Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[17 Van der Gouw]

Nonsense, babble.

The EU becoming the dark overlord that the Brexiters suggest it will, is about as likely as it becoming the utopian federacy that you claim the remainers are hoping for.

There are plenty of officials and politicians within the EU who freely speak of a much grander project/federalisation, erosion of powers etc. It's actually why I can't fathom why the SNP are so keen on gaining independence from the UK, only to enrol in deep European integration. But that's for another thread I would suggest the EU superstate is basically inevitable with its current trajectory.

This British sense of exceptionalism which allows them to think that 500 millions people in 27 countries are wrong but that they are right, even after it's become abundantly clear that the people who have been pedalling these lies for decades can't be trusted to tie their own shoelaces, let alone run a country or dictate to a continent how they should run theirs.

Here's the thing: We don't. Maybe I don't qualify because I'm English, but of direct Dutch and Romanian descent. I don't for a moment think that half a billion people are all simultaneously 'wrong' - I think that in the main plenty of them are happy with further European integration, but I also think everybody should have the right to self determination. I do think there are a number of Eurosceptics on the continent too, I wonder if polls were held in every EU nation, if Britain would be alone in voting to leave. The EU itself on the other hand is a bureaucratic behemoth which has gone far beyond it's original reason for existence (as a trading bloc) and (often undemocratically) openly and consistently eroded powers from individual nation states.

Also, how are leavers dictating to the continent how they should run their affairs? What lies are you talking about?

 

[That'sHernandez]

No it isn't.

The bigots, racists are the reason these situations are arising all over the world. The guilt tripping of good people into believing they are to blame for simply calling arseholes out for being arseholes is paralysing decent sense or thought and allowing these gobshites a legitimacy they don't deserve.

It's going on 3 years and nobody has managed to put forward a legitimate and coherent "issue with the EU" so how are decent people supposed to be understanding them?

It really is, because instead of having their beliefs challenged by being asked why the think the way they do, they are instead being called wrong and having the riot act read to them. This in turn only further entrenches their views instead of changing them.

Barely anyone who voted leave had any issue with the EU. Ask everyone you know who voted that way why they did and most of them will struggle to answer. They especially would have if you asked them on the day. Some now will have cobbled together arguments that they've heard since, with stuff they wouldn't have given a shit about previously, but now they do because they want to try and add legitimacy to their stupidity.

See above. I don't really see how you can know why everyone voted the way they did.

 

[Brwned]

Did it balls

I love this retrospective changing of the reason people voted Brexit to try and justify it. Farage didn't stand in front of a poster showing concerns about the sovereignty of British courts.

People can make whatever excuses they like about the vote being about sovereignty/economic benefits/protest against the elites but when you look at the language being used before the vote and the general fear of immigrants/Muslims etc taking over the country then it's obvious what the real reason was.

There's not a lot of evidence to support fear of immigration being the main message that swayed people, never mind the only one:

"Pundits and MPs kept saying ‘why isn’t Leave arguing about the economy and living standards’. They did not realise that for millions of people, £350m/NHS was about the economy and living standards – that’s why it was so effective. It was clearly the most effective argument not only with the crucial swing fifth but with almost every demographic. Even with UKIP voters it was level-pegging with immigration. Would we have won without immigration? No. Would we have won without £350m/NHS? All our research and the close result strongly suggests No. Would we have won by spending our time talking about trade and the Single Market? No way (see below).

NB. Unlike most of those on our side the IN campaign realised the effectiveness of this, as Cooper, Coetze and others said after 23 June. E.g. ‘The power of their £350 million a week can’t be overstated.’ Andrew Cooper, director of strategy for the IN campaign."

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/dominic-cummings-brexit-referendum-won/

It's just more palatable for you to believe it so.

And of course this is based on the premise that people make decisions because of what people on the TV tell them to do. Which is just a little bit of an exaggeration of the effect of political messaging. People actually have their own thoughts too.

