Brexit matters

[Enthusiast]

There's a difference between making "promises" that may not be kept, and making proveable false statements about facts (such as the figure on the bus, officially criticised by the statistics authority, and the claim that the UK could not stop Turkey joining the EU).

Well what I commented on was:

...several prominent Leave proponents are on record as admitting that they said what they needed to in order to get people to vote Leave without any intention of following through.

Politicians do what they need to do to get people to vote the way they want. Many resort to telling lies (covered by my "and worse" remark). Seasoned voters (and indeed fellow politicians) need to appreciate this. They should work on the basis that nothing politicians tell them can be relied upon. Occasionally they will be pleasantly surprised but adopting that strategy will ensure they are rarely disappointed.

 

[RT4038]

They could certainly have offered things if they'd put their collective minds to it, by exploiting the existing powers that weren't used such as the ability to deny free movement on various grounds. All part of the general assumption in the remain campaign (if it can be called that) that they would win by default.

I don't think, in 2016, the Remain campaign saying ' We could have restricted FoM for new accession countries for a few years [by introducing complex bureaucratic systems that probably wouldn't have worked in our culture], but we didn't, so you should just put up with it now' would quite have cut the mustard to convince voters not to vote for Brexit?

 

[edwin_m]

Politicians do what they need to do to get people to vote the way they want. Many resort to telling lies (covered by my "and worse" remark). Seasoned voters (and indeed fellow politicians) need to appreciate this. They should work on the basis that nothing politicians tell them can be relied upon. Occasionally they will be pleasantly surprised but adopting that strategy will ensure they are rarely disappointed.

Unfortunately not all voters are seasoned and many will take a statement of "fact" by a politician they like at face value. I repeat that's different from a "promise", which seems to be what you are trying to address. Democracy itself is undermined if politicians don't have a respect for the facts. Failure to do so has become much more common with Leave, Trump, and Johnson.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Aug 2022 ==

I don't think, in 2016, the Remain campaign saying ' We could have restricted FoM for new accession countries for a few years [by introducing complex bureaucratic systems that probably wouldn't have worked in our culture], but we didn't, so you should just put up with it now' would quite have cut the mustard to convince voters not to vote for Brexit?

They only had to convince 1 in 25 of them to vote the other way, or influence some of the many that didn't vote at all.

 

[TwoYellas]

'Keep Brexit Safe' is a slogan that has been showing up on placards in recent hustings.

 

[najaB]

Unfortunately not all voters are seasoned and many will take a statement of "fact" by a politician they like at face value. I repeat that's different from a "promise", which seems to be what you are trying to address.

Exactly. The specific thing I had in mind was that several prominent pro-Brexit voices stated - as fact - that there was no way we were going to leave the Single Market. It was stated that it wasn't even an option - e.g. Owen "Tractor Lover" Patterson said "only a madman would leave the market" and Daniel Hannan said "Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market".

Yet they changed their tune afterwards. Patterson said "Remain campaigners made it abundantly clear to voters that backing Leave meant leaving the Single Market including potential trade barriers, paying tariffs & even reverting to WTO rules..17.4 million voters didn’t fear abandoning Single Market membership" and Daniel Hannan "Leaving the EU but keeping the customs union would damage our trade with the 27 remaining members while simultaneously prohibiting us from signing trade deals with anyone else".

There's a difference between stretching the truth or exaggerating a benefit and telling callous, bold-faced lies.

Interestingly, Mr Hannan now says "Staying in the single market, or large parts of it, would have saved us a lot of trouble" - a bit of seeing which way the wind is blowing perhaps?

 

[RT4038]

They only had to convince 1 in 25 of them to vote the other way, or influence some of the many that didn't vote at all.

Yeah right. With that statement?

 

[Gloster]

Exactly. The specific thing I had in mind was that several prominent pro-Brexit voices stated - as fact - that there was no way we were going to leave the Single Market. It was stated that it wasn't even an option - e.g. Owen "Tractor Lover" Patterson said "only a madman would leave the market" and Daniel Hannan said "Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market".

I think that Owen Paterson was the ‘friend of Randox’. It was Neil Parish who became too familiar with tractors.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The main issue is that the official Remain campaign wasn't prepared to lie as much as the Leave campaign was. Yes, there were exaggerations on both side, but several prominent Leave proponents are on record as admitting that they said what they needed to in order to get people to vote Leave without any intention of following through.

Really? Which ones? Do you have any confirmatory links? (I'm not doubting that there were some outright lies in the leave campaign. That £350M on the bus was an obvious example. But I hadn't heard anything about Leave politicians subsequently explicitly saying they had no intention of following through).

