It has been 4.5 years, and going over some serious old ground.
It is utter insanity to assume the 18m people had the same reasons for voting.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
It has been 4.5 years, and going over some serious old ground.
It is utter insanity to assume the 18m people had the same reasons for voting.
Best to ask what the advantages are, haven't heard of any yet.
Immigration is higher than ever so that didn't work. Strike one.
It has been 4.5 years and no one can come up with a credible different answer. And it made particularly difficult by the simple fact that both the political class and the media built brexit on fear of the foreigner and foreign institutions.
The insanity is to try to sell the idea that the campaigns built around immigrants stealing jobs/chasing benefits, a potential muslim invasion when Turkey joins the EU, the constant lies about the EU as an institution, the lies about the UK not being sovereign anymore, about the UK being ruled by foreigners.
That campaign has been built for more than a decade and we still have people acting as if there was an other reason behind brexit, a reason(s) that is still not explained after 4.5 years.
There were many reasons what people thought they were voting for when they voted Brexit but there were only two reasons why they voted Brexit.
1. they were complete morons or 2. they were insane.
1. they were complete morons or 2. they were insane.
Yet in a way they did... it was the first time since the 1970's, with a number of major treaties having changed, with both the number of countries increased and introducing a unitary money system, i.e. what became known as the euro zone, that anyone in the UK had have ever been asked to vote directly on EEC/EU matters .
So the answer to the question about same reasons for voting ... was because for the first time in over forty years they could!
I wouldn't say it like that. When you are discreetly fed a narrative for a long time, you may begin to eat it.
The real problem was the leave campaign. That spent most of the time fearmongering and not explaining to people all that was good about being in the EU, and what they had done for you.
Good question. What I find most obvious is that the whole leave imperative was based on a fictitious illusion. And there were countless versions of that illusion. Most were philosophical arguments with close to zero concrete examples.
Very few people, me included, took the time to try to understand how the EU actually operated; specifically the free market.
One person who most definitely did not and still does not is our PM. He loves to quote the UK as a sovereign nation without understanding that you can still be a sovereign nation (whatever that means) while still being a member of the EU.
But we are where we are and are just going to have to live with the consequences of our actions.
EDIT. Meant to say single market.
Last edited:
Because they did not have the capacity to think for themselves but I understand your point. It becomes a kind of hysteria.
Ah yes because it needs to be explained to everyone how not to be an idiot. Anyone with any common sense could see Brexit was a disaster and there was only one way to vote.
Sounds like the dystopian vision for the future we have all been waiting for.
Yet, if there was a GERXIT vote right now, I could see 40% in Germany voting for it.
If there is a popular figure and theme, I could see it becoming a close vote.
Would racism and immigration be part of the picture in that case in Germany? Certainly!
Nationalism? Definitely!
Sense of superiority? A huge factor.
A sense of German pride? For sure!
(False) Myths about the efficacy of the EU? Yes!
Rational reasons? Oh, yes, one must not forget that not everyone wins in the EU.
A belief that the Golden Age of the past might be reignited if Germany left the EU? Oh, yes...
Problems with the way the EU is operating? Since there are some problems, this would be a part of the picture.
Doubts about the democratic legitimisation of the EU? If you are a hardcore democrat you must feel that there is a lot to be desired in terms of representation and decision making.
Unhealthy relationship between EU and national politics? One must admit that also in Germany politicians love to blame the EU and use it as an excuse not to deal with an issue nationally (a la "this in an important issue, but we need to tackle it at the EU level...", which quite often leads to no action at all...)
If there is a popular figure and theme, I could see it becoming a close vote.
Would racism and immigration be part of the picture in that case in Germany? Certainly!
Nationalism? Definitely!
Sense of superiority? A huge factor.
A sense of German pride? For sure!
(False) Myths about the efficacy of the EU? Yes!
Rational reasons? Oh, yes, one must not forget that not everyone wins in the EU.
A belief that the Golden Age of the past might be reignited if Germany left the EU? Oh, yes...
Problems with the way the EU is operating? Since there are some problems, this would be a part of the picture.
Doubts about the democratic legitimisation of the EU? If you are a hardcore democrat you must feel that there is a lot to be desired in terms of representation and decision making.
