EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[mmh]

Brown gave the Bank of England its independence so that it could get on with looking after the money free from political pressures. If Carney sees real risks in what the politicians are doing (or not doing) then he really should say something about it if that freedom is to mean anything.

No, they should be planning what they may need to do for the possible outcomes are, not giving predictions of which outcome the elected government will deliver.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Carney allows himself to be easily get project fear allegations because you could argue it's not his place to give such predictions. The Bank of England was made more independent to distance it from politics and accusations it just did whatever the Treasury told it to, not so it could make political comments itself.

He doesn't have a great track record on Brexit related predictions anyway, so I think yes, a tub of saxa is needed when it comes to this.

(Fox's 60/40 comment hasn't been ignored, I listened to people banging on about it on the radio this morning for far longer than was sensible)

He's only part of project fear as the interpretation of people who want to interpret it that way. I don't see how a man in his position is deemed being political by giving his opinion on a possible outcome he will partly have to manage.

It's called planning; of which there seems to be not enough of at the moment. Maybe he shouldn't bother and wait to find out then release a statement saying "pull together"

 

[EM2]

I've got masses of sympathy with both of them, but unfortunately 25 years as a "union man" has shown me the term is very misunderstood.

That's why I put the term in inverted commas.

 

[Jonny]

Is this you @Jonny

Man claims that his life is being ruined by immigration but can't explain how

It's that sort of silly mockery, making fun of genuine concerns that the mainstream (both media and politics) ignore; the more you mock the more you alienate. You will never win anyone over with silly insults.

 

[mmh]

It's that sort of silly mockery, making fun of genuine concerns that the mainstream (both media and politics) ignore; the more you mock the more you alienate. You will never win anyone over with silly insults.

Exactly. An annoying, to me, example of that is how unlistenable I find Radio 4 current affairs "comedy" these days. I loved it for 30 years but the only reason to listen to it now is to place a bet on how soon it'll mention Brexit or Trump. I think about six seconds was the best I got before I gave up.

I think that's a massive shame, I grew up with, for example, the News Quiz when people were allowed to have different views. I was a leftie, and thought Alan Coren, an unashamed conservative, was fantastic.

These days I wonder if all the people trying to change your mind by telling you just how stupid you are realise that usually just has the opposite effect.

 

[Puffing Devil]

It's that sort of silly mockery, making fun of genuine concerns that the mainstream (both media and politics) ignore; the more you mock the more you alienate. You will never win anyone over with silly insults.

Not looking to win you over at all. Simply looking for anything at all substantive to support your views. We've seen lots of opinion, supposition and rhetoric, but not one corroborated fact. How about an answer to the question that I posed a couple of days ago:

Why? How exactly will the country as a whole be in a better position if we leave?

 

[mmh]

Not looking to win you over at all. Simply looking for anything at all substantive to support your views. We've seen lots of opinion, supposition and rhetoric, but not one corroborated fact. How about an answer to the question that I posed a couple of days ago:

This is getting really tedious, not just on this forum but in life in general. It's been two years now. How many times can a remainer ask the same question, get the same answers but still go on and on and on.

Leavers disagree with you. You know why we disagree with you. Is it not enough now of this what-did-you-vote-for nonsense? Two years of it hasn't changed anyone's opinion, so please, please, can we stop. We should be having a proper discussion, not this schoolyard nonsense.

 

[Puffing Devil]

This is getting really tedious, not just on this forum but in life in general. It's been two years now. How many times can a remainer ask the same question, get the same answers but still go on and on and on.

Leavers disagree with you. You know why we disagree with you. Is it not enough now of this what-did-you-vote-for nonsense? Two years of it hasn't changed anyone's opinion, so please, please, can we stop. We should be having a proper discussion, not this schoolyard nonsense.

Humour me. I believe that you have been played and there is no substance to the decision you made and your position is indefensible. Show me otherwise.

 

[Geezertronic]

Humour me. I believe that you have been played and there is no substance to the decision you made and your position is indefensible. Show me otherwise.

For you and your Daily Mash link, probably the same standard but since we all appear to like a good joke and you want to be humored...

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/three-great-myths-of-the-sulking-remainers/

Three great myths of the sulking Remainers

 

[Groningen]

Srebrenica massacre: Dutch soldiers let 300 Muslims die, court rules

Hornet: apparently you do not know the real story. Request for an airstrike was denied. The Dutch military had light armery. If you want to spread fakenews, but we in the Netherlands things were different. Yes; i know this response in the wrong topic, but i did not start this thread about the civil war in Yugoslavia. Things (btw) are hotting up between Serbia and Croatia.

 

[EM2]

We should be having a proper discussion, not this schoolyard nonsense.

Then discuss it. Explain how life in this country will improve to those that cannot see any way how it will.