 

[najaB]

I think that Owen Paterson was the ‘friend of Randox’. It was Neil Parish who became too familiar with tractors.

Oh, right. Sorry. So many scandals, so little brain space to remember them.

Really? Which ones? Do you have any confirmatory links?

I shall go find the link - it was mentioned in a video I watched at the weekend.

Edit: Annoyingly, in the video Bowlerhatman says that Owen Paterson said it (and is quite obviously reading from something), but doesn't actually provide a link himself. I thought it was in the article he's reviewing but it must've been somewhere else:

I'll keep hunting, but unfortunately searching Owen Paterson and anything combination of "vote" and "leave" brings up loads about his more recent troubles.

 

[edwin_m]

Yeah right. With that statement?

Plenty of other arguments they could have used, if they'd been seriously campaigning to remain.

 

[GS250]

Really? Which ones? Do you have any confirmatory links? (I'm not doubting that there were some outright lies in the leave campaign. That £350M on the bus was an obvious example. But I hadn't heard anything about Leave politicians subsequently explicitly saying they had no intention of following through).

There were plenty of 'Remain' campaigners who were arms crossed defiant within a few hours of the Brexit vote. If anyone can find the BBC News coverage on youtube, Chuka Umunna reluctantly agrees that the vote needs to be respected after result is confirmed. Within a couple of hours....he was making noises about campaigning against the result.....

 

[najaB]

Chuka Umunna reluctantly agrees that the vote needs to be respected after result is confirmed. Within a couple of hours....he was making noises about campaigning against the result.....

Respecting the result and campaigning to change it are not contradictory positions. After all, in order to campaign to change something you have to accept that it's a fact: "You made this decision, I'm going to try to convince you to change your mind".

This is completely different to the likes of Trump in the USA who still hasn't conceded that Joe Biden won the 2020 election!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Edit: Annoyingly, in the video Bowlerhatman says that Owen Paterson said it (and is quite obviously reading from something), but doesn't actually provide a link himself. I thought it was in the article he's reviewing but it must've been somewhere else:

Thanks for digging that up. I would agree that that is a pretty shocking thing for Owen Patterson to admit to.

I'm not sure that Owen Patterson meets the description, "several prominent Leave proponents" though

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Sep 2022 ==

Respecting the result and campaigning to change it are not contradictory positions. After all, in order to campaign to change something you have to accept that it's a fact: "You made this decision, I'm going to try to convince you to change your mind".

Your friend asks you if you want to come out with him/her to some event on Friday evening. You decline, saying you have something else you want to do. Your friend is obviously disappointed but says that's fine.

Two hours later your friend starts messaging you to try to persuade you to change your mind. Are you going to feel that your friend respected your decision?

 

[Doppelganger]

Your friend asks you if you want to come out with him/her to some event on Friday evening. You decline, saying you have something else you want to do. Your friend is obviously disappointed but says that's fine.

Two hours later your friend starts messaging you to try to persuade you to change your mind. Are you going to feel that your friend respected your decision?

How about your friend asks you to come out on Friday and you agree, however there were no parameters set for what Friday would contain.

You expect the cinema and then maybe some food, instead it is a full on pub crawl with messy shots a night club at the end and a kebab on the way home. Are you allowed to change your mind?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

How about your friend asks you to come out on Friday and you agree, however there were no parameters set for what Friday would contain.

You expect the cinema and then maybe some food, instead it is a full on pub crawl with messy shots a night club at the end and a kebab on the way home. Are you allowed to change your mind?

That doesn't quite match the analogy with Remainers campaigning to change the vote very soon after the referendum, because:

(a) There's a difference between changing your own mind and trying to persuade other people to change their mind
(b) Obviously you may well change your mind *after* new facts have come to light, but we're discussing people who were talking about trying to reverse the referendum result soon after the referendum, before anything had changed.

 

[Doppelganger]

That doesn't quite match the analogy with Remainers campaigning to change the vote very soon after the referendum, because:

(a) There's a difference between changing your own mind and trying to persuade other people to change their mind
(b) Obviously you may well change your mind *after* new facts have come to light, but we're discussing people who were talking about trying to reverse the referendum result soon after the referendum, before anything had changed.

Ok, so your Friend's Friday is always messy and after you experienced it once, you decide that is not your definition of a Friday.

So you campaign for a better defined Friday which you (or anyone else) can opt in or out of.

 

[najaB]

Your friend asks you if you want to come out with him/her to some event on Friday evening. You decline, saying you have something else you want to do. Your friend is obviously disappointed but says that's fine.

Two hours later your friend starts messaging you to try to persuade you to change your mind. Are you going to feel that your friend respected your decision?