 

[JPRouve]

If you think the EU commission is democratic then I have a bridge to sell you

I don't want the EU commission to be democratic, what I want is for people democratically elected to nominate people that are competent in specific domains which is the case for the commission. You and I don't elect the environment minister and there is a reason for that.

 

[mancan92]

No apologies necessary.

If the issue arises because of the rate of immigration then I don't agree that it's essentially xenophobic.



Christ, that's horrific.



Yeah...identity can be a puzzling and complex thing, can't it? The typical Irish response to the latter point would be the polar opposite of your grandmother's for example.

How do you feel about her sentiments, if you don't mind me asking?

It's sad but I understand it. These people were brainwashed for 200 years plus to believe the white British were the epidome of life and they were privileged to be in their presence. You will find that people of the Windrush generation who were essentially tricked into coming to the UK for extra cheap labour (ironically the same reason the British government encouraged great EU immigration to the UK) they are probably more nationalist than most people born here.

 

[That'sHernandez]

I don't want the EU commission to be democratic, what I want is for people democratically elected to nominate people that are competent in specific domains which is the case for the commission. You and I don't elect the environment minister and there is a reason for that.

Unfortunately, that is where you are wrong. Almost all of the members of the cabinet are elected members of parliament, therefore unless the environment minister is from the House of Lords, they are elected. That minister is then supported by the civil service, who largely are experts in their field but they do not direct policy.

This is probably part of why the transparency of the EU gets lost in translation in the UK.

 

[caid]

I dont really understand the fears of the european superstate. Cooperating on trade, standards, freedom of movement, security and infrastructure just seems an eminently sensible approach to me.

 

[afrocentricity]

I don't want the EU commission to be democratic, what I want is for people democratically elected to nominate people that are competent in specific domains which is the case for the commission. You and I don't elect the environment minister and there is a reason for that.

Imagine if we did though! You'd think people were observing and learning from this but no.

 

[Klopper76]

I dont really understand the fears of the european superstate. Cooperating on trade, standards, freedom of movement, security and infrastructure just seems an eminently sensible approach to me.

Same. The whole European army thing seems sensible as well.

 

[Kinsella]

I dont really understand the fears of the european superstate. Cooperating on trade, standards, freedom of movement, security and infrastructure just seems an eminently sensible approach to me.

I suppose because a European superstate would involve more than just the things you mention.

 

[caid]

Same. The whole European army thing seems sensible as well.

Ireland has a history of neutrality which im quite fond of but I agree, think its a much harder sell than cooperating elsewhere and I'm not as convinced but agree overall. Realistically if were invaded an army made of european nations are probably (hopefully) going to show up to protect us. We can contribute to that financially if nothing elsee.

I suppose because a European superstate would involve more than just the things you mention.

It doesn't need to. Thats a lot of stuff we could cooperate on that I think is pretty hard to argue isn't in our mutual interest.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Unfortunately, that is where you are wrong. Almost all of the members of the cabinet are elected members of parliament, therefore unless the environment minister is from the House of Lords, they are elected. That minister is then supported by the civil service, who largely are experts in their field but they do not direct policy.

This is probably part of why the transparency of the EU gets lost in translation in the UK.

You mean the incompetence of Grayling, Davis, Johnson, Hunt, Raab, Gove, Rudd, Mordaunt and the list is endless is nothing to do with them?

 

[Kinsella]

It's sad but I understand it. These people were brainwashed for 200 years plus to believe the white British were the epidome of life and they were privileged to be in their presence. You will find that people of the Windrush generation who were essentially tricked into coming to the UK for extra cheap labour (ironically the same reason the British government encouraged great EU immigration to the UK) they are probably more nationalist than most people born here.

How do you view your own national identity?

 

[Buster15]

Think the Uk is on its way out. Perhaps it should start reforming its own system first. Parliament is a joke.

Yes and No.
Yes of course Parliament is in dire need of reform. There can be very few who think it is fit for purpose or the 21st century for that matter.

