Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

Not sure that voter involvement reaches the nuances of this storm now, and maybe that’s what they rely on. Not demeaning anyone, but honestly the FPTP system really means engagement locally results in nothing if the constituency is a safe seat does it?k

schmittel wrote: »

Woohoo!
General Election, this will be very exciting!!

You called

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.

Remind me how old the EU is?

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.

I'm not convinced there was much anti-European feeling 100 years ago. Britain fought two world wars alongside France as a very close ally and would hardly have done so if there was a anti-European thing going on.

British Europhobia and Euroscepticism seems much more recent.....perhaps from the 60s/70s onward.

hotmail.com wrote: »

European? Did you read what I 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.