Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

hotmail.com

GM228 wrote: »

Smiley face? Did you read what I wrote?

Seriously though what 100s of years anti European feeling, are some in the UK now against their geographical location aswell?

What was the smiley face supposed to indicate. You need to express your opinions. I assumed you misread it as European Union which I hadn't said.

devnull

hotmail.com wrote: »

This isn't true.

They viewed their neighbours with scorn for having them got involved in two world wars. If it weren't for their cultural cousins, America, Britain was screwed. It wasn't Europe that saved Britain in the wars, it was America.

I don't know where to start with this, but the wars involved many countries who fought off the rise of the Nazis by working together. Almost every country in the world was involved at one time, whilst some were neutral at the start, not many were by the end.

Yes America did help Britain, but if so many other countries didn't help the Allies out in the Second World War then America's help may not have been enough because the Nazis would have been stronger if other countries simply didn't get involved and work together to fight off the Nazis.

Tell me how

hotmail.com wrote: »

Again that may be true, but the Leave side was merely capitalising on the anti European feeling that has been around for hundreds of years. It's far too simplistic to just look at the campaign.

The remain side fails to recognise that a lot of Britons do not like the European Union and don't really view themselves as European. The outcome of the referendum was a manifestation of those feelings, held for a long long time.

No.
You're correct in there being a number of UK people who dislike the EU, a significant number, but, without the illegality, that number would likely not have been sufficient to swing the referendum, given how close a result it was.

hotmail.com

devnull wrote: »

I don't know where to start with this, but the wars involved many countries who fought off the rise of the Nazis by working together. Almost every country in the world was involved at one time, whilst some were neutral at the start, not many were by the end.

Yes America did help Britain, but if so many other countries didn't help the Allies out in the Second World War then America's help may not have been enough because the Nazis would have been stronger if other countries simply didn't get involved and work together to fight off the Nazis.

My point is that there is a deep routed anti European attitude in Britain. For the world war generation, Europe represented a place where relatives had fought and not come home.

My second point is that Britain is instinctively and culturally closer to current and former UK colonies. This was boosted by America's help during the wars.

hotmail.com

Tell me how wrote: »

No.
You're correct in there being a number of UK people who dislike the EU, a significant number, but, without the illegality, that number would likely not have been sufficient to swing the referendum, given how close a result it was.

Perhaps it's worthwhile to look past the last few weeks of a campaign to explain how things worked out.

And the result wasn't that close. There was a clear Leave majority.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

While there is some tolerance in terms of discussing traditionally held views in the UK, lets keep the history debates to the history forum please! Especially since there is the longevity fallacy i.e. this house has been here for 100 years, therefore itll stay for a hundred more

lawred2

devnull wrote: »

The usual tactics, threats, scaremongering, and more pathological lying and the belief that rules, laws and parliamentary procedures do not apply to him and if he cannot get his own way he will throw his toys out of the pram.

I read this article this morning, which sums it up rather well
https://news.sky.com/story/why-the-normal-rules-dont-apply-to-boris-johnson-11843361

Works though. A lot of people care nothing for prudence, propriety, precedence or parliamentary procedure.

It serves their agenda so BJ is free to literally take the piss right out of the useful fools.

Irish Praetorian

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

But your rationale (and well articulated it is) runs aground when you consider that this was a vote for independence from the European Union.

So to pursue your own logic on how bad Brexit would be economically for people to it's conclusion then Ireland would never have gotten it's independence or any state dependent on a bigger power for that matter because people were going to be worse off immediately afterward.

The UK is a big confident resourceful country, well able to support itself inside or outside the EU.

I make that same argument of all countries big and small in the EU as well.

No matter what one thinks of the referendum (and lets be real there were lies and falsehoods on both sides) they voted to leave.

It does not get any simpler than that. To me that means they leave all the institutions of the EU.

The only people making it seem complicated are those who never accepted the result.

And that is my argument:

1. Accept the result
2. Once result is implemented then remainers can put forward a new debate to rejoin.

You are most kind and I certainly appreciate someone similarly articulate putting forward the more nuanced argument for Brexit.