However, I would not agree that the UK is on it's way out.
Just because our politicians are unable to manage the process for leaving the EU in an orderly manner, the UK itself is very much alive and kicking.
We continue to punch well above our weight in many levels and our future in or out of the EU remains extremely bright.
I have a very strong sense that the battering we are currently taking will play itself out and as a result we will be even more determined to succeed.
Never write the UK off. We will quickly bounce back from this debacle believe me.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Yes and No.
Yes of course Parliament is in dire need of reform. There can be very few who think it is fit for purpose or the 21st century for that matter.

However, I would not agree that the UK is on it's way out.
Just because our politicians are unable to manage the process for leaving the EU in an orderly manner, the UK itself is very much alive and kicking.
We continue to punch well above our weight in many levels and our future in or out of the EU remains extremely bright.
I have a very strong sense that the battering we are currently taking will play itself out and as a result we will be even more determined to succeed.
Never write the UK off. We will quickly bounce back from this debacle believe me.

When I said, on its way out, I meant next week out of the EU.

 

[Buster15]

I dont really understand the fears of the european superstate. Cooperating on trade, standards, freedom of movement, security and infrastructure just seems an eminently sensible approach to me.

There is a massive difference between between cooperation as individual countries and a relentless drift to a Federal Europe.

 

[Dante]

There's no way a United States could work. There's no precedent for it.

 

[horsechoker]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/04/no-deal-planning-operation-yellowhammer-brexit

I’m in no-deal planning ops. Here’s a briefing from our Whitehall bunker

 

[Kinsella]

Ireland has a history of neutrality which im quite fond of but I agree, think its a much harder sell than cooperating elsewhere and I'm not as convinced but agree overall. Realistically if were invaded an army made of european nations are probably (hopefully) going to show up to protect us. We can contribute to that financially if nothing elsee.



It doesn't need to. Thats a lot of stuff we could cooperate on that I think is pretty hard to argue isn't in our mutual interest.

It may not be but these things tend to have a direction of travel. A European superstate (the so called 'United States of Europe') is a legitimate aspiration of course. My primary problem with it is that it's led very much from the top down. In other words it's very inorganic, and this is usually a recipe for disaster. I also notice that those who most in favour of it tend to care more about the strength of their vision as opposed to its affects on real flesh and blood people.

You mention Irish neutrality above, so let's take that example. Personally, I'd hate the idea of Ireland becoming involved in some bloody foreign war and having that stain on our nation's history. No thanks.

 

[mancan92]

How do you view your own national identity?

I grew up here but had a family that incorporated both African and Caribbean culture into my life. So I would say I'm all 3 British African and Caribbean

 

[afrocentricity]

There's no way a United States could work. There's no precedent for it.

There's no precedent so it wouldn't work? That makes no sense...

I don't know enough about it but that's not a solid arguement. No precedent just means we don't have a proof of concept.

 

[Buster15]

When I said, on its way out, I meant next week out of the EU.

Thank you for the clarification. Nevertheless my comments on the UK future stand.

We are quite naturally feeling down and depressed and the level of self flagilation is understandable, it is important to look at the key economic numbers which despite all the forecast doom and gloom are surprisingly resilient.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

There's no precedent so it wouldn't work? That makes no sense...

I don't know enough about it but that's not a solid arguement. No precedent just means we don't have a proof of concept.

I think he's being sarcastic

 

[Dante]

There's no precedent so it wouldn't work? That makes no sense...

I don't know enough about it but that's not a solid arguement. No precedent just means we don't have a proof of concept.

I thought it was quite an obvious joke.

 

[afrocentricity]

I think he's being sarcastic

I thought it was quite an obvious joke.

I've been in this thread too long. Can't tell when posters are joking or serious, whether we are staying or leaving, whether I'm coming or going....

 

[Kinsella]

I thought it was quite an obvious joke.

I've been in this thread too long. Can't tell when posters are joking or serious, whether we are staying or leaving, whether I'm coming or going....

