• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

I've heard many times leave voters say that they would be willing to bear a near-term downturn in order to faciliate longer term benefits.

But more than anything I was pointing out the glaring inconsistency in remainers declaring what people did & didn't vote for when it suits them to do so, while making the polar opposite claim when it doesn't.

Does anyone know what the longer term benefits might be!? Not long now until B-Day and I've seen no evidence for, or even a cogent outline of what these benefits would look like. If Brexit is just a permanent downturn of the economy, would you still back it?

Everyone will have voted for their own reasons. But I'm pretty sure that no one wanted to makes things worse for themselves. As outlined above, a few privileged individuals who are so wealthy they can gain by those around them being poorer, people who can lobby government to change EU regulations that protect people to allow their businesses to make more money, are the only people who might gain from Brexit imo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
A thousand times this. If anyone can provide me with a reasoned (not gutterboy's unicorn cum de-growth theory) arguement backed up with facts not fantasy, that Brexit will actually be good for the UK then I would listen, so would a lot of so called remoaners... But as far as I can see... All we are heading for (as a best case scenario) is to become a brick version of the US.
 
A thousand times this. If anyone can provide me with a reasoned (not gutterboy's unicorn cum de-growth theory) arguement backed up with facts not fantasy, that Brexit will actually be good for the UK then I would listen, so would a lot of so called remoaners... But as far as I can see... All we are heading for (as a best case scenario) is to become a brick version of the US.


But you've been that for a long time
 

But you've been that for a long time

fudge no brother. I love you man, but the UK tinkles all over the US. We take care of our poor over here (or at least we used to) we help those that become sick or disabled not hit them with financially catastrophic medical bills. We have proper integration here especially when compared to the US (although not perfect). London is the perfect example of this with hundreds of cultures living together and making it the greatest city in the world (bar none... And cerntainly none in the US). We have Have history... Sometimes dark... But also sometimes brave and filled with integrity even if against our own financial interests. US is a country born from the genocide of American Indians made rich by slavery, which you had to fight a fudging civil war to abolish. And the continued exploitation of minorities which amongst many other ills has created Slavery MK2 by the way of a 'for profit' prison system. lobbying is a problem here as well but in the US it's a fudging joke. And to top it all off ... You have Donald Trump as your commander and chief.

Brother come back home to London... you are too good for the USA.
 
It just happened, a few posts above.

As Gutterboy pointed out, anybody who voted leave driven primarily by immigration concerns, for example, is unlikely to have been voting on a purely economic calculation. Therefore, the 'nobody voted for less jobs' line, though a great, highly emotive soundbite, is actually comparable to stating what kind of brexit was voted for.
 
The Norths - both Pete and his fuminating brother Richard on eureferendum.com - tinkle me off quite a bit. Their anti-EU, pro-EEA position is logical and coherent, and they are good at analysing trade and regulatory micro-issues. There's some great content on eureferendum, among the weird sniping at every other commentator on the planet for not being as fearfully clever as they are.

But they have never, ever accepted that campaigners for leave have to take some responsibility for the vote. And the fact is, where we are now is partly their fault.
 
Does anyone know what the longer term benefits might be!? Not long now until B-Day and I've seen no evidence for, or even a cogent outline of what these benefits would look like. If Brexit is just a permanent downturn of the economy, would you still back it?

Everyone will have voted for their own reasons. But I'm pretty sure that no one wanted to makes things worse for themselves. As outlined above, a few privileged individuals who are so wealthy they can gain by those around them being poorer, people who can lobby government to change EU regulations that protect people to allow their businesses to make more money, are the only people who might gain from Brexit imo.

- Being able to vote for a government that would renationalise amenities and transport
- Being able to vote for a government that would end PFIs and exploitative public sector tendering

Being out of the EU blows wide open the spectrum of policies that can appear in future manifestos. The binds of enforced neo-liberalism will be gone. Of course we may vote for more neo-liberalism in 2022, but the rebirth of sovereignty point is that we at least get a range of choices now.
 
