Leroy42 wrote: » Frito wrote: » I think a lot of people are better informed now than at the referendum - I'm one of them. But I wouldn't change my vote, nor do I think the vote is delegitimised. For all the stereotypes of gammon-faced racists screeching about foreigners, there is a sizeable Eurosceptic population that could not tolerate the loss of sovereignty or the nation state. So the economic impact in the short-to-medium-term doesn't bother them, they think it will sufficiently recover long-term. If it doesn't, they might complain and moan about the drop in living standards, but I doubt they would regret their Leave vote. What are you better informed about? What were the things that led you to vote the way you did and does the new information not have any impact on that? It is curious that despite nearly everything that the leave said said during the campaign, including but not limited to the £350m per week, the mis-selling of the extent on EU migration and the power that UK still retained in this regard, the power that the UK would have in the split, the ease of international trade etc, despite all this an more being shown to be at best wishful thinking, that based on the polls the vote would remain pretty much the same as before.
Frito wrote: » I think a lot of people are better informed now than at the referendum - I'm one of them. But I wouldn't change my vote, nor do I think the vote is delegitimised. For all the stereotypes of gammon-faced racists screeching about foreigners, there is a sizeable Eurosceptic population that could not tolerate the loss of sovereignty or the nation state. So the economic impact in the short-to-medium-term doesn't bother them, they think it will sufficiently recover long-term. If it doesn't, they might complain and moan about the drop in living standards, but I doubt they would regret their Leave vote.
Peregrinus wrote: » But this is the problem, really. The accusation against Corbyn, as far as I can see, is not that he's an antisemite. It's that he's culpably blind to antisemitism, and therefore an enabler of antisemitism. And that accusation is reinforced, not rebutted, by explaining Corbyn's support for this artist by saying that Corbyn failed to see the (fairly blatant, it has to be said) antisemitic nature of the artwork concerned, a picture of which was included in the tweet to which Corbyn replied. Corbyn's failure to see such things is precisely the problem.
Memnoch wrote: » There are a couple of issues that arise for me from consideration of your post. Firstly, I am forced to ask the question whether a life-long, or decades long opposition to the behaviour of the state of Israel towards the people of Palestine can result in a creeping or normalisation of anti-semetic attitudes. I think the answer to this is yes, and so it is extremely important that we are doubly vigilant. The Israeli state, their military and their politicians must be held to account for their behaviour and their actions should be called out for what they are. But never, ever, should this be allowed to morph into any kind of negative view of Jewish people or lead to any kind of prejudgement. Those of us who are on the left must be especially vigilant with regards to this as this is where the primary opposition to the actions of the government of Israel comes from. I would say the same also applies to Muslims. We must condemn Saudi Arabia, and other muslim states and their behaviour in equally strenuous terms, but if we start blaming Muslims in general or judging individuals then obviously this is racism. In terms of the specifics with regards to Corbyn, so far I have seen only ONE instance of where he has actually misstepped with regards to genuine anti-semitism i.e. the graffiti. And it seems he has accepted this error and apologised. I do not see any evidence of this pattern of behaviour that you seem to be outlining, and to me, that is where there is a clear campaign to smear by innuendo and association. By simply piling on circumstantial items without context in the hope that the sheer burden of numbers will have the desired effect. This is consistent with the pattern of smearing that the political and news establishment have engaged against him since the day he became leader of the labour party. If you have other clear examples where he has acted as you suggest could you please provide links to the same? Otherwise I would ask you to kindly re-examine your assumptions and conclusions on this issue.
oscarBravo wrote: » Frito wrote: » ...there is a sizeable Eurosceptic population that could not tolerate the loss of sovereignty or the nation state. Parliament is, and always has been, sovereign. The "loss of sovereignty" mantra is, and always has been, a red herring. I'm not sure what the nation state issue is, apart from a fear of federalism, which was never going to happen anyway as long as the EU has member states that don't want it. It's directly elected. Are you sure you understand the issues better?