Don't be too hard on yourself. Twas an obvious joke with an obvious flaw.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Thank you for the clarification. Nevertheless my comments on the UK future stand.

We are quite naturally feeling down and depressed and the level of self flagilation is understandable, it is important to look at the key economic numbers which despite all the forecast doom and gloom are surprisingly resilient.

I'm sure the UK will be resilient but why put itself in this position. And for sure the people who are going to suffer the most are the people who voted for it (other than Mogg and co). I think there's a terrible shock to a lot of people coming.

 

[JPRouve]

Unfortunately, that is where you are wrong. Almost all of the members of the cabinet are elected members of parliament, therefore unless the environment minister is from the House of Lords, they are elected. That minister is then supported by the civil service, who largely are experts in their field but they do not direct policy.

This is probably part of why the transparency of the EU gets lost in translation in the UK.

Not really, you do not elect a minister into a specific ministry in the UK the PM is responsible for choosing the members of the government. Now in the EU, the head of states are responsible for choosing the members of the commission, they each pick one of their national, parliament vote them in and then the commission president appoint them, so in terms of transparency it's fairly easy to know who nominated who and who to blame if that's what you want. Some commissioners were MEPs others weren't, personally I don't have a problem with that but that's because it matches with french system. Also the commission is part of the EU civil service.
.

 

[Penna]

The EU has always been transparent if you've been interested enough to read the many, many documents online. It's just that most folk (me included) couldn't really be bothered or don't feel the need. I've always been happy to have a vote for an MEP who represents the region where I live, that's democracy. I also get email briefings from some MEPs because I'm a Labour Party member, I assume the other parties do the same for their members.

I just had a look at the EU parliament website front page - loads of info. It's no good folk saying it's not democratic, it's a leviathan, no-one knows what's going on blah blah. If you want to know what's going on, it's easy. And of course it's big - it's representing a lot of people.

 

[JPRouve]

The EU has always been transparent if you've been interested enough to read the many, many documents online. It's just that most folk (me included) couldn't really be bothered or don't feel the need. I've always been happy to have a vote for an MEP who represents the region where I live, that's democracy. I also get email briefings from some MEPs because I'm a Labour Party member, I assume the other parties do the same for their members.

I just had a look at the EU parliament website front page - loads of info. It's no good folk saying it's not democratic, it's a leviathan, no-one knows what's going on blah blah. If you want to know what's going on, it's easy. And of course it's big - it's representing a lot of people.

Think about the amount of british people that elected Theresa May as an MP and then the amount of MPs that elected her as the prime minister. That's not a lot of people that directly and indirectly made her head of state.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Think about the amount of british people that elected Theresa May as an MP and then the amount of MPs that elected her as the prime minister. That's not a lot of people that directly and indirectly made her head of state.

That’s a bad analogy in the context of British politics because plenty of people are dead against leaders with no democratic mandate, like May was initially and Brown was a few years back. It undermines them.

 

[Wibble]

The EU has always been transparent if you've been interested enough to read the many, many documents online. It's just that most folk (me included) couldn't really be bothered or don't feel the need. I've always been happy to have a vote for an MEP who represents the region where I live, that's democracy. I also get email briefings from some MEPs because I'm a Labour Party member, I assume the other parties do the same for their members.

I just had a look at the EU parliament website front page - loads of info. It's no good folk saying it's not democratic, it's a leviathan, no-one knows what's going on blah blah. If you want to know what's going on, it's easy. And of course it's big - it's representing a lot of people.

Who needs information and transparency when you alreafy have your opinion based on Tory/News Corp propoganda?

 

[Mogget]

There's not a lot of evidence to support fear of immigration being the main message that swayed people, never mind the only one:

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/dominic-cummings-brexit-referendum-won/

It's just more palatable for you to believe it so.

And of course this is based on the premise that people make decisions because of what people on the TV tell them to do. Which is just a little bit of an exaggeration of the effect of political messaging. People actually have their own thoughts too.

