European Union Referendum

[mnb089mnb]

Our green and divided land.

 

[johnnytodd]

People still whinging about this referendum??...........deal with it.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Didn't you make the comment about taking the same stance? His comment was about questioning the mandate for a hard-Brexit based on a low margin and you questioned if he'd said the same if it was a narrow remain win. The only comparison would be with a hard-remain, which is now a "false-equivalence"?

There's no such thing as "hard Remain" as you're framing it, it's a complete fiction that anything remotely like that was ever on the table, while leaving the EU to escape freedom of movement was talked about throughout, and was the primarily motivation of many (if not most) Leave voters. The diametric opposite of the action that the referendum called for is inaction, not some other random action that no one ever talked about.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

Exactly.

“Hard Remain” would be fine if Remain had won the vote after spending a four-month campaign arguing for things like joining the single currency, signing the Schengen Agreement and fully supporting attempts to centralise fiscal decision-making in Brussels.

In fact, it spent four months studiously avoiding such talk. On the rare occasions that such ideas came up, the typical Remain response was to rubbish them and accuse Brexiters of scaremongering. So even if Remain had won 52-48, there would be no mandate for “Hard Remain”.

 

[Carver]

People still whinging about this referendum??...........deal with it.

You are a right wing lunatic, a racist and a sexist!!!

YOU ARE A STUPID IDIOT

 

[mnb089mnb]

350m to the NHS was on the table though.

Government has to try and keep the country as much as it can in (or access to) the single market without letting any of those terrible EU migrants in. The compromise (or not) it comes up with will be interesting.

 

[Destruction]

Exactly.

“Hard Remain” would be fine if Remain had won the vote after spending a four-month campaign arguing for things like joining the single currency, signing the Schengen Agreement and fully supporting attempts to centralise fiscal decision-making in Brussels.

In fact, it spent four months studiously avoiding such talk. On the rare occasions that such ideas came up, the typical Remain response was to rubbish them and accuse Brexiters of scaremongering. So even if Remain had won 52-48, there would be no mandate for “Hard Remain”.

Where Remain went wrong was not spending months promising us all a free car, £10,000 each and a blow job off a Spice Girl of our choosing. Bullshit like that could have really swung it.

 

[Abertawe]

this one, showing areas where over 50% of the electorate voted either way, is gross

Gimp.

 

[smat]

Gimp.

3-2

 

[johnnytodd]

You are a right wing lunatic, a racist and a sexist!!!

YOU ARE A STUPID IDIOT

you forgot homophobe

 

[Carver]

you forgot homophobe

Ah yes and that, oh and your anti-choice as well!!! And worst of all, YOU'RE A WHITE MALE.

Well, I'm assuming anyway!

 

[johnnytodd]

Ah yes and that, oh and your anti-choice as well!!! And worst of all, YOU'RE A WHITE MALE.

Well, I'm assuming anyway!

 

[.V.]

Does anyone know if I can buy shares in the Women's Institute?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...biscuits-will-be-at-the-heart-of-britains-br/

 

[silkyman]

Don't we... Erm... Import tea?

 

[Abertawe]

Don't we... Erm... Import tea?

Yeah that well known european tea.

If owt Brexit means cheaper tea!

 

[mnb089mnb]

https://www.bet365.com/hu/
https://www.bet365.com/

https://www.bet365.com/hu/
https://www.bet365.com/

https://www.bet365.com/hu/
https://www.bet365.com/

https://www.bet365.com/hu/
https://www.bet365.com/

https://www.bet365.com/hu/
https://www.bet365.com/

https://www.bet365.com/hu/
https://www.bet365.com/

https://www.bet365.com/hu/
https://www.bet365.com/

https://www.bet365.com/hu/
https://www.bet365.com/

https://www.bet365.com/hu/
https://www.bet365.com/

https://www.bet365.com/hu/
https://www.bet365.com/

https://www.bet365.com/hu/
https://www.bet365.com/

https://www.bet365.com/hu/
https://www.bet365.com/

https://www.bet365.com/hu/
https://www.bet365.com/

https://www.bet365.com/hu/
https://www.bet365.com/

https://www.bet365.com/hu/
https://www.bet365.com/

https://www.bet365.com/hu/
https://www.bet365.com/

https://www.bet365.com/hu/
https://www.bet365.com/

https://www.bet365.com/hu/
https://www.bet365.com/

https://www.bet365.com/hu/
https://www.bet365.com/

https://www.bet365.com/hu/
https://www.bet365.com/

https://www.bet365.com/hu/
https://www.bet365.com/

https://www.bet365.com/hu/
https://www.bet365.com/

https://www.bet365.com/hu/
https://www.bet365.com/

https://tinyurl.com/ybaeqg5l

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

What rhetoric did you find particularly objectionable? There was nothing I thought seemed massively intemperate or worrying.