Depends on how they go about it.

If they notice that I was didn't have a strong opinion - I was kinda wavering, maybe 50/50 (or 52/48) - and they messaged with more info about the plans with a "Just so you know, the offer is still on the table" then that's one thing, if they badger me about it then that's a different matter.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Ok, so your Friend's Friday is always messy and after you experienced it once, you decide that is not your definition of a Friday.

So you campaign for a better defined Friday which you (or anyone else) can opt in or out of.

And if all your friends voted against a better defined Friday, and you're still campaigning?

The other problem is, the people who have been calling to reverse Brexit on the grounds of, it didn't turn out the way we thought, are on the whole the people who were *alway* opposed to Brexit.

So with your previous cinema analogy, it's more like: Susan invites you out on Friday, and you're expecting the cinema. Alan never liked Susan, and right from the moment she invited you, he was trying to persuade you not to go. And even after you decided to go, he was still muttering about how you shouldn't go. Then a few days later, it turns out that Friday night is going to be drinks, not cinema. Surprise... 5 minutes later, Alan is messaging you to try to persuade you to change your mind on the grounds that it's not cinema after all. You're probably going to be rather suspicious of Alan's motives at that point!

 

[najaB]

And if all your friends voted against a better defined Friday, and you're still campaigning?

Wait?! Did I miss the second referendum? Damnit!

 

[Doppelganger]

The other problem is, the people who have been calling to reverse Brexit on the grounds of, it didn't turn out the way we thought, are on the whole the people who were *alway* opposed to Brexit.

Is anyone genuinely happy with Brexit?

This is the point of the analogy, as clumsy as it is, that Brexit was ill-defined and that is why no one is happy with the current 5h1t-show.

 

[edwin_m]

I'd say the Friday night analogy would be closer if you'd agreed to go out after being assured by your friend that the last train was running normally, only to find after you'd booked an advance ticket that they knew it wasn't, deliberately lied and you had to come home on a bus.

 

[GS250]

I guess both sides have lied up to a point. Those who were informed that entry to the EEC was purely to enhance trade relations and was never going to result in a more centralised federalist setup. Many voted 'in' including all of my grandparents who were onside with the idea that better trading relations would drastically reduce the chance of conflict breaking out in Europe. They didn't want a Federal Europe but had seen and suffered the consequences of what happens when Europe falls apart. Maybe the original intention was purely a trading bloc of which matured to what it is today?

And yes, both sides lied in the run up to the 2016 referendum.

 

[edwin_m]

And yes, both sides lied in the run up to the 2016 referendum.

The remain side may have said things that might happen and didn't, as most politicians do. But the leave side said things that simply weren't true and could be proven false at the time.

 

[najaB]

This might have escaped your notice, but 1974 was nearly forty years before 2016. The world had changed just a little bit.

 

[GS250]

This might have escaped your notice, but 1974 was nearly forty years before 2016. The world had changed just a little bit.

Am quite aware of that. However is there now a case for a more federalist Europe than there was in 1974?

If we're talking about a country going rogue like Russia....then isn't that what NATO is designed for? An example of this being a dynamic organisation is Finland and Sweden now suddenly showing an interest to join.

 

[edwin_m]

Am quite aware of that. However is there now a case for a more federalist Europe than there was in 1974?

If we're talking about a country going rogue like Russia....then isn't that what NATO is designed for? An example of this being a dynamic organisation is Finland and Sweden now suddenly showing an interest to join.

And Ukraine wants to join the EU. Economic security is important as well as military security.

 

[najaB]

And Ukraine wants to join the EU. Economic security is important as well as military security.

Indeed, in many cases economic security eliminates the need to utilise the military security assets. There's a reason why, despite the sabre-rattling, a war between the USA and China is unlikely in the near to mid-term.

 

[RT4038]

Indeed, in many cases economic security eliminates the need to utilise the military security assets. There's a reason why, despite the sabre-rattling, a war between the USA and China is unlikely in the near to mid-term.

Yes, but economic security does not require unlimited Freedom of Movement of citizens, an ever closer political union or harmonisation of laws by Directive.

 

[najaB]

Yes, but economic security does not require unlimited Freedom of Movement of citizens, an ever closer political union or harmonisation of laws by Directive.

So it's a good thing that the EU doesn't require unlimited Freedom of Movement of citizens or an ever closer union. I would argue that harmonisation of some laws is required if you want a level playing field for businesses.

 

[GS250]

And Ukraine wants to join the EU. Economic security is important as well as military security.

Of course they do. It will benefit them hugely from an economic viewpoint. And naturally with time, give some of their citizens the chance to leave for good.