Of course. So that's why we have leavers being interviewed saying they voted leave because they want to "take back control" and for us to regain our "sovereignty". But none of them can explain exactly how we're losing our sovereignty or what laws we're made to follow by the EU courts they disagree with. But these are entirely original thoughts they've had and not just something they've heard JRM or Gove or Farage talk about

People can't even properly explain now why they think it's better for us to be out of the EU, it's bullshit to claim they knew before the referendum

 

[madzo2007]

Just going to leave this here. Oh Boris

 

[Dante]

The EU has always been transparent[/B] if you've been interested enough to read the many, many documents online. It's just that most folk (me included) couldn't really be bothered or don't feel the need. I've always been happy to have a vote for an MEP who represents the region where I live, that's democracy. I also get email briefings from some MEPs because I'm a Labour Party member, I assume the other parties do the same for their members.

I just had a look at the EU parliament website front page - loads of info. It's no good folk saying it's not democratic, it's a leviathan, no-one knows what's going on blah blah. If you want to know what's going on, it's easy. And of course it's big - it's representing a lot of people.

Not if you shut your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears whilst humming Rule Brittania to yourself.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Just going to leave this here. Oh Boris

The UK's in safe hands.

On a side note , whoever was doing the subtitles ought to be sacked.

 

[JPRouve]

That’s a bad analogy in the context of British politics because plenty of people are dead against leaders with no democratic mandate like May initially and Brown a few years back. It undermines them.

It's not a bad analogy when leavers use the UK as an example of proper democracy. By making that analogy, I'm just pointing to the fact that the system isn't that different, it's an indirect democracy where leaders with a popular mandate take decisions for us, now if I was totally honest I would say that the commissioner proposed by the french president has more legitimacy than the commissioner proposed by the UK PM since the french president is directly elected by the french electorate, in that sense we do have a problem.
But seriously I don't think that your system is bad or non democratic, it's just not that direct and you don't have as much say as some pretend even when we are talking about your head of government.

 

[17 Van der Gouw]

Not if you shut your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears whilst humming Rule Brittania to yourself.

So bitter

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Of course. So that's why we have leavers being interviewed saying they voted leave because they want to "take back control" and for us to regain our "sovereignty". But none of them can explain exactly how we're losing our sovereignty or what laws we're made to follow by the EU courts they disagree with. But these are entirely original thoughts they've had and not just something they've heard JRM or Gove or Farage talk about

People can't even properly explain now why they think it's better for us to be out of the EU, it's bullshit to claim they knew before the referendum

WTO! They're all experts.

 

[Brwned]

Of course. So that's why we have leavers being interviewed saying they voted leave because they want to "take back control" and for us to regain our "sovereignty". But none of them can explain exactly how we're losing our sovereignty or what laws we're made to follow by the EU courts they disagree with. But these are entirely original thoughts they've had and not just something they've heard JRM or Gove or Farage talk about

People can't even properly explain now why they think it's better for us to be out of the EU, it's bullshit to claim they knew before the referendum

None of that actually contradicts anything I said. Yes some people left because they are xenophobic. Yes some people decided to leave the EU because the leave campaign had some key messages that emotionally resonated with them, and had no substantive supporting evidence. What we're discussing is "the real reason people left". Implicit in that is the idea that this is the reason people voted for Brexit, not why some people voted for Brexit. The distinction is a pretty big one.

It is categorically untrue that this is why everyone voted Leave, and the evidence doesn't support the notion that it's the primary reason most people voted for it. It doesn't make sense to attack people for a belief unsupported by the evidence, based on your own belief unsupported by the evidence. I mean, you still get to claim the moral high ground, but logically it falls apart.

Beyond that, if you don't think that people cared about the sovereignty of the UK before Brexit, you should look at what some of the people said during the first referendum on the EU. There were multiple reasons why some people didn't vote for it then. Those people have been there since then, and new ones have been born. It's a real thing people care about, whether or not you deem it legitimate. For some people it's a smokescreen, for others it's genuine.