I must fall at the first hurdle so to speak though when it comes to your contention - I have a hard time seeing the first Brexit vote as endorsing anything other than vague claims of sovereignty and democracy, interwoven with more appealing claims about economic opportunities and immigration. The specifics of what the EU does and doesn't do and what it ought to versus ought not to do, was I would content, a sorely lacking argument during the referendum, epitomized by the morning after surge of people googling 'What does the EU do'.

Now the economic argument is incidental to this initial argument but I don't mind exploring it with you. Firstly, I would have to make the counter-argument that often separatist movements are grounded in some kind of idea (real or imagined) of improving their economic prospects, typically by freeing themselves from the 'burden' of 'supporting' other parts of their country/state. This was the argument of the 13 Colonies, of the Italian Lega Nord, of the Catalonia separatists and in its own convoluted way, of our own independence movement, which saw the Famine as the ultimate economic failure and political control as a means of improving economic conditions. Now to be fair, this is sort of the argument of some Brexiteers - basically 'fishing our own fish' etc, but it remains a fairly economically illiterate one. I would also add I'm not necessarily convinced by the idea of each country doing better economically outside the EU, I think the EU certainly levies a financial cost but the benefit in terms of trade and shared institutions is more than compensation - this might be a side topic though.

To return to the central argument you make about the vote being a net vote to leave, I simply cannot square that assumption with some of the problems we saw, namely;

1. The lack of a vote for UK citizens resident in EU nations.
2. The poor level of debate conducted prior to the referendum.
3. The utter divorcing of one vote option from any bearing on reality.


Now I'll set aside the first two points because three is the really compelling one and I think it is the fundamental reason why the referendum went the way it did, and is partly the reason we should take a second look at it. Now in the Irish tradition, referenda deal with set and specific portions of our constitution and typically have a piece of legislation attached to them, so when one side or another wins, everyone knows what follows next. However in the UK case, only one side had to bother to deal with this matter, whilst the Leave side was free to argue and campaign for everything under the sun. Given this disparity, it's hardly unexpected which side triumphed and also why that same side was immediately fractured with 100 different visions of what 'leaving' meant. Now I would submit that the only rational reaction to this, is to get clarification - to get the most popular options (namely the Deal or No-Deal) as well as a backing out option and let the populace decide. The fear that you have for major unrest is one that I could easily see replicated if either of these less appealing outcomes is made into UK policy without getting the endorsement of the UK populace.

devnull

hotmail.com wrote: »

Perhaps it's worthwhile to look past the last few weeks of a campaign to explain how things worked out.

And the result wasn't that close. There was a clear Leave majority.

Nigel Farage said that 4% wasn't a clear majority, he said that if it was only 4% then it had a long way to go and it was not the end of it*

That's before we take into account the fact there was cheating, someone winning by 4% legally and someone winning by 4% illegally is a world of difference.

* But we all know in reality what he really meant is that if his side won by 0.1% it was the end of it, but if it lost by 4% then it wasn't, because he's a hypocrite like that.

SeaBreezes

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Why should we conduct our politics in such a manner as to appease thugs?

Which thugs do you mean?
The billionaires who have a deadline of Jan 2020 at all costs, or the man on the street who's happy with a deal?

To me, another referendum is the only way forward to avoid civil disruption.

Strazdas

lawred2 wrote: »

Not to question a mod or anything but as a married man where the other half of our new family is British, I can assure you that this historical view of 'Europe' is very relevant to their Brexit opinions.

I think too this Euroscepticism / Brexit mindset thing is much more recent, perhaps coinciding with the rapid decline of the Empire.

hotmail.com

devnull wrote: »

Nigel Farage said that 4% wasn't a clear majority, he said that if it was only 4% then it had a long way to go and it was not the end of it*

That's before we take into account the fact there was cheating, someone winning by 4% legally and someone winning by 4% illegally is a world of difference.

