Politics, politics, politics

[DTA]

1) Id have backed that simply to stop all the tinkling and whining. As well as which, I dont think its unfair to offer choices - so long as leaving happens. This is different from those wanting a second referendum simply because they didnt get the result they wanted.

2) Youve clearly constructed a whole scenario, a clearly biased one. You infer a lot, its your opinion - it is not fact.

1) I'm saying at least a second referendum is needed which gives the options of:

1)Norway model 2) maybot cluster fudge result of her great negotiations 3) cliff edge Hard Brexit

That way at least the people would get what they actually voted (to an extent at least) for not some catch all term like Brexit or Leave.

2) that's not opinion that's all facts. All those things (and more) came together and the result was a narrow Leave victory

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

1) Fine, I dont really care. Leaving is the key part. If we are presented with options of what that looks like, then fair enough.

2) It is not all facts. Both sides had propoganda, both had the same opportunities, and shamefully both argued on PR rather than policy. All the rest is your constructed narrative of various facets. Ive no doubt there are many omissions from that construct that wouldnt suit it.

For a myriad of reasons, people wanted to leave. You speak of the leave vote as one mass, that has been guided blindly and ignorantly, which is quite frankly offensive.

 

[SpurMeUp]

As said many times, the people already voted. Having a do-over just because it didnt go the way you wanted really doesnt jive.

And yes, many of your points are valid. People didnt know what would happen, but voted that way all the same, which I think speaks volumes about it all really.

Why wouldn't you want another vote now things are clearer? Almost like Banks and the Leave establishment - there is a desire to pull the wool over peoples eyes and get it done before people catch up with the reality?

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Why wouldn't you want another vote now things are clearer? Almost like the Leave establishment - there is a desire to pull the wool over peoples eyes and get it done before people catch up with the reality?

As already stated, a vote on what leave looks like is one thing, a vote on over turning the other vote is something else entirely - and quite frankly wrong, IMO.

EDIT - and look at how you post. What "leave establishment"? Who is pulling what over peoples eyes? Like others youve built up a whole construct, and its THAT which you are arguing.

 

[SpurMeUp]

As already stated, a vote on what leave looks like is one thing, a vote on over turning the other vote is something else entirely - and quite frankly wrong, IMO.

EDIT - and look at how you post. What "leave establishment"? Who is pulling what over peoples eyes? Like others youve built up a whole construct, and its THAT which you are arguing.

Why is it wrong in your opinion? Democracy is not a one-off event is it? If people were not clear about the details - and who was, from politicians to the media this was new ground with new complexities - then what could be wrong about people having the chance to make an informed choice? Why not just say, it wouldn't be wrong, but I just want to get Brexit through at all costs? My allegiances are so tribal and set, I don't want to see this one lose.

Read my above post. A collection of wealthy individuals (many who own businesses who have a gripe with EU laws) funded Brexit. A US citizen should not be allowed to fund a UK political campaign, but everyone knows Steve Banon did. Arron Banks is very clear about how he used his one-shot at Brexit to say anything to get the desired result. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44446632 In his own book he is remarkably candid showing off to the world that he knew that if the Brexit discourse was about the economy they would lose, so they did everything they could to move it onto immigration. It was an inspired strategy. They were the underdogs. But it was all about the result not reality, and it will let people down long term because the EU is more connected to our economy than to our immigration.

 

[Parklaner81]

Yeah ok they weren't voting on purely economic calculations. But they were told a lot of things that have turned out to be untruthful, they were told by the leave campaign that Brexit won't have a bad impact in the British Economy. They were told by Farage himself that we could go for the Norway Option (which would leave us with less control but have less economic impact). What ''leave" didn't tell them, is that they would be poorer and so might their children... So you know what the term ''no one voted for less jobs' is a fair one.

This view neglects to mention that the remain campaign actually went pretty hard on the potential negative economic impact - remember the 'punishment budget', for example?

You're talking as if the potential for an economic downturn is somehow new information, that was concealed from the electorate pre-vote. It wasn't. Remain did it to death, and they still lost.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Why is it wrong in your opinion? Democracy is not a one-off event is it? If people were not clear about the details - and who was, from politicians to the media this was new ground with new complexities - then what could be wrong about people having the chance to make an informed choice? Why not just say, it wouldn't be wrong, but I just want to get Brexit through at all costs? My allegiances are so tribal and set, I don't want to see this one lose.