 

[AlterEgo]

Hornet: apparently you do not know the real story. Request for an airstrike was denied. The Dutch military had light armery. If you want to spread fakenews, but we in the Netherlands things were different. Yes; i know this response in the wrong topic, but i did not start this thread about the civil war in Yugoslavia. Things (btw) are hotting up between Serbia and Croatia.

It's not fake news, it's an actual report on a court case reported in dozens of world news outlets. Your soldiers abandoned those people to their deaths, and it was a disgrace.

Deal with it.

 

[Puffing Devil]

For you and your Daily Mash link, probably the same standard but since we all appear to like a good joke and you want to be humored...

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/three-great-myths-of-the-sulking-remainers/

Subheading "Both sides lied — get over it"

A two-year-old piece by Rod Liddle, buoyed by the victory, who admits to the lies and deciets proffered by Leave and noting that Remain would cite unfairness if they lost. Remain did lose and it's Leave who are under investigation. Draw your own conclusions about the scale of any deciets.

He touches on jobs and trade - how's that now looking, given the UK proposals to the WTO have been knocked back by 8 countries, including our special buddies the USA. And WTO rules only cover goods; we have no agreements anywhere for services which account for 80% of our economy.

The icing on the cake would be the fall of Sterling today against the Dollar and Euro, despite the interest rate rise......

Please tell me: Where and how are we expecting to trade next year? How are we going to be in a better situation as a country?

 

[northwichcat]

No, they should be planning what they may need to do for the possible outcomes are, not giving predictions of which outcome the elected government will deliver.

The elected government said the would deliver the best Brexit possible, so surely it's the duty of experts to advise on the pros and cons of different options so the elected government can decide which option is best (or the least worst option.)

 

[northwichcat]

Hornet: apparently you do not know the real story. Request for an airstrike was denied. The Dutch military had light armery. If you want to spread fakenews, but we in the Netherlands things were different. Yes; i know this response in the wrong topic, but i did not start this thread about the civil war in Yugoslavia. Things (btw) are hotting up between Serbia and Croatia.

The UN (with Dutch soldiers acting as peace keepers) didn't do their jobs properly in the Bosnian war, with crime and corruption widespread, it wasn't just a case of one bad decision by someone over whether to launch an airstrike. However, I'm not sure what this has got to do with Brexit especially considering what British troops did when Blair was acting as George W Bush's lapdog.

 

[Bromley boy]

Subheading "Both sides lied — get over it"

A two-year-old piece by Rod Liddle, buoyed by the victory, who admits to the lies and deciets proffered by Leave and noting that Remain would cite unfairness if they lost. Remain did lose and it's Leave who are under investigation. Draw your own conclusions about the scale of any deciets.

He touches on jobs and trade - how's that now looking, given the UK proposals to the WTO have been knocked back by 8 countries, including our special buddies the USA. And WTO rules only cover goods; we have no agreements anywhere for services which account for 80% of our economy.

The icing on the cake would be the fall of Sterling today against the Dollar and Euro, despite the interest rate rise......

Please tell me: Where and how are we expecting to trade next year? How are we going to be in a better situation as a country?

If you’re serious about wishing to understand the motivations of leave voters (rather than just telling us all how stupid we are), this article may assist you. In particular it discusses why the remain campaign’s relentless focuss on doom and gloom economics was ultimately unpersuasive. It’s of the best pieces I’ve read on the subject.

It’s quite lengthy, but I’ve highlighted three key paragraphs below:

https://quillette.com/2018/08/03/britains-populist-revolt/

Here are just a few findings from a literature that tells a remarkably consistent story: people who felt unhappy with how democracy works in the EU and who felt that immigration was having negative effects on Britain’s economy, culture, and welfare state were significantly more likely to back Brexit; people who felt that being in the EU had undermined national independence and identity and who felt that on balance immigration had been bad for Britain were more likely to back Leave; when Leavers were asked to describe their concerns in their own words the two most popular were “sovereignty” and “immigration”; when another large-survey asked Leavers to identify their reasons for wanting out of the EU, the most popular by far were “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK,” and leaving “offered the best chance to regain control over immigration and borders.” Another concluded that people who felt that the EU undermined Britain’s distinctive identity and wanted to lower immigration were the most likely to back Brexit; and another found that those who felt anxious over immigration and believed they had been left behind relative to others in society were less likely to see Brexit as a risk and more likely to back Leave. A research institute at Oxford also asked Leavers to reflect on their rationale; the most popular response was “to regain control over EU immigration” followed by “I didn’t want the EU to have any role in UK law-making.” And contrary to the claim that Leavers were simply engaging in an irrational backlash against the Establishment, the motive “to teach British politicians a lesson” had (by far) the lowest ranking.