The thing that people picked up on and got their knickers in a twist about was the proposal to publish the percentage of foreign workers at firms. It was perhaps the most gimmicky of a series of measures (all just proposals at this point) to discourage firms from continuing to recruit directly from abroad even when there are people already in the UK who can - and want to - do that work. Maybe you disagree with that. But if you do you're right on the same page as neoliberals and big corporations.

Well, I do disagree with that and think that it's divisive, unhelpful and pandering to some pretty base sentiments. I can live with being on that page - my chief concern is that employees feel as though they're valued, irrespective of nationality.

I was making a general observation, not attempting to define terms like “conservative”, “liberal” or “progressive” with essentialist certainty.

Generally, people who self-identify as conservative are jitterier about upsetting the established socio-political and economic order than people who self-identify as left wing, progressive, etc.

It’s a generalisation and, like any other generalisation, the best if can do is convey a general sort of truth – one that most people recognise and put some store in, even if any tedious clever-dick arsehole could point to various counterexamples.

Women are more emotionally articulate than men. Most people would recognise a general truth in that statement, even though it could be easily countered by, say, comparing a Shakespeare sonnet to a YouTube video featuring White Dee. The generalisation in my second paragraph should be considered in a similar way.

It’s certainly not my view that it’s incumbent on lefty-liberal progressives to embrace change, and it’s reaching to infer such a view from anything I’ve written in this thread. You’re attacking a straw man there, I think.

Of course it’s not hypocritical of lefty-liberal types to oppose change. It is, however, highly unusual to see so many of them side with the political and business establishment, especially at a time when Tories dominate it. And it’s even more unusual when they support and justify that position by co-opting the language, arguments and presuppositions of people (conservatives) they usually hate. If I was having a swipe at anyone, it was that latter type.

This isn’t to write off the entire lefty case for Remain as hypocritical hooey. There are some strong arguments on that side, and I’ve done more than most in this thread to engage with them. It’s just pointing out the bizarreness of people arguing against Brexit by getting all Helen Lovejoy about the declining value of sterling (or whatever) when their default position is that the existing economic order is fundamentally unjust and they support all kinds of radical policies that would, if implemented, spook the markets and have adverse economic effects.

Again, just an observation. Apologies if it lacks the intellectual rigour required to pass a GCSE in Civics.

Not really sure about this. Surely it only really holds if you imagine that the leading Brexiters represent something other than the political and business establishment? But in the Brexit corner we had prominent members of the political establishment - Nigel Farage (Dulwich College, former City trader), Boris Johnson (Eton, Oxford, Times, Telegraph), Michael Gove (Oxford, Times) and a large section of the Conservative party. We also had various media - the Daily Mail (proprietor Viscount Rothermere, billionaire and non-dom tax dodger), the Telegraph (billionaire tax exiles, the Barclay bros), the Sun (Rupert Murdoch, another billionaire media baron), the Express (Richard "dirty" Desmond, anoth.. um, yeah, you guessed it). Whatever they purport to be this lot are also The Establishment and they were, by and large, selling a vision of Britain that was decidedly regressive in nature, the pitch being a return to a sort of mythical 50s Britain where darkies and people with funny foreign accents were few and far between. Not sure either about the "parroting the concerns of big business" stuff as I hardly feel that you need to be a FTSE 100 chair to identify that leaving the EU might carry economic risks (this much is blindingly obvious). One could quite reasonably argue that the withdrawal of EU funding will have a disproportionate impact on more deprived regions or that any economic downturn will have the most marked effect on those on low and middle incomes. Might giant conglomerates be strange bedfellows for those of us of a lefty/liberal persuasion? Quite possibly, but I'm quite sure no one wants to see the economy go totally tits up, especially if it does so as a result of a change that you don't imagine will deliver any discernible benefit.