Unhealthy relationship between EU and national politics? One must admit that also in Germany politicians love to blame the EU and use it as an excuse not to deal with an issue nationally (a la "this in an important issue, but we need to tackle it at the EU level...", which quite often leads to no action at all...)
I'm sure they do, you just hear more from them when they get elected to government.
This is probably the point that bothers me the most, it doesn't even begin to make sense yet people seem to think that it does. I still haven't seen anyone elaborate on it while taking into account the fact that the EU is a supranational organization where everyone is represented by its own government and head of state, plus a member of the european parliament, that's without taking into account treaties where you are also represented by your own national member of parliament depending on the consitution of your own country.
Also the EU goes under Foreign Affairs.
it doesn’t matter whether it’s credible or not. whether it can be proved or not. That debate has been done to death. I was in my 30s when that happened.
I’m also not saying that clearly a proportion (what proportion I don’t know, obviously) of people voted because of immigration - but to say that’s the only reason is not correct.
@UweBein has outlined some of the potential reasons.
again whether anyone agrees with them is not the point.
Personally, though I am hugely in favour of the EU, I think the democratic deficit, both perceived and actual, is a real problem and should be addressed by the EU. While there are elections to the European Parliament, turnout is so low across most countries that I think it's a stretch to call it representative. The vast majority of citizens do not know who their representatives are, what issues they are voting on, or how to contact them. That's not democracy and it needs to be fixed.
In a previous job, I had to work with one of the EU Commissioners on developing a new policy area. I came away from that experience with the view that the way EU legislation is developed is FAR from a democratic process.
I also think that too often the public has been given the explanation that rules cannot be changed 'because it's EU law'. One example we saw in Britain was the so-called 'tampon tax', where a grassroots campaign from female rights organisations to abolish VAT on women's sanitary products was denied despite widespread support. The government said it wasn't allowed to fix the problem because 'it's EU law', which is true. I think that leaves people feeling a democratic unfairness because they don't have a clear path to influence legislation, campaign or vote for change on such issues.
While none of this is the main reason a majority voted to leave the EU (immigration was by far the most important issue), I think the EU needs to seriously consider improving how its citizens can feel heard and represented, and allow more flexibility and localism.
I was thinking that we could start a security firm to stop brits hiding in the back of lorries to get into the EU!
Ooh. I like that idea. Once we make enough money we can build a wall. Obviously a wall on the Irish border would be impossible due to different planning regulations, though.
Nothing is impossible, we could even get Mexico to pay for it.
Your first paragraph has little to do with democracy, it's about people not caring about the subject and then putting the blame on someone else. And you are represented by your head of state and your government which is how all foreign affairs are dealt. The problem here is the term deficit, there is no deficit, on that topic the EU isn't different to any other supranational organization to any foreign affair topic. What people are suggesting isn't to fix a deficit but to create a surplus and while in theory the idea seems appealing, I want to know how people see that outside of a federation.
Your third paragraph is important. The clear path is what they did, campaign for the change they want, now since VAT rules are part of an international agreement that the UK built and agreed on with 27 other countries they have to talk about it with these people and that's where problems start, our politicians take decisions and then blame someone else for it. What they call "EU law" is their own law, the fruit of their own negotiations. Now I guess that you already know that but I want you to realize that the way you put it is why many people are still fooled by politicians and medias, you need to call it as it is.
And to stop Brits buying rubber dinghies to escape across the Channel.
Rats leaving the sinking ship??
I can think of quite a few rats...
Rule Britannia.
A lot of the news sites are saying the deal is pretty much agreed now. It's probably all relaying the information from the EU official Reuters have quoted.
It has certainty been very quiet the last few days - would be good to read into that, that a deal has been done.
A 'democracy' without an informed and engaged electorate is a democracy in name only. I also think it's a mistake to see the EU as mere 'foreign policy' - it's a hybrid of foreign and domestic affairs where it relates to the EU's exclusive competences. There is also the doctrine of primacy of EU law over national law and constitutional affairs (which was not actually established by the Treaty of Rome or any subsequent treaty, but claimed unilaterally by the court in 1964).