* But we all know in reality what he really meant is that if his side won by 0.1% it was the end of it, but if it lost by 4% then it wasn't, because he's a hypocrite like that.

The outcome was illegal? You've lost me.

I made no comment on Farage. I'm commenting on the underlying anti European sentiment in Britain.

I don't agree with it, but some in Ireland have to come to terms with it. They want to leave. Talking about illegal campaigning just seems ridiculous at this stage.

Headshot

I'm watching "The View" and fills me with a warmest feeling of seeing DUP put under a bus

devnull

lawred2 wrote: »

Works though. A lot of people care nothing for prudence, propriety, precedence or parliamentary procedure. .

The trouble is that if these things are not respected then you are on a slippery slope where anyone does whatever they like and it is in that kind of environment that would allow fascist dictators to flourish and history shows us that when they have the ability to do so, some truly awful actions have followed.

Unfortunately sometimes when people are used to the way things are for so long, they forget the lessons that their ancestors have learnt in the past, because they think that history will not repeat itself. These things are there for a reason and the reasons are to safeguard people against things that could be abused.

Danzy

devnull wrote: »

Nigel Farage said that 4% wasn't a clear majority, he said that if it was only 4% then it had a long way to go and it was not the end of it*

That's before we take into account the fact there was cheating, someone winning by 4% legally and someone winning by 4% illegally is a world of difference.

* But we all know in reality what he really meant is that if his side won by 0.1% it was the end of it, but if it lost by 4% then it wasn't, because he's a hypocrite like that.

You not being a hypocrite will accept the result, good to see.

The Tory party using Govt literature to push a remain position, their getting their media mogul friends in behind it, the use of Ministers and disaster forecasting if the wrong side won.

Remain was equally full of shi7.

So in that regard it was like every election in the last 3k years.

gmisk

hotmail.com wrote: »

The outcome was illegal? You've lost me.

I made no comment on Farage. I'm commenting on the underlying anti European sentiment in Britain.

I don't agree with it, but some in Ireland have to come to terms with it. They want to leave. Talking about illegal campaigning just seems ridiculous at this stage.

I thought it was pretty much accepted at this stage there were examples of law breaking around illegal funding etc on leave side?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/opinion/why-is-britain-turning-blind-eye-to-leave-side-s-lawbreaking-1.3568256%3fmode=amp

hotmail.com

gmisk wrote: »

I thought it was pretty much accepted at this stage there were examples of law breaking around illegal funding etc on leave side?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/opinion/why-is-britain-turning-blind-eye-to-leave-side-s-lawbreaking-1.3568256%3fmode=amp

Oh dear god. Move on.

gmisk

hotmail.com wrote: »

Oh dear god. Move on.

You said there wasn't anything illegal...that just wasn't true.

hotmail.com

Strazdas wrote: »

I think too this Euroscepticism / Brexit mindset thing is much more recent, perhaps coinciding with the rapid decline of the Empire.

Modern Euro scepticism came about in the 1960s and 70s (pushed by the Left by and large at first) , but anti European attitudes started long before a notion of a European Union.

Junkyard Tom

Headshot wrote: »

I'm watching "The View" and fills me with a warmest feeling of seeing DUP put under a bus

DUP being mauled by all commentators.

Strazdas

Martin Schulz tells Newsnight that even if Corbyn won the GE, he doesn't think the EU would want to negotiate a new WA with him. He suggested the EU are sick of Brexit and sick of talking to the UK.

hotmail.com

gmisk wrote: »

You said there wasn't anything illegal...that just wasn't true.

I mentioned the outcome. The outcome of the referendum was not illegal.

Headshot

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

DUP being mauled by all commentators.

I think this will damage the DUP so much in the eyes of NI Voters, it could be such a huge set back that they'd never be in power for along time again

God I would be over the moon

devnull

hotmail.com wrote: »

The outcome was illegal? You've lost me.

In case it hasn't escaped your notice, the leave side cheated in the referendum and broke electoral law, or do you have as much amnesia as David Cameron did at the Leveson Enquiry where it appeared someone had wiped his memory clean?