While I can see where you're coming from I don't actually think it represents anything like a role reversal. I think a lot of Brexit's appeal actually lay in a deep-rooted resistance to change - the notion of lost identity due to rising levels of immigration or the desire to restore Britain to greatness, which can only be achieved by regaining sovereignty. This was a movement that seemed fundamentally conservative in nature.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

I was making a general observation, not attempting to define terms like “conservative”, “liberal” or “progressive” with essentialist certainty.

Generally, people who self-identify as conservative are jitterier about upsetting the established socio-political and economic order than people who self-identify as left wing, progressive, etc.

It’s a generalisation and, like any other generalisation, the best if can do is convey a general sort of truth – one that most people recognise and put some store in, even if any tedious clever-dick arsehole could point to various counterexamples.

Women are more emotionally articulate than men. Most people would recognise a general truth in that statement, even though it could be easily countered by, say, comparing a Shakespeare sonnet to a YouTube video featuring White Dee. The generalisation in my second paragraph should be considered in a similar way.

It’s certainly not my view that it’s incumbent on lefty-liberal progressives to embrace change, and it’s reaching to infer such a view from anything I’ve written in this thread. You’re attacking a straw man there, I think.

Of course it’s not hypocritical of lefty-liberal types to oppose change. It is, however, highly unusual to see so many of them side with the political and business establishment, especially at a time when Tories dominate it. And it’s even more unusual when they support and justify that position by co-opting the language, arguments and presuppositions of people (conservatives) they usually hate. If I was having a swipe at anyone, it was that latter type.

This isn’t to write off the entire lefty case for Remain as hypocritical hooey. There are some strong arguments on that side, and I’ve done more than most in this thread to engage with them. It’s just pointing out the bizarreness of people arguing against Brexit by getting all Helen Lovejoy about the declining value of sterling (or whatever) when their default position is that the existing economic order is fundamentally unjust and they support all kinds of radical policies that would, if implemented, spook the markets and have adverse economic effects.

Again, just an observation. Apologies if it lacks the intellectual rigour required to pass a GCSE in Civics.

Modern Conservatism largely is largely based on the belief that a rising tide lifts all boats and that the freer the restrictions on the provision of goods and services, the better the economy, the more jobs there are. For Conservatives, freeing capitalism to make money and provide jobs should the primary role of government. Throw in some notions of "fairness" (not actual fairness - rather rolling back welfare etc) and some traditional social values and that's sort of it.

That the government acts to free up business to stimulate economic growth is sort of crucial to the goals of modern conservatism.

The left dispute this but say economic justice should take precedence over growth. But that's a matter of priorities, rather than of principle - Labour rely nearly as much as the Tories on economic growth to achieve their political goals, and as such while they may disagree on the relative importance of the price of sterling, it's still relevant to both of them.

But the Brexit Tories aren't really of that Thatcherite monetarist mould. They are revanchists. In opposing immigration, in demanding "hard brexit", they aren't worried about the economic damage they're doing - or rather they consider it a small price to pay for achieving their political goals - that of vastly reduced immigration, nativist policies and, as far as I can tell, some sort of attempt to bring together the white parts of the British Empire as a transnational economic (and probably political) union.

In that, they have the support of most of the British people - a majority of whom believe that immigration should be reduced even if it makes us significantly worse off.

I don't think there's any hypocrisy in being unconcerned about a Sterling crash when it's in response (for example) to the government undermining the property market by building large numbers of social housing (because that is something that makes the working-class better off to a point where it would offset the increased costs of a weak pound) and to be concerned about the price of Sterling when it's in response to the government attempting to turn Britain into a neo-Victorian hellscape.

I'm personally concerned about the price of Sterling because the current crash will make goods more expensive. I dunno, maybe the economic uncertainty will cause a crash in house prices and rents and offset it. Who knows? Certainly not any of the people with their hands on the steering wheel. But while I may want to abolish the current economic order, I still have to live in it (in the same way that wanting to abolish private property doesn't mean I don't still have to live in a house).

 

[Captain Scumbag]

Okay, let’s simply this.

No interesting role reversal type thing occurred. I was wrong.