Frito wrote: » ...there is a sizeable Eurosceptic population that could not tolerate the loss of sovereignty or the nation state.
Frito wrote: » To clarify for another poster, I voted to remain, and would vote the same way again. But I do understand leave voters better now. Just after the vote, I was shocked and had a touch of sore loser about me, so I thought they were all ignorant. But I was wrong to think that.
Frito wrote: » You're right, it is. I was thinking of the commissioners.
Leroy42 wrote: » Frito wrote: » To clarify for another poster, I voted to remain, and would vote the same way again. But I do understand leave voters better now. Just after the vote, I was shocked and had a touch of sore loser about me, so I thought they were all ignorant. But I was wrong to think that. Yet it appears that all the reasons that leavers have given to you are based on ignorance of reality. I can understand the reasons why people voted to leave, doesn't mean that they were not ignorant, or to put it more politiley, ill-informed, That doesn't mean, btw, that they were wrong. As I said, based on what they understood they were correct to vote for the UK to leave. Unfortunately, the information that they based their decision on (£350m per week for NHS, EU migrants being a massive drain on resources which only leaving could fix, UK having little to no say in the EU, EU to blame for holding up trade with 3rd Party countries etc) is almost entirely incorrect or only part of the full story.
Frito wrote: » We'll agree to differ. I used to think the same, then realised I can't determine whether people are ill-informed or deceived, they can only determine that for themselves.
I've probably not articulated leave well, so I'd suggest Leave Alliance, Pete North, Sam Hooper blogs if you're interested in leave voter opinions.
oscarBravo wrote: » Of course you can. If they advance reasons for leaving that are untrue, then they're ill-informed or deceived. I've had a skim through Pete North's most recent blog post, and I'm unimpressed. He talks about the EU's protectionist trade policies, then admits that the UK leaving won't affect those policies, except to possibly make them worse. He then goes on to say that the UK won't be able to afford to have a more moral trade policy than the EU, and possibly even less so.
Frito wrote: » Again, we'll agree to differ. What people choose to believe, or disregard, or prioritise, is up to them. The electorate had access to the same resources. Leave voters could look up the same things that I did. That they came to a different conclusion doesn't mean they were less informed. I won't let them off that easy. Every disappointment they complain about is what they voted for, as they should be reminded. I can disagree with Pete North, Sam Hooper et al, they are politically conservative, but I wouldn't insist they were ill-informed.
oscarBravo wrote: » He then goes on to say that the UK won't be able to afford to have a more moral trade policy than the EU, and possibly even less so.
Figures seen by i show that the Government cleared export licences worth £2.9bn in the 12 months after June 2016 to 35 countries considered “not free” by Freedom House, a respected international think-tank. The figure represents a 28 per cent increase on the 12 months before the Brexit vote.
Econ_ wrote: » 'Let's agree to disagree' is a cop out. The reality is that you are ‘agreeing to disagree’ because you are unable to defend your position any further with any degree of coherent logic.
“The High Priests of Remain have pushed through another report that seeks to overturn the referendum result by stealth."
Sand wrote: » I think that's unfair.
The criticism I would have of the Remain campaign was that it was almost entirely economic/transactional based. There was no effort to communicate any concept of the UK being a European country, with a role to play in a wider European community as expressed however awkwardly by the EU. Zero. And UK politicians are largely incapable of doing so. For 40 years they have seen the EU as merely a vehicle for economic gain. GDP stats was the only argument they had.
What the Leave voters stated was they had non-economic priorities. This is why support for Brexit remains stubbornly high despite all the economic bad news. To paraphrase the Clinton/Blair mantra, it's not the economy.
Econ_ wrote: » To tackle this false narrative would involve criticising themselves and their own policy decisions. So they didn't tackle it - they just avoided the question and that was a fatal error.