Read my above post. A collection of wealthy individuals (many who own businesses who have a gripe with EU laws) funded Brexit. A US citizen should not be allowed to fund a UK political campaign, but everyone knows Steve Banon did. Arron Banks is very clear about how he used his one-shot at Brexit to say anything to get the desired result. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44446632 In his own book he is remarkably candid showing off to the world that he knew that if the Brexit discourse was about the economy they would lose, so they did everything they could to move it onto immigration. It was an inspired strategy. They were the underdogs. But it was all about the result not reality, and it will let people down long term because the EU is more connected to our economy than to our immigration.

The country voted to leave, that needs to be respected, THAT is democracy. This isnt the Lisbon Treaty, we dont re-do it until the powers that be get their way.


I couldnt give a fudge about any collection of wealthy individuals. They made no bearing on my choices, nor anybody else I know of (both for or against). And its not as if the Remain side of the campaign didnt have their backers too. Its a folly to try and turn things into that debate, a red herring. Those sorts of shenanigans happen on either side, and only really effect the simple minded folk - of which both sides have plenty voting their way.

 

[DTA]

This view neglects to mention that the remain campaign actually went pretty hard on the potential negative economic impact - remember the 'punishment budget', for example?

You're talking as if the potential for an economic downturn is somehow new information, that was concealed from the electorate pre-vote. It wasn't. Remain did it to death, and they still lost.

and Leave dismissed this as "project fear". In a very disingenuous way thus leaving their supporters believing there was nothing to worry about economically. What
Project fear is turning out to be project reality or Project Fact

leave Manipulated the population through lies and proganda.

If you believe in democracy and the will of the people... And we are going to have referendums then... The protagonists must legally be required not to mislead.

When we know what's on offer then let's vote on what we want.

We were sold a crock of brick ... If there are to be hard times ahead then let us go into them with our eyes open, where people have an informed vote and make a proper decision based on the facts at hand and their aspirations for themselves and their children.

Not on stoking fears of the invading hoards and unicorn endorsed empire MK2 trade deals.

 

[DTA]

The country voted to leave, that needs to be respected, THAT is democracy. This isnt the Lisbon Treaty, we dont re-do it until the powers that be get their way.


I couldnt give a fudge about any collection of wealthy individuals. They made no bearing on my choices, nor anybody else I know of (both for or against). And its not as if the Remain side of the campaign didnt have their backers too. Its a folly to try and turn things into that debate, a red herring. Those sorts of shenanigans happen on either side, and only really effect the simple minded folk - of which both sides have plenty voting their way.

With all due respect, you or I for that matter have no idea the level of influence they had over our choices

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Youre whole argument is as if remain didnt even have a campaign, come on!

As for project fact - what facts are there? The only things that have actually happened so far are so blindingly obvious even I predicted most of them.

Until Brexit takes shape things are uncertain. Businesses/investors do not like uncertainty, reactions in this sector are entirely expected.

Otherwise, Milos endless tweets about companies leaving - how many actually have? And how many are just making threats and blowing hot air?

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

With all due respect, you or I for that matter have no idea the level of influence they had over our choices

With all due respect, thats a weak point to make.

I can articulate the choices I have made, I have done so. If I was under some subliminal Russian mind control I think that would have been pretty obvious by now.

 

[DTA]

With all due respect, thats a weak point to make.

I can articulate the choices I have made, I have done so. If I was under some subliminal Russian mind control I think that would have been pretty obvious by now.

You may be able to articulate the reasons behind your choices, but what you can not do is state, with any sort of certainty what influenced those reasons and critically whether those influences where organically acquired, or somewhere down the line through the paid propagation of discourses from nefarious disaster capitalists or hostile foreign agents.

If you can do that you're totally amazing and you should totally give the CIA a buzz they would love to hear about your system .

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

Otherwise, Milos endless tweets about companies leaving - how many actually have? And how many are just making threats and blowing hot air?