It just happened, a few posts above.

As Gutterboy pointed out, anybody who voted leave driven primarily by immigration concerns, for example, is unlikely to have been voting on a purely economic calculation. Therefore, the 'nobody voted for less jobs' line, though a great, highly emotive soundbite, is actually comparable to stating what kind of brexit was voted for.

But that was still an economic calculation, because they'd be some of the losers of globalisation. Those that suffer from social dumping and infrastructure buckling under rapid population expansion. A half a percent off BMW's shareholders' profits doesn't mean brick to them.
 
- Being able to vote for a government that would end PFIs

What on earth does that have to do with membership of the EU?

Previous PFIs were contracted for under EU procurement law. That impacts on procurement process, but not on the nature of the contract. Exiting or terminating a contract would be subject to UK law; it's not a challenge to the procurement, and I'm not aware of any EU law or body which would be involved in adjudicating a disputed contract termination.
 
- Being able to vote for a government that would renationalise amenities and transport
- Being able to vote for a government that would end PFIs and exploitative public sector tendering

Being out of the EU blows wide open the spectrum of policies that can appear in future manifestos. The binds of enforced neo-liberalism will be gone. Of course we may vote for more neo-liberalism in 2022, but the rebirth of sovereignty point is that we at least get a range of choices now.

- France, Italy Germany and other EU nations have state run transport now, within the EU. They also have much more state involvement in industry - see France where the government has positions in all sorts of companies from Orange, EDF, Renault etc. How on earth do they do it? Maybe it's not the EU precluding 'rationalisation'. Many would argue the French government is too interventionist, and the current President is trying to break some of the state waste. But this national French government activity has not been 'controlled' or stopped by the EU. So can you concede your point is mute, or at the least outline what you think can be achieved post Brexit that can't be now, with real examples?

- PFI contracts in the NHS and other sectors have everything to do with OUR governments decisions and little to do with the EU.

The EU does not stop politicians being creative. Are you expecting some kind of lifting of the shackles on our political classes post Brexit? You're suggesting politicians wanted to be innovative but the EU stopped them!? Those are new levels of delusion even for you.

What will these great sovrign choices be? I don't see anything holding back creativity and choice now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
If you wind the clock back, and considering that this vote was 100% life changing (short or long term), you'd logically think that BOTH camps should have produced an indepth manifesto laying out their projections, predictions and potential actions should they succeed. Whether that's number crunching, algorithms, expert comment or visionary thinking. Nope, none of that, and it set the tone.

The voter, on the Brexit side, had numerous 'issues' they could be aggrieved by, BUT it only took one of those issues for them to vote leave, regardless if that was compatible and deliverable in combination with their comrades. A lot of these issues were emotive but genuine nonetheless, evidenced by the rise of UKIP. An emotive voter and emotive issues are easy votes to gain. And that voter is not thinking outside of their lane.

Furthermore, it is bizarre to think that going into the vote we didn't even know who would be driving the train to it's final destination, let alone what would be delivered. We ended up with a weak as p.iss leader when in my opinion, due to the generation and landscape changing potential of the negotiations, a cross-party, 'best people for the job' team assembled (agreed by all sides) to do the best for the UK , in the process limiting the political point scoring, bickering, finger pointing an even in-party fighting. It is too important for that, but sigh...thats what we got.