Talking about illegal campaigning just seems ridiculous at this stage.

However much you don't like it being talked about, it still remains that the leave campaign cheated their way to victory. That's a fact. Saying that someone shouldn't speak about it and we should just brush it under the carpet and send out the message that law abiding people lose and cheats prosper is despicable.

If people break the laws we shouldn't think to ourselves, hey, they won, if we don't allow it to stand they would be angry and we don't want that. Because they are not the victims, the victims of any cheating, are the people who have been cheated.

If I played you at cards, some sport, another game or a bet and you lost a hell of a lot on it and you later found out I cheated, would you say that it should still stand because otherwise I might be angry, or would you say that the result should be declared null and void?

Honestly if you have no moral compass that's your choice, but I will always have one and if someone cheats then we shouldn't just say that that's okay and the result has to stand because it would make people angry, that's the kind of society I would never be a part of and thankfully I think that goes for most people in Ireland.

I don't think there is much more to say other than that, we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Itssoeasy

Strazdas wrote: »

Martin Schulz tells Newsnight that even if Corbyn won the GE, he doesn't think the EU would want to negotiate a new WA with him. He suggested the EU are sick of Brexit and sick of talking to the UK.

Hardly surprising. The issue with getting brexit done has not and won't be because of the EU side. The European side ratified the first WA, it was the House of Commons who couldn't and still can't make up its mind. He's not the only one. I'm sure we are all in the same boat where brexit and discussion topic is a non stater now because everyone is sick of it.

Topgear on Dave

Headshot wrote: »

I'm watching "The View" and fills me with a warmest feeling of seeing DUP put under a bus

This is great television.

boggerman1

Same old,same old on question time.the cold hard facts are once again laid out for the common man,but to hell with that.they are truly f**ked.

Itssoeasy

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

This is great television.

What channel is this on ?

Junkyard Tom

Headshot wrote: »

I think this will damage the DUP so much in the eyes of NI Voters

Will they lose numbers from their own electorate is the question. And sure there's no harm to their former voters if they lend them to the UUP for a while.

What this has all done is cleaved the population only this time a united unionism doesn't have the numbers, or the strength, in the face of IRL/EU and being a minority.

Everything has changed. Unionism is now on the defence and will need to sell the benefits of UK jurisdiction from now on regardless of what happens.

hotmail.com

devnull wrote: »

In case it hasn't escaped your notice, the leave side cheated in the referendum and broke electoral law, or do you have as much amnesia as David Cameron did at the Leveson Enquiry where it appeared someone had wiped his memory clean?



However much you don't like it being talked about, it still remains that the leave campaign cheated their way to victory. That's a fact. Saying that someone shouldn't speak about it and we should just brush it under the carpet and send out the message that law abiding people lose and cheats prosper is despicable.

If people break the laws we shouldn't think to ourselves, hey, they won, if we don't allow it to stand they would be angry and we don't want that. Because they are not the victims, the victims of any cheating, are the people who have been cheated.

If I played you at cards, some sport, another game or a bet and you lost a hell of a lot on it and you later found out I cheated, would you say that it should still stand because otherwise I might be angry, or would you say that the result should be declared null and void?

Honestly if you have no moral compass that's your choice, but I will always have one and if someone cheats then we shouldn't just say that that's okay and the result has to stand because it would make people angry, that's the kind of society I would never be a part of and thankfully I think that goes for most people in Ireland.

I don't think there is much more to say other than that, we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

It seems that you want to pinpoint the loss of the referendum squarely on the illegal practices of the Leave side during the campaign.

My point as I've said already, that this is nonsense. There was a long standing anti European attitude in Britain.

Again given the tone of your post, you seem to think I'm defending the Leave side. I'm not. I'm trying to commentate and explain what happened.

Accusing me of having no moral compass is perhaps the most over dramatic post I've read on here. Can you please read my posts.

Not everyone on here is a partisan. I'm Irish and I didn't vote in the thing!