Obviously it tends to be a matter of large corporations moving operations from the UK to Europe, rather than a complete shut-down of UK activities. But if you don't take Airbus and BMW seriously, look at financial services, which is moving quickest. Goldman Sachs closed down its hedge fund operations in the UK last year and moved them to Frankfurt. Barclays is recruiting 150 employees in Dublin to take on roles previously handled in the UK. Lloyds has done the same in Belgium. This isn't hot air.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

You may be able to articulate the reasons behind your choices, but what you can not do is state, with any sort of certainty what influenced those reasons and critically whether those influences where organically acquired, or somewhere down the line through the paid propagation of discourses from nefarious disaster capitalists or hostile foreign agents.

If you can do that you're totally amazing and you should totally give the CIA a buzz they would love to hear about your system .

Right, so basically - you are right regardless? Because Russians and Facebook.

You might want to take a moment and actually think about that line of argument, and specifically just how much weight you put behind it.

You argue as if we are mindless zombies being controlled. At best, and I mean AT BEST, I could see that sort of influence pushing pre-existing tendencies, not just farming votes as if the voter had no choice (or idea).

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Obviously it tends to be a matter of large corporations moving operations from the UK to Europe, rather than a complete shut-down of UK activities. But if you don't take Airbus and BMW seriously, look at financial services, which is moving quickest. Goldman Sachs closed down its hedge fund operations in the UK last year and moved them to Frankfurt. Barclays is recruiting 150 employees in Dublin to take on roles previously handled in the UK. Lloyds has done the same in Belgium. This isn't hot air.

Its also 150 jobs, hardly ground breaking.

I dont claim to know the ins and outs - but how much of this is a full evacuation from the UK, and how much is moving the PO box abroad but keeping everything else as it was?

Financial services, the City, its an entire eco-system, I tend to think it will remain.

And, once again, nobody knows just how this will play out - so nobody is doing much of anything until then.

 

[DTA]

Youre whole argument is as if remain didnt even have a campaign, come on!

As for project fact - what facts are there? The only things that have actually happened so far are so blindingly obvious even I predicted most of them.

Until Brexit takes shape things are uncertain. Businesses/investors do not like uncertainty, reactions in this sector are entirely expected.

Otherwise, Milos endless tweets about companies leaving - how many actually have? And how many are just making threats and blowing hot air?

Of course remain campaigned. But that doesn't take away from the fact that leave
1) had help from Russia
2) illigal overspent
3) used military grade propaganda and crusicially propaganda targeting
4) dismissed facts as project fear
5) were deliberately ambiguous about what leave will actually mean.
6) Used Nazi style imagery of 'invading hoards' to play on peoples fears
7) promised unicorn cum style swashbuckling trade deals that would not only take the place of the EU trade but better them.
8) invoked images of the war

I could go on... But I'm bored now, leave campaign was a horrific cluster fudge that conned people in to believing that they were doing the right thing for their country, when in fact they were doing the opposite.

 

[DTA]

Right, so basically - you are right regardless? Because Russians and Facebook.

You might want to take a moment and actually think about that line of argument, and specifically just how much weight you put behind it.

You argue as if we are mindless zombies being controlled. At best, and I mean AT BEST, I could see that sort of influence pushing pre-existing tendencies, not just farming votes as if the voter had no choice (or idea).

Not just because Russia and Facebook no, I have listed someone them.

As to your second point... Of course it works, I'm not sure if you are being serious not???

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

Why is it wrong in your opinion? Democracy is not a one-off event is it? If people were not clear about the details - and who was, from politicians to the media this was new ground with new complexities - then what could be wrong about people having the chance to make an informed choice? Why not just say, it wouldn't be wrong, but I just want to get Brexit through at all costs? My allegiances are so tribal and set, I don't want to see this one lose.

Read my above post. A collection of wealthy individuals (many who own businesses who have a gripe with EU laws) funded Brexit. A US citizen should not be allowed to fund a UK political campaign, but everyone knows Steve Banon did. Arron Banks is very clear about how he used his one-shot at Brexit to say anything to get the desired result. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44446632 In his own book he is remarkably candid showing off to the world that he knew that if the Brexit discourse was about the economy they would lose, so they did everything they could to move it onto immigration. It was an inspired strategy. They were the underdogs. But it was all about the result not reality, and it will let people down long term because the EU is more connected to our economy than to our immigration.