And we can not forget that some of the positions that people are taking have been influenced by the negotiations with the people across the table. They are still there, waiting to stand in our way (or walk all over us:)), poo poo any idea of us coming out smelling of roses. Is that poor negotiation or are we in a position of weakness? Either way its not much of a leap to see why some people just say 'walk away' (hard brexit) and equally 'abandon the idea'.(return to the EU)

I'm minded (with a heavy heart) to just abandon the idea and go back to as we were. It was my heart that thought Brexit would be a good idea but my head, and more importantly, my gut said on all levels that we didn't have the leaders, nous, backbone, organisation and motivation to do it. And i include the people in that, there is no scent of change in the air, revolution, evolution, people will moan about stuff but want someone else to do something about it. As long as the people are 'ok' they'll draw their little barriers up around their own life and largely be self-centered, self-interested, mainly because of the way day to day life is, time poor but comfortable. 'i don't need help and i haven't got the time to give help', they haven't got time to dedicate to making brexit work because (at the moment) they're ok. Plus 48% of the voters are against the idea from the get go, what a challenge to get them on board, there are no real carrots or GHod forbid a Hitler or tragic earthquake to unite and mobilise the nation.

Some of @Gutter Boy ideology has merit, we are in the throes of a globalisation, capitalism shake down, consumerism is dying, property over valued, middle classes getting poorer (and i don't just mean financially), wages stagnant and little incentive to save (but of course to borrow:)). The manipulation of the BUMMER machine has its claws into us as well, what a distraction that is, and a real citadel around society, community and good old conversation.

I think change is coming, whether that is different inside or outside the EU is hard to tell, but it will inevitably be forced upon us, one way or another, and being in full control of our destiny would in essence be a good thing (partly because the EU itself will be in the doo doo) , or so i thought.
 
Last edited:
It just happened, a few posts above.

As Gutterboy pointed out, anybody who voted leave driven primarily by immigration concerns, for example, is unlikely to have been voting on a purely economic calculation. Therefore, the 'nobody voted for less jobs' line, though a great, highly emotive soundbite, is actually comparable to stating what kind of brexit was voted for.

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.

If you believe that kind of Brexit is what the public want, then let it go to a vote.

If not to Remain in the EU then:

Norway version Vs what ever the bumbling fools in government manage to luck themselves into. Vs cliff edge Hard Brexit.

Let the people decide, hopefully this time without russian influence
 
If you believe that kind of Brexit is what the public want, then let it go to a vote.

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.
 
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.

2 things:
1) Earlier on in this thread you said you might back a referendum on the type of Brexit deal, so what's changed?

2) the fact that people voted for Brexit without knowing what it is does, says a lot... But perhaps not what you think. It says to me that they are sick of austerity and the conservative government and wanted to punish Cameron... This mixed in with some racism some nationalism plenty of ignorance (about whst the EU actually is or does) russian interference, Cambridge analytica military grade social manipulation, excess funding of the leave Campaign, confussion from the deliberate ambiguity of the leave positions, right wing rags using the rhetoric of war, (I could go on but I will stop there), gave Leave a narrow victory.... Yeah they voted blind... But someone had their hand and guided them.
 
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.
 
It just happened, a few posts above.
Tha
As Gutterboy pointed out, anybody who voted leave driven primarily by immigration concerns, for example, is unlikely to have been voting on a purely economic calculation. Therefore, the 'nobody voted for less jobs' line, though a great, highly emotive soundbite, is actually comparable to stating what kind of brexit was voted for.

This is quite interesting. If Brexit was outlined as: we'll be poorer, certainly short term, but likely long term too, but we'll be able to control the half of our immigration that we can't at the moment, would you and others be attracted to Brexit?

The EU at its heart is a customs union - its core is trade. So although Brexit might have been sold to people on immigration concerns, it was always primarily an economic concern. The fact that half our immigration is non-EU currently and that business, the NHS and individuals rely massively on immigration to fulfil jobs Brits can't or won't do - often the worst jobs - shows that immigration was never really on the table. We need some immigration. What is on the table is how we trade. Freely with our neighbours or not. That is the crux of Brexit, and its also what Leave were desperate to stop people knowing. It's what Steven Banon who backed Trump and Arron Banks spent millions trying to ensure the Brexit narrative avoided at all cost.