Conservatives remain, as ever, a rotten bunch of small-minded, racist shits.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

FWIW, I think "look at the price of Sterling" is a terrible way to argue in that it concedes the matter of principle to essentially defer questions to the authority and judgement of nebulous and unaccountable "markets". I think we should be fighting for free movement because free movement is a principle worth fighting for.

Can't pretend we're not all getting fucked over by the crash in Sterling though.

A lot of the post-Brexit policy is almost self-evidently counterproductive - e.g. massive cuts to the numbers of international students. can understand you don't have the energy to justify post-brexit Tory policy e.g. why sabotaging HE is actually good - but I find it hard to come up with rational explanations for it except through the lens of revanchism.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

If the referendum had purely been on abolishing freedom of movement then it would have likely won in a landslide. That's an issue with a clear majority against it in this country even among first and second generation immigrants. It's one of the core reasons that many voted to leave, and rightly or wrongly it would be seen as a massive betrayal on the part of the Tories - tantamount to reneging on their referendum pledge - if they had tried to keep it post-Brexit. It doesn't take much imagination to see why they'd want to opt out. The worst that can happen from their point of view is they give the people exactly what they asked for.

 

[Alty]

FWIW, I think "look at the price of Sterling" is a terrible way to argue in that it concedes the matter of principle to essentially defer questions to the authority and judgement of nebulous and unaccountable "markets". I think we should be fighting for free movement because free movement is a principle worth fighting for.

Can't pretend we're not all getting fucked over by the crash in Sterling though.

A lot of the post-Brexit policy is almost self-evidently counterproductive - e.g. massive cuts to the numbers of international students. can understand you don't have the energy to justify post-brexit Tory policy e.g. why sabotaging HE is actually good - but I find it hard to come up with rational explanations for it except through the lens of revanchism.

Re HE - after initially being hostile the Russell Group are actually quite happy with most of the Government's proposals. Mainly because they aim to significantly reduce the number of students attending what you might politely call 'recruiter' universities, particularly if they're doing less challenging subjects. The ambition isn't to stop geniuses going to Oxford or the LSE.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Re HE - after initially being hostile the Russell Group are actually quite happy with most of the Government's proposals. Mainly because they aim to significantly reduce the number of students attending what you might politely call 'recruiter' universities, particularly if they're doing less challenging subjects. The ambition isn't to stop geniuses going to Oxford or the LSE.

Yeah, obviously research universities aren't going to be affected - though those universities are now going to struggle to attract geniuses who want to do research because of the removal of EU funding.

Restricting international students from attending teaching-focused universities will probably gut that sector, though (given that international students pay much larger fees). Maybe that's part of the aim. Again, government intervention to reverse the 1992 expansion of universities is revanchist.

 

[Super_horns]

Gary Lineker and other celebs are getting caught up in the migrant row on Twitter and the such.

Without wishing to cause another debate turning into a ranting match do people think they have a point in airing their views or maybe should just keep out of such discussions?

There were even calls for the BBC to be sacked because his views upset some people....

 

[Benji]

Not sure why saying refugees should be treated with respect has caused such a vitriolic response from shitty newspapers, but it might have something to do with a Sun reporter being sent to prison the other day.

 

[Veggie Legs]

Gary Lineker and other celebs are getting caught up in the migrant row on Twitter and the such.

Without wishing to cause another debate turning into a ranting match do people think they have a point in airing their views or maybe should just keep out of such discussions?

There were even calls for the BBC to be sacked because his views upset some people....

I don't see the problem with famous people expressing views on Twitter, I'm sure there are thousands of people expressing similar views who just happen to not have as many followers. If he was talking about refugees on MOTD then that might be an issue, but calling for him to be sacked for this is beyond stupid.

 

[Look Out There Are Llamas]

Anyone calling for him to be sacked can fuck off to be honest.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Not sure why saying refugees should be treated with respect has caused such a vitriolic response from shitty newspapers, but it might have something to do with a Sun reporter being sent to prison the other day.

No, it's because this country is a racist shithole and even implying that refugees and migrants are human is now pretty much taboo.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Not sure why saying refugees should be treated with respect has caused such a vitriolic response from shitty newspapers, [...]

It hasn't. What caused a fuss was him calling people racist for pointing out that grown men in their 20s and 30s were patently not 'children'.

 

[Benji]

Well if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.