You do have to be careful arguing the most important factor is our economic ties with the EU. Not versus the other factors but the long term value in those ties itself. It's akin to joining Leeds United in the late 90's, all looks good, big wages, european cup and oversized fish tanks in the offices but fundamentally flawed as an economic experiment, their Ridsdale is the PIGS. If we were as entrenched as Germany in the bailing out and allowances given to economies that just don't have the mindset of the germans....we'd of kicked off about it ages ago.(probably). It's not a powerhouse, far from it.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Of course remain campaigned. But that doesn't take away from the fact that leave
1) had help from Russia
2) illigal overspent
3) used military grade propaganda and crusicially propaganda targeting
4) dismissed facts as project fear
5) were deliberately ambiguous about what leave will actually mean.
6) Used Nazi style imagery of 'invading hoards' to play on peoples fears
7) promised unicorn cum style swashbuckling trade deals that would not only take the place of the EU trade but better them.
8) invoked images of the war

I could go on... But I'm bored now, leave campaign was a horrific cluster fudge that conned people in to believing that they were doing the right thing for their country, when in fact they were doing the opposite.

And the remain campaign failed spectacularly. I wont be at all surprised to find sometime down the line they indulged in half what you say above, and other dirty tricks besides.

Remember Corbyn coming out at the 11th hour, with a gun to his head, to say meekly "Err yes, we should remain..." - this was the remain campaign tightening its own noose.

They were complacent, and happy to reduce the argument to the same level as leave, and they lost*.

You frame your argument as if remain barely had a campaign, and the leave used every dirty trick in the book and fooled the poor, unsuspecting populace into voting for them while what campaign remain did have was virtuous and pure.

You also frame it as if targeted advertising made everyone vote leave without them even knowing, as if they were hypnotised, the poor little lambs.

On both counts, I call flimflam.

On both counts, yes, there is truth - but your version is not the whole truth at all. Its warped to suit your ideology and desire to justify a result you did not like (or accept/understand?).

Not just because Russia and Facebook no, I have listed someone them.

As to your second point... Of course it works, I'm not sure if you are being serious not???

I am being serious, just what power do you suppose seeing ads on a news feed really has?

Are you really saying I voted as I did because of them? REALLY?

As I said, I can well see the whole echo chamber/tell people things they already think side of things reinforcing pre existing beliefs, but then the most that campaign can achieve is getting people to vote the way they would have anyway. Which would be a game changer if that part of the electorate was pre disposed to NOT voting. Either way though, its not bloody mind control.



EDIT, forgot to add*

I actually despise the whole campaign, on both sides, and what they reduced it to. It was fundamentally shameful.

 

[SpurMeUp]

You do have to be careful arguing the most important factor is our economic ties with the EU. Not versus the other factors but the long term value in those ties itself. It's akin to joining Leeds United in the late 90's, all looks good, big wages, european cup and oversized fish tanks in the offices but fundamentally flawed as an economic experiment, their Ridsdale is the PIGS. If we were as entrenched as Germany in the bailing out and allowances given to economies that just don't have the mindset of the germans....we'd of kicked off about it ages ago.(probably). It's not a powerhouse, far from it.

The point wasn't that the EU is strong and secure it was that Brexit was made into a discussion around migration by those who wanted to manipulate a result, when actually the main function of the EU is trade - a customs union. Far from being Leeds United, the EU remains the largest free trade block in the world. Letting in the eastern nations was adventurous, and not without difficulty, but both us the UK and others wanted it for good reason.

Many on here predicted the imminent collapse of the EU around the time of the vote. What happened post vote? EU growth outstripped UK growth. The UK that had been one of the faster growing economies, sank to be one of the slowest. It is fair to say those predictions can now be deemed wrong. The EU hasn't collapsed as prophesied.

Should I be careful arguing Brexit is about economics first and foremost? No I don't think so. While to voters it may not be, its implications for the UK are primarily economic.

Is the EUs premise of free open trade among European countries fundamentally flawed? No not at all, all countries trade most with their neighbours and free trade creates wealth. The EU faces structural challenges but considering how young this enlarged customs union is, it is going relatively well. To say that the EU is not a powerhouse seems churlish. What do you base this upon? The EU has almost the same GDP as the US, who most would consider a powerhouse. Lots of assertions in your post, but its light on real facts.