Though some journalists would later contend that voters were swayed by misleading economic data or social media campaigns, the reality is that Brexit was a natural extension of their pre-existing values; a vote to tip the scales back toward order, stability, and group conformity, and an attempt to defend the wider community that was seen to be under threat. Not every Leaver felt this way, but many did. This is why, though controversial, the anti-EU slogans of “Take Back Control” and “Breaking Point” (a reference to immigration and the refugee crisis) were not only emotionally resonant but more in tune with what was occupying the minds of voters—and had been for some time.

Remainers did not even try to win these sceptics over. Instead, they focused almost exclusively on a narrative that was rooted in rational choice—transactional and incredibly dry arguments about economic self-interest. It’s hard to make such a case to workers who had often not had a pay rise in over a decade or affluent social conservatives who cared little about the markets but worried intensely about flag, faith, and family. Remainers focused exclusively on the internal risk of Brexit while failing to recognize the fact that many voters were thinking about the external risks and threats that came with being in the EU. When it came to Brexit, 70 percent of Leavers felt that exiting the EU would be ‘safe’ while only 23 percent saw it as a risk. But when it came to remaining in the EU, 76 percent felt that was a risk while 17 percent felt it was safe. This was the big miscalculation.

Note: I don’t expect you to agree with the motivations outlined, but that doesn’t make them any less valid.

In the end the failure was with the remain side: they lost the battle for “hearts and minds”, and failed to persuade the public, despite having the advantage of the “status quo”, overwhelming backing of the then PM, the government and the establishment at large.

Rather than demonising and mocking leave voters, if you want someone to blame, you should look a little closer to home.

 

[EM2]

'Instead, they focused almost exclusively on a narrative that was rooted in rational choice'.
Which suggests that the Leave narrative was irrational.

 

[Bromley boy]

'Instead, they focused almost exclusively on a narrative that was rooted in rational choice'.
Which suggests that the Leave narrative was irrational.

Perhaps.

It also suggests the remain campaign erred by failing to understand and address the concerns and motivations of their target audience (that audience being leavers and leave/remain agnostics).

In short, Remain were arrogant: they assumed they would win. They ran a patronising, negative, uninspiring campaign which only preached to the converted.

In a nutshell the problem (your problem!) is that the remain campaign didn’t appeal to me as a leave voter, primarily because it didn’t address my concerns about sovereignty/control. Naturally it didn’t need to persuade you.

Along (I suspect) with most leave voters I paid far less attention to the leave campaign anyway. I already knew why I wanted to leave, I didn’t need that reinforcing.

 

[EM2]

It also suggests the remain campaign erred by failing to understand and address the concerns and motivations of their target audience (that audience being leavers and leave/remain agnostics).
...
Along (I suspect) with most leave voters I paid far less attention to the leave campaign anyway. I already knew why I wanted to leave, I didn’t need that reinforcing.

If (as you suspect), most Leave voters already knew why they wanted to leave, then nothing Remain said would have made any difference.

 

[Bromley boy]

If (as you suspect), most Leave voters already knew why they wanted to leave, then nothing Remain said would have made any difference.

Right, and neither would anything Leave said.

Voters on both sides made a “seat of the pants” judgement, based on gut feel. It wasn’t about the campaigns.

So, two years on, PLEASE let’s move on and stop arguing about slogans on buses, overspending, blah blah blah. Both sides lied and misrepresented. It made no difference.

Personally I think giving £350m extra to the NHS would be a terrible idea: a bottomless pit, they’d only p*ss it up the wall and waste it, like they do with most of their funding.

 

[mmh]

Then discuss it. Explain how life in this country will improve to those that cannot see any way how it will.

There is no point. This thread's been going on for two years now. You haven't changed your mind in that time, neither have I.

Do I think it's going as well it could? Of course not. The government might be incompetent (we've seen that before), the EU might be obstructive (we've seen that before). Would I vote the same way tomorrow? Yes, just as you would.

Neither party (yes, there are only two which matter in this) are about to become anti-brexit, whatever remainers hope for. The voters of both voted to leave.

 

[Bromley boy]

Would I vote the same way tomorrow? Yes, just as you would.

As would I.

In fact, the longer this goes on, the more bullying and intransigent the EU is, the more I want to leave!

 

[EM2]

Would I vote the same way tomorrow? Yes, just as you would.

Not if it could be shown to me how things would be better. And no-one has.

 

[Wivenswold]

As would I.

In fact, the longer this goes on, the more bullying and intransigent the EU is, the more I want to leave!

I don't know which MP or newspaper gave you the idea that the EU has been intransigent. They set out a clear order of business at the start which the UK team have failed to adhere to. Our exit strategy and termination of contract came first then phase two (estimated to start around January 2018) was future trade agreements. We're running 7 months' late and there's still no sign of anything like an agreement for phase 1. However, the EU Commission did relax their timetable for Brexit a little.

