basis.
People don't exactly feel they agreed to the Boriswave either, and now when I am back visiting the UK it's noticeably the most racist it's ever been, by a very significant distance.
I'm in Canada now and Canada has the same dynamics going on.
> Exactly. And, let's face it, democracy. Either the people in the UK wanted freedom of movement or they didn't, and they voted on that basis.
It was neither. They wanted freedom of movement that was only one way. In fact they didn't know what they wanted because they were sold a bill of goods when it came to Brexit.
I think this is what will kill it in Canada too. There’s maybe only a million Canadian citizens who would be interested in the idea of freedom of movement to Europe. There’s probably 10-20 million Canadian citizens who would be a hard “absolutely no way” to opening their borders to 250 million random Europeans in return.
Yeah but you have to wonder why the EU nations themselves are not very happy with the EU immigration.
One part of the answer is that some are more open to out of EU immigration than others. A while ago that was Germany who got 1 million plus of refugees and economic immigrants from Syria , Afghanistan and other non European countries.
Now it seems that Spain is that willing to take immigrants and of course also provide them citizenship after 3-5 years. So you may end up with a disproportionate amount of immigrants that come from Europe but are not really European in terms of looks and behaviour.
I really fail to see how EU will continue unless far right wins all over Europe and a common restrictive immigration policy is agreed.
Give it another ten to twenty years and the far right will be in control all across Europe. Ugly, but the blame for this happening will be entirely at the EU’s door.
I never understood this blame on EU as an external entity.
If far right wins in most member states then EU itself becomes far right. The EU is MPs elected by the EU people directly and council members which are heads of state elected as well in most countries.
>If far right wins in most member states then EU itself becomes far right.
Yeah… well, then the fun really begins doesn’t it.
But you know that the EU has this basically leftish centrist ideology of equality mixed in with the neoliberal profit-motive of the soft right. That it’s overt rationalism is politically neutralising rather than centrist, that is to say extreme positions either side do not flourish and are ridiculed as irrational, shouted down, and discarded even if they represent the views of several million people across the bloc. That continued ignorance and attempt at rationalising by a minority of career politicians in the face of an increasingly irrational and polarised base is feeding the right and pushing it into more extreme positions, because at least the right will represent and say what the EU refuses to.
People were poor, wages had hardly grown after years of austerity following the 2008 crash. A huge campaign pointed the finger squarely at the EU: they are taking our money, they are the reason you’re poor, you would be richer without them.
I have seen it differently. I’ve seen it about immigration, the party driving it being UK Immigration Party. Boris “party” put some economic spin on it but it was fuelled by immigration.
The referendum was entirely the UK's choice and had nothing to do with the EU. It offered more concessions than the UK deserved (having already held numerous opt-outs) and they still called the vote.
One of the effects of Brexit is that EU popular solidarity has noticeably improved while the UK has gone in the opposite direction. That says a lot about Brexit.
The referendum was triggered by him making a bad political calculation that he would win it and could squash the aisle of his party that was pushing his idea. This was never truly due to a failed negotiation. The hardliners in his party wanted entirely out either way.
Cameron was trying to reduce the scope of EU integration with the UK (esp freedom of movement), with the threat he didn't want to use of a referendum, the EU said no (as the other commenter explained partly to disincentivize others, but also because they thought he was bluffing and people would never vote to leave), so the referendum was held.
That's wrong, he did get what he wanted before the referendum: "After the deal had been approved, Cameron described it as giving the United Kingdom "special status within the European Union" and immediately declared that both he and the UK Government would campaign for a "Remain" vote in the referendum within a "reformed European Union"."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%932016_United_Kingd...
Not sure why its so difficult for you to understand the obvious goal of taking a hardline stance on leaving the EU as a member state vs onboarding possible partnerships, members, etc. You're looking at this backwards.
I think that the EU would be in worse shape today if the UK had followed most other members at the time and restricted freedom of movement to it for the countries that joined in 2004 and 2007. It would have been nice to have got some credit for that.
No, nothing public, we are all speculating. But we can surely guess at 99% that Canada would get no voting power, being that we are in North America and Canada isn't interested in that kind of arrangement.
Cameron did get what he wanted before the referendum: "After the deal had been approved, Cameron described it as giving the United Kingdom "special status within the European Union" and immediately declared that both he and the UK Government would campaign for a "Remain" vote in the referendum within a "reformed European Union"."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%932016_United_Kingd...
That is a rather fantastical and revisionist version of why the Brexit referendum was called - which had more to do with a misguided attempt to put the crazy wing of the Conservative Party to bed rather than anything to do with the EU, where the UK had the best deal imaginable already.
Nevertheless when put to British voters 50% of them decided that best possible deal still wasn’t in their interests. And that 50% who voted No was more people than even voted in the EU elections (to elect MEPs) before that. So the EU was very much fine with their democratic process seeming like an irrelevance, while at the same time the Brexit vote was actually an example of a democratic process working as it should. One can argue about craziness or otherwise, but there were at least 17 million crazies at the time and if there was a referendum to rejoin the EU would likely be a different 17 million crazies voting No again.
> but there were at least 17 million crazies at the time
Yes. Just the demographics has substantially thinned their numbers by now though.
> would likely be a different 17 million crazies voting No again.
Highly unlikely - and turnout on the other side would be dramatically improved. Had the vote been held again the following day, it's likely that the result would have been different. If it were held today, it would be a landslide towards rejoining with the original terms.
People actually know what they're voting for, instead of falling for make-believe horseshit about how much money could go into the NHS (but didn't) on the side of a bus, with a heavy dose of Russian propaganda on Facebook.
I think you’ve fallen into the common trap in believing that there was a simple narrative which can be used to understand the Brexit vote, when the data shows there were 17 million different and varied reasons within a mass resistant to modelling.
The ones that are persistent are "I'm going to vote for anarchy because politics does no good for me", "I'm racist and don't understand that this doesn't get rid of people I really want to get rid of but really want it to so whatever" and "I'm xenophobic and haven't accepted that there isn't a British Empire anymore".
There may be fringe cases around specific regulations, but those were the main three. People were voting for whatever they wanted Brexit to be, most of which is pure fantasy, not what it actually is, which is a clusterfuck of badness, and zero benefit to anyone.
I say this as someone _who was a member of the Conservative Party at the time_, though the fact that the candidate in my constituency since 2010 was Jacob Rees Mogg meant I have voted against them in every election since then.
> And that 50% who voted No was more people than even voted in the EU elections (to elect MEPs) before that.
This is ignorance or just plain bad faith. MEPs are not the main democratic mechanism of the EU, it's the national governments. This is on purpose, so that both national democracy and sovereignty can be maintained.
This is the typical of EU misinformation spouted by people who have a problem with the EU. Of course people can dislike the EU all they want, but people who constantly rail against it, with little or no basis in fact, I'll never know. It's not about the EU, it's some sort of bitter obsession or ideological idiocy. Somehow the EU means much more to them than they claim, otherwise they wouldn't spend so much energy complaining about it.
But I was a supporter of the EU who noticed this. Like I comment elsewhere, the EU is like Teflon and resistant to critique - when there is an issue or a defect we get comments like yours “yes yes but this isn’t the actual process, that is a governmental/national/commission/parliament issue.”
It’s not misinformation - it’s a very basic fact about the democratic mechanism we had for electing who represents us in the EU parliament which makes and votes on our laws. The opacity of this process and the general lack of enfranchisement in it is a major flaw but one that the EU was content with, because a simulation of a democratic process is good enough, better even, because it avoids the scrutiny and can be defended by people like you. It’s a basic fact that people did get off their arses and vote to leave in greater numbers than even bothered to be enfranchised in the elections for MEPs. You don’t have to bleat about it or invoke ignorance or bad faith because all you show up is your own bad faith to a fairly basic fact.
And it remains that people had never been given the chance to vote on whether they wanted to be governed by the EUs mechanisms. It got decided for people by politicians that it was in their interests that a trading block rapidly evolve into a super-national government. It was decided by those politicians how it operates and politicians the ones with the control over its integration, and what kicked off my comments in this thread, that it has a president who speaks for the whole of Europe who only they choose. When put to the actual people for the first and only time, they decided they weren’t into it for myriad of individual reasons that can’t be usefully modelled. And now as we’ve seen endless times in these threads, the response from Europe hasn’t been to go back to the drawing board, there is a general tone of traitorship and casting it as entirely British issue caused basically by racists and idiots, when it happened within the EU and was also an EU issue. Nowhere else in the EU would 17 million people making a very clear decision be called a gang of fuckn idiots.
> Cameron was trying to negotiate the UK into when complete inflexibility on the EU side triggered the Brexit referendum.
You are assigning too much responsibility to the EU here and none to the other actors responsible for Brexit. It borders on propaganda, but I do not want to assume ill intent.
And Cameron, didnt he say he would guide UK no matter the result and then resigned when Brexit won?
Brexit was obviously going to happen a good decade before the referendum, the tension was so blatant. This idea people were conned into voting leave is just utter nonsense - they'd been chomping at the bit for the opportunity for years.
Now the UK has managed to ramp up the tension dramatically, but without some easy foreign political bogeyman to blame. It's not going to end well either, but it's not clear exactly what the endgame is. This is why the Greens, Reform and Restore are suddenly things.
>>> "it's what Cameron was trying to negotiate the UK into when complete inflexibility on the EU side triggered the Brexit referendum."
"Negotiate" ... is that what you call it?
David Cameron (and team) were the most inept bunch of wankers this country has had the misfortune of being represented by in living memory (in terms of medium/long-term real impact).
We had better terms than anyone in the EU and we still fucked it up.
I mean, not really, since the UK was trying to renegotiate an existing deal (which they profited from for decades) towards a deal that would favor the UK more than the EU and would trigger an entire blow-back of other member-states wanting to renegotiate on their EU responsibilities without losing the advantages that this deal brought, whereas the deal with Canada is a new deal where the EU gains better trading and less dependence on the US and Canada gains better trading and more security if their next door neighbor falls apart even further.
The UK renegotiation was a net loss for the EU, this Canada deal is a deal where both parties gain something.
Also, the Brexit referendum was a campaign promise of David Cameron that was going to trigger if his conservative party won the 2015 general election. Sure, the relationship between EU and UK had strained over the years, but trying to pin this on the inflexibility of the EU feels a bit misdirected.
> Also, the Brexit referendum was a campaign promise of David Cameron that was going to trigger if his conservative party won the 2015 general election
That is iff the renegotiations with Brussels failed, which they did.
> The UK renegotiation was a net loss for the EU, this Canada deal is a deal where both parties gain something.
V. hard to see what Canada gets out of it. All the roadblocks to Canadian trade with the EU today (especially around resources) are internal to Canada and have nothing at all to do with EU status.
> All the roadblocks to Canadian trade with the EU today (especially around resources) are internal to Canada and have nothing at all to do with EU status.
Presumably under the proposed thing Canada would largely adopt EU regulations. This would make trade (particularly for small businesses) _far_ easier. See the UK for how difficult this can become if you're not in alignment; it's survivable for huge companies (though even some of them had trouble; for instance Marks and Spencers' stores in Ireland literally went empty for a while because they were insufficiently prepared), but if you're a small business importing a bunch of components from Europe and making a thing which is largely sold to Europe, there's a _massive_ difference in bureaucratic overhead between being in and out.
Even many Norwegian SMEs don't see direct sales to Europe as worth the overhead, and Norway's in the EEA, as close to the EU as you can get without actually being in it.
> Presumably under the proposed thing Canada would largely adopt EU regulations.
Canadian provinces do not agree with each other about trade regulations. They will not surrender this to the federal government, and they certainly won't to the EU.
>[The Conservatives promised a referendum] iff the renegotiations with Brussels failed, which they did.
No. The Conservative party promised an EU membership referendum by 2017 in its 2015 manifesto. That was not conditional on a failure of renegotiations. Nor, indeed, did David Cameron even concede that the renegotiations had failed, so that can’t possibly have been his stated reason for calling the referendum.
> My policy is to hold a renegotiation and then a referendum. That is what we promised in the manifesto and then to abide by what the British public say.
So you can see that there was never any suggestion that the referendum would be called or not called depending on the outcome of the renegotiations.
The explanation is easy: Canada is not on the European continent. The EU can only extend full membership to countries on the continent, so Canada needs a special arrangement. And because there's a whole ocean serving as a reason for this special treatment, it's easy to argue that it won't extend to countries who can become full members.
It's not actually reporting on the substance in any meaningful detail, and no one is, for the relatively simple reason that once it happens every special interest group in Canada will find something to go nuts about.
The UK wanted it the opposite way. They wanted full access to the EU market but forbid the movement of people because they wanted to get rid of the Poles. The EU would never agree to that and rightly so.
Inflexibility was not the reason for Brexit. It happened because the British population was tricked by being fed misinformation about the EU for years by people like Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson. Little things like "The EU bans bendy bananas" to big things like "Turkey is going to join any day!"
Why is the EU obligated to treat every country the same way? Canada presents different economic opportunities and challenges than the UK. Or, if you want to say it was due to politics, who was bashing who?
Which isn't an accident - mobile game ads are tuned studiously on consumers actual preferences and not the preferences of designers. i.e. the people that are likely to spend actual money on the product/service being advertised to prefer the ad being portrayed here as bad.
Bluntly, being able to sidestep the whims and fashions of graphic designers is proving to be a major feature of the AI revolution.
reply