You are over-simplifying. A large bulk of EU law is legislated through qualified majority voting where negotiation or compromise with any one member state is not necessarily needed. Also, EU law is interpreted by the European Court of Justice which, let's be honest, often pushes principles of the law further than were originally intended by legislators. I'm not naive, sometimes this is needed in an organisation with many members (the US does the same thing with their Supreme Court rulings), but it does raise the problem of democratic consent.
Fabrizio Romano: EU and UK reach deal for 70m with balon d'or clause. Announcement expected tonight
We do not want any member of the Tory Cabinet over here , or the goggle eyed dwarf.
Not injustices its opportunities, wherever you look...just ask Boris!... Every cloud ( -4 - )....! One mans meat another mans ( -1-)....! Every journey of a thousand miles begins with the ( -2- )...!Sounds like the dystopian vision for the future we have all been waiting for.
* fill in the missing words, the numbers represent the words missing... show you are on message
When the electorate has the tools to inform itself but refuse to do it, I don't see how you manage to question democracy, it's the choice of the people, their democratic choice to be ignorant. The EU is Foreign Affairs and there is no way around it unless the EU becomes a federation, everything concerning the EU is based on the principle of state consent which can be taken away at any point by any member state or any country that has agreed on a multilateral treaty.
As for your point about primacy, you actually showed why the EU is 100% foreign policy, it is an example of legal system dualism where the EU legal systems emanates from the states foreign relations through treaties(icnluding the EU commission and its legal acts) while the domestic legal system emanates from the states own unilateral decisions, national courts or national parliaments, that dichotomy had to be addressed which is why the court decision was needed, national courts still reserve themselves the right to review EU laws constitutionality. It's also worth reminding that there is also a dualism when it comes to judicial systems. The general point being that the dualism between the EU and its member states is clear whether we are talking about the principal of state consent, the legal systems or the judicial systems.
I'm not suggesting that the clear path will be successful, you need to be able to convince other members of the custom union because you collectively agreed on anti-dumping rules. On a small tangent how many law proposals are made in the national parliaments or even town halls and are declined? When you listen to people you would swear that everyting is always accepted, people seem to lose sense when the EU or international agreements are involved and think that everyting as to be request has to be accepted otherwise there is a fundamental problem. And no courts decisions do not raise the problem of democratic consent, courts are not meant to be popular.
two things.
1. Leave would never have won without the racists and xenophobic.
2. What’s the upside? Just one big ticket upside to Brexit.
I wonder just how much of a climb down Boris had to do to secure this.
1. potentially. Doesn’t mean everyone who voted to leave is a racist or xenophobe. Furthermore, there would have been people who are racist/ xenophobic who voted to stay.
2. Not the point in the discussion.
The cabinet has been called to attend an internet meeting, it's looking very close now. I'm expecting a shedload of posts here along the lines of 'it's a shit deal' and 'Boris is an idiot', but personally I hope it's a rare step in a positive direction, whether Boris has done it or not. Yeah, it's not a customs deal, it doesn't cover loads of things we would really want, but we always knew that, the question for tonight is whether as a trade deal it's better than no deal. I hope it is anyway.
There is an EU Commissioner for Home Affairs. It's literally their job title.(As an aside, a territory can secede from a nation and this is not the distinction between home and foreign affairs. Scotland nearly left the UK not too long ago.)
The trouble is the EU treaties are basically not fit for purpose, so the EU Court of Justice sometimes has to make rulings which flagrantly stretch the intent of the law beyond any sensible reading of the text. We saw it earlier this year when the German Federal Constitutional Court said the EU Court of Justice was making indefensible rulings when it came to the ECB's mandate.
The point is that in domestic politics the average person can generally understand the dynamics of politics and who to lobby and hold to account. In the UK, that would be the Tories on the right and Labour on the left, and people know who has made what laws, and why, and who to vote out if they don't like it. Ask the average person in any EU country what the composition of the EU parliament is, which parties are in alliances and power, what are the issues at play... they won't have a clue. It's a mystery to most people. There isn't really unified election campaigning with real trans-national parties where people can directly influence policy. There's slightly odd and ever changing groupings of national parties, where deals are done behind closed doors and any potential for direct influence from citizens is minimal.
Last edited:
Looks like a deal will be announced tomorrow
is that a hunch? Or do we have some ‘leaks’ etc?