Skedaddle wrote: » They're vastly underestimating how big a transition this will be. It's not like you can snap your fingers and become Australia, Canada or New Zealand over night and there are a whole load of huge differences between the UK and most of those economies. I think you're looking at at least a decade or more of turmoil as the UK economy and society adjusts. All I can say is it'll be an interesting decade as a highly networked trading hub decides to pull out the plugs into the world's largest trading bloc and all for no particular reason other than jingoism. All the sense talked on this thread and elsewhere is really futile. None of it is being listened to by those making decisions in London. I suppose at least in a few years time we'll be able to look back at these threads like an archive.
Leroy42 wrote: » The problem that the remain side had, was that they really only had the economic argument. They had, MPs and parties, spent the last 40 years complaining that the EU (in its various forms) was the cause of nearly every problem that the UK faced. Cameron had just been on a mission to try to get additional allowances from the EU (which in did receive some, but below the fantasy that he had promised) so even he would have a difficult time telling people the UK was in control in the EU.
Enzokk wrote: » Hindsight is always 20/20 so it is easy to see where they went wrong. They didn't only have the economic argument, they decided to only focus on the economic argument. From David Cameron's side this made sense, he had won the Scottish referendum by focusing on the economic argument and the same for the next general election as well. So he thought he could win a third election, when he was predicted to lose his majority at the 2015 general election, with the same tactics.
Econ_ wrote: » Skedaddle wrote: » They're vastly underestimating how big a transition this will be. It's not like you can snap your fingers and become Australia, Canada or New Zealand over night and there are a whole load of huge differences between the UK and most of those economies. I think you're looking at at least a decade or more of turmoil as the UK economy and society adjusts. All I can say is it'll be an interesting decade as a highly networked trading hub decides to pull out the plugs into the world's largest trading bloc and all for no particular reason other than jingoism. All the sense talked on this thread and elsewhere is really futile. None of it is being listened to by those making decisions in London. I suppose at least in a few years time we'll be able to look back at these threads like an archive. I think the UK will eventually fall into a Norway style position. There is no genuine appetite for them to set up new customs arrangements and fundamentally renegotiate dozens of new trade treaties and trade deals - all to be worse off. The transport minister was on Question Time a few weeks ago and when asked about additional customs checks, Lorry queues, building new Lorry parks in Dover etc. he just said 'it won't happen and it can't happen' - apparently unaware that it would have to happen if the UK don't remain tied to the rules of the Customs Union and Single Market. They will huff and puff until they run out of time to be able to implement new customs arrangements and will eventually have no choice but sign up to stay aligned with Europe. I reckon most inside the UK govt see this but think it's politically impossible to come out and state it. They will however continue to do enormous damage to existing business and future investment by essentially making their government trade policy uncertain. Amazing to type that but I believe that is the UK's current trade policy; uncertainty.
Sam Russell wrote: » I do not agree. It was the SNP who had done all the work on the Scottish Indyref, and had all the economic arguments worked out. It was the 'Stronger Together' who used the emotional arguments like 'You can't use the GB Pound', or 'You will have to leave the EU' or you will not get the BBC, or other such arguments. Most of this type of rhetoric was of uncertin truth and would have been subject to negotiation. It was emotion what won it.
Econ_ wrote: » The priorities of leave voters are mainly non-economical and nonsensical. For instance many leave voters will talk about sovereignty and the ability to make their own laws. But when they are asked 'which law do you currently follow because of the EU, that you don't want to?' - they invariably cannot give one single example. Leave voters are high on rhetoric and slogans but unfortunately facts and detail are not high on the agenda. People are fed up of 'experts' indeed.
wes wrote: » The attacks on Corbyn are really taking the cake. I am not fan of him, due to his position on Brexit, but the stuff being said is some nonsense. Apparently he is an anti-Semite for attending a Jewish event now, but apparently the people behind the event aren't really Jewish or something (because they criticized Israel apparently, what next people aren't Muslim if they criticize Saudi Arabia for the Yemen slaughter?). The whole thing is a farce, and doubly so when you have far right racist nutters like Guido Fawkes thinking they get to decide who is and isn't Jewish.