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/breitbart-delete-clip-of-farage-thanking-steven-bannon-for-brexit/

I thnk this glorifies Banks, makes him seem more connected and smart that he is, but it highlights who the people are who funded Brexit https://www.theguardian.com/politic...view-brexit-ukip-far-right-trump-putin-russia Godness knows how many gold mines he owns in Russia. One thing is clear to me, he didn't just make his money on insurance. He has other interests and connections.

Banks in his autobiography states that their careful research showed that to win the referendum, they had to ensure the narrative was about immigration and not the economy. When of course the EU is mostly tied to the UK economy - we trade most with our neighbours as every nation does - and only half our immigration is linked to the EU.
 
If you wind the clock back, and considering that this vote was 400% life changing (short or long term), you'd logically think that BOTH camps should have produced an indepth manifesto laying out their projections, predictions and potential actions should they succeed. Whether that's number crunching, algorithms, expert comment or visionary thinking. Nope, none of that, and it set the tone.

The voter, on the Brexit side, had numerous 'issues' they could be aggrieved by, BUT it only took one of those issues for them to vote leave, regardless if that was compatible and deliverable in combination with their comrades. A lot of these issues were emotive but genuine nonetheless, evidenced by the rise of UKIP. An emotive voter and emotive issues are easy votes to gain. And that voter is not thinking outside of their lane.

Furthermore, it is bizarre to think that going into the vote we didn't even know who would be driving the train to it's final destination, let alone what would be delivered. We ended up with a weak as p.iss leader when in my opinion, due to the generation and landscape changing potential of the negotiations, a cross-party, 'best people for the job' team assembled (agreed by all sides) to do the best for the UK , in the process limiting the political point scoring, bickering, finger pointing an even in-party fighting. It is too important for that, but sigh...thats what we got.

And we can not forget that some of the positions that people are taking have been influenced by the negotiations with the people across the table. They are still there, waiting to stand in our way (or walk all over us:)), poo poo any idea of us coming out smelling of roses. Is that poor negotiation or are we in a position of weakness? Either way its not much of a leap to see why some people just say 'walk away' (hard brexit) and equally 'abandon the idea'.(return to the EU)

I'm minded (with a heavy heart) to just abandon the idea and go back to as we were. It was my heart that thought Brexit would be a good idea but my head, and more importantly, my gut said on all levels that we didn't have the leaders, nous, backbone, organisation and motivation to do it. And i include the people in that, there is no scent of change in the air, revolution, evolution, people will moan about stuff but want someone else to do something about it. As long as the people are 'ok' they'll draw their little barriers up around their own life and largely be self-centered, self-interested, mainly because of the way day to day life is, time poor but comfortable. 'i don't need help and i haven't got the time to give help', they haven't got time to dedicate to making brexit work because (at the moment) they're ok. Plus 48% of the voters are against the idea from the get go, what a challenge to get them on board, there are no real carrots or GHod forbid a Hitler or tragic earthquake to unite and mobilise the nation.

Some of @Gutter Boy ideology has merit, we are in the throes of a globalisation, capitalism shake down, consumerism is dying, property over valued, middle classes getting poorer (and i don't just mean financially), wages stagnant and little incentive to save (but of course to borrow:)). The manipulation of the BUMMER machine has its claws into us as well, what a distraction that is, and a real citadel around society, community and good old conversation.

I think change is coming, whether that is different inside or outside the EU is hard to tell, but it will inevitably be forced upon us, one way or another, and being in full control of our destiny would in essence be a good thing (partly because the EU itself will be in the doo doo) , or so i thought.

That was an interesting read. And I agree with a lot of what you are saying
 
The EU at its heart is a customs union - its core is trade.

If this was true Brexit would never have even come up in conversation.

It is not true.

The EU is a protectionist bloc with an agenda of ever closer POLITICAL union and exerts more and more control over its member states.

It doesnt matter how much you repeat your mantra, it is not true and hasnt been so for a very long time.
 
Back