Brexit

Fed up talking videogames? Why?

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

Remain a member of the European Union
202
79%
Leave the European Union
54
21%
 
Total votes: 256
User avatar
Squinty
Member
Joined in 2009
Location: Norn Oirland

PostRe: Brexit
by Squinty » Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:33 am

Meep wrote:I would hate to be any of the Brexiteers who helped persuