For not understanding why "populism" is seen as such a bad thing

[TemporaryPosition]

Is the point of democracy not to have popular support?

Populism inherently disrespects the people it claims to champion. It's saying what they want to hear in order to better shaft them. It's the political equivalent of an abusive future faker.

I'm aware that many people, up to and including prime minister(s), made multiple (and contradictory) promises which (since we're a parliamentary democracy) they had no business making, and no ability to deliver.

I can't do much else apart from restate my point about people who were gullible enough to believe them.

And anyway, we did leave the single market and customs union, and EU immigration did fall significantly, so I'm a bit baffled by how animated you are about those points. Presumably all those Brexit voters must be delighted with how it all went.

We're going to be abused by politicians no matter what. I'd rather be abused by one's who at least pretend they're going to do something I want.

That is precisely the kind of attitude that they're hoping for. If you don't demand anything better, they'll take advantage again and again. Seriously though, you don't want to end up in a situation like that in Russia or China. I still believe in liberal democracy. Populists actively undermine that.

Boris Johnson was a populist. He did and said whatever he thought people would worship him for. He had almost no principles of his own: he simply clamoured whichever way he thought the wind was blowing. He backed Brexit because (as far as he knew) it had popular support. And when the public pleaded for lockdown to go on and on and on, he made it (in varying degrees) go on and on and on, after his press had frightened the pants off the public. He probably resisted lockdown in the first place because he thought the public would hate him for it; then he saw the public pleading for more. A notable feature was that the press was constantly telling what might or could happen. "Lockdown might happen in October." "Masks could be mandated in shops." It was the classic strategy of "leak it to the press, see what the public thinks, do what the public wants". Less populist governments would make up their own mind in advance, and do what they believe is right, and ignore what the public thinks.

Also, what is "popular" can easily be influenced, if you have the right contacts and shills in the press, as the Tories most certainly did, with the Tory-owned media, who said exactly what the government told them to say. It's less easy for Labour, who don't have as much influence over the Tory press.

It's odd isn't it that popularism which is supposed to emphasise the views and interests of the common people in opposition to an 'elite' has been captured by the truly elite!

The actually rich and powerful have managed to gaslight the common people into thinking they are not the real enemy whilst demonising liberals, poor, disabled, non white, immigrants. But they're not going for Jews this time so it's OK.

This has happened before and it did not end well.

Populism is an ideology that seeks to break the rational link between lived experiences and thought and interject someone to blame. Wages are low, I can't get housing or a GP appointment etc (real reason too complicated) because of immigrants!

So EU law is not supreme.

Thank you. Took long enough.

Absolutely agree that populists undermine critical thinking and education.
They want us struggling to survive because then we're too busy to put up a fight. If you do everything to get rid of the middle class and make sure the working class is not properly working - or totally exploited - you have an exhausted and frustrated population that can be manipulated at will and whipped into a frenzy to go after whoever it is you want rid of.

It's odd isn't it that popularism which is supposed to emphasise the views and interests of the common people in opposition to an 'elite' has been captured by the truly elite!

Not really. If they can control the media, then they can create whatever is "popular". The permanent seat Farage has on Question Time, for example. Designed to give us all the impression he - and his views - are more popular than they are.

I re-refer you to the Yes Minister playbook on how the media sets the public opinion.

What they are saying is that as long as you want to be in the EU, you must agree that their laws in those areas over-ride your national laws.

This is rather differernt than what some people seem to believe.

I didn't think my reply to you was 'animated' at all - you on the other hand used phrases such as 'nonsensical' and 'anyone dumb enough...'

Presumably all those Brexit voters must be delighted with how it all went.

Even if Brexit voters were not delighted with how it all went I'm not convinced the majority would vote to rejoin the EU.

same as any other international treaty the UK has ever signed then.

What's for tea ?

And populism is also about the lie that countries are stronger than they are on their own, perpetuating the lie of exceptionalism. Pissing on international partnerships is a recurring pattern for example.

How exactly do I demand better?

It depends who you are. If you live in areas which have undergone deindustrialisation. You are actually going to be better off.

You are being disingenuous.

As for AI - I linked to an official website of the European Union explaining the primacy of EU law in areas of law where member states have ceded sovereignty.

Here's another link - looks like we followed procedure;

An EU Member State wishing to withdraw must notify the European Council of its intention to do so. The European Council is then required to provide guidelines for the conclusion of an agreement setting out the arrangements for that country’s withdrawal...

The EU treaties cease to apply to the country in question from the date of entry into force of the agreement, or 2 years after the notification of the withdrawal.

The European Council may decide to extend that period.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/withdrawal-from-the-european-union.html

Leaving trade agreements isn't necessarily going to lead to re-industrialisation. Antagonising allies isn't going to improve anything for anyone. How would you be better off? I think that's one of the major lies. Yes, we should be more self-sufficient and produce more but that requires investment. Where is the money going to come from?

I see it as deliberately stirring up and manipulating emotion in the general population, usually negative emotion, so they don’t think rationally about their democratic options.

Why is it a lie? Globalism has really really damaged many peoples lives. I genuinely believe those who spit the term "populist" are on the side of global capital. The problem is that I believe you have fallen prey to propaganda and you believe I have. I hate the Labour Party. The Conservatives, Greens, SNP and Lib Dems.

What am I supposed to do?

Either parliament is supreme

or

it isn't.

The UK parliament doesn't have a gender identity. There is no spectrum. It is supreme. It always was supreme and anyone who says it wasn't is - and I rarely like being so blunt - a fucking liar.

I dare - I double dare - anyone to tell me that the UK parliament is not supreme.

I just think it’s weird that some posters seem to think that the arch populists Farage and Tice are not members of the ‘elite’. Both multi millionaires. Could call them the ‘alt-elite’ I guess. And as globalist as anyone, pro big business, pro free market on steroids, pro reduction of workers rights, you name it.
I work with someone who’s a big supporter of Reform. He’s now moved on to Rupert Lowe (another multi millionaire) as a potential Reform PM and distrusts Farage, called him a snake in fact. Probably because that billionaire Musk has also gone off Farage and is promoting Mr Lowe. I suppose my point is that we’ve now got unelected billionaires actively stirring things up and trying to dictate what happens in a western democracy. How can people think that’s right ? Populist or not.

That can apply to pretty much anyone

The EU treaties cease to apply to the country in question from the date of entry into force of the agreement, or 2 years after the notification of the withdrawal.
The European Council may decide to extend that period.

Why doesn't it say that the country in question (or the UK Parliament) can decide to extend that period and then notify the EU of its decision?

You really are flogging the deadest of horses.

A supreme UK parliament can do whatever it wants.

A supreme UK parliament withdrew the UK from the EU - and it could and would have done that no matter what any treaty anywhere said.

QED parliament was - and is - supreme.

I repeat: no amount of shouting "green" is ever going to make the sun green.

Now people may not have been happy with the terms with which the UK was engaged with the UK. But that really has fuck all to do with sovereignty.

There endeth my patience for 2025.

Like Corbyn or not (I didn’t), you could say he wanted to create a fairer more equal society. Many of his policies weren’t well thought out and lacked substance but the general principle behind them was pro ordinary people. Probably was a populist but not for his own enrichment.
Johnson, Musk, Farage, Trump, all working for their own interests or for those of the millionaire classes. Closing down whole departments to enable tax cuts for the wealthy hardly reeks of helping the most vulnerable. A hundred times worse.