If you don't know this, then you only read pro-brexit newspapers and if you only read pro-brexit newspapers then you're probably still waiting for the 4 months of snow last winter, the British Banger Ban and think peanuts can give you cancer. Because they apply the same level of truth to Brexit reporting as they do on everything else they lie about.

And they don't pay a penny of UK tax. Now who are the traitors?

 

[mmh]

If you don't know this, then you only read pro-brexit newspapers and if you only read pro-brexit newspapers then you're probably still waiting for the 4 months of snow last winter, the British Banger Ban and think peanuts can give you cancer

Good lord, how often does it need to be said that being rude and condescending to people with a different opinion is an awful way of trying to convert them.

It has the opposite effect.

 

[Bromley boy]

If you don't know this, then you only read pro-brexit newspapers and if you only read pro-brexit newspapers then you're probably still waiting for the 4 months of snow last winter, the British Banger Ban and think peanuts can give you cancer. Because they apply the same level of truth to Brexit reporting as they do on everything else they lie about.

Nope - sorry to disappoint you. I have no interest in tin foil hat nonsense about cancer from peanuts or “banger bans” (what the hell does that mean? Are Mini metros being banned? Sausages? I’m none the wiser?!)

Not that I owe you an explanation(!) - I’ve always been deeply suspicious of the EU (I’m a small government libertarian at heart) and have firmly wanted to leave since I studied EU law in detail during my law degree (and I graduated mid noughties, so something I’ve considered for a long while). That grounding in law, and interest in politics generally, mean I have a fair grasp of the subject.

I warn you, I’m the wrong button to push, if you want to show us leavers up for ignorance of EU law matters!

Rather than insulting nonsense about peanuts and bangers, we could discuss Van Gend en Loos, Keck v. Mithouard, the doctrine of direct effect, and my objections to it, if you like? I’m guessing you won’t want to? (I reckon I’d spectacularly take you down, if we had that discussion... bring it on, I love a barney)

But you feel free to continue stereotyping/demonising us leavers as being stupid/thick/ignorant if it makes you feel better.

It only fuels the fire...

Ps, papers wise, I read the grauniad most days.

 

[MAV39]

To answer EM2, I believe things would be better because the UK would be self determinant.

 

[fowler9]

Blimey, how do you believe that will make things better based on the last government the country voted for? Our self determination seems pretty incompetent.

 

[VauxhallandI]

It does feel like the majority of people didn't really care about the subject five years ago and happily got on with their lives.

It was barely discussed out and about and there was the odd joke about bent bananas.

Leavers have now built more trenches than a First World War army, nothing will ever be blamed on Brexit and we will never be reconciled with each other.

 

[Wivenswold]

Nope - sorry to disappoint you. I have no interest in tin foil hat nonsense about cancer from peanuts or “banger bans” (what the hell does that mean? Are Mini metros being banned? Sausages? I’m none the wiser?!)

Not that I owe you an explanation(!) - I’ve always been deeply suspicious of the EU (I’m a small government libertarian at heart) and have firmly wanted to leave since I studied EU law in detail during my law degree (and I graduated mid noughties, so something I’ve considered for a long while). That grounding in law, and interest in politics generally, mean I have a fair grasp of the subject.

I warn you, I’m the wrong button to push, if you want to show us leavers up for ignorance of EU law matters!

Rather than insulting nonsense about peanuts and bangers, we could discuss Van Gend en Loos, Keck v. Mithouard, the doctrine of direct effect, and my objections to it, if you like? I’m guessing you won’t want to? (I reckon I’d spectacularly take you down, if we had that discussion... bring it on, I love a barney)

But you feel free to continue stereotyping/demonising us leavers as being stupid/thick/ignorant if it makes you feel better.

It only fuels the fire...

Ps, papers wise, I read the grauniad most days.

Re Keck v Mithouard, fair point but you think English Courts aren't capable of making odd, damaging and eccentric rulings? A recent case of mine saw a tribunal allowing a convicted livestock abuser to continue trading simply because he'd said that he moved to an admin job in the company, no evidence that he wasn't still working with animals was requested and the judge had already accepted part of his defence on the basis that he could read or write.

I don't see a problem with the ECJ ensuring Judicial parity between member states.
The basis of any membership is that everyone has the same rules. While Direct Effect may be restrictive it's only one aspect of EU membership and should be weighed up against the multifarious benefits such as visa-free movement, Human Rights protections and the sharing of data, intel and resources between the various member agencies.

However, I am generally in favour of the UK moving towards leaving the EU, but voted Remain simply because I didn't have faith in the Government's ability to navigate through a legal and constitutional nightmare. I was also concerned that no one had a clue what came next if A.50 was triggered. My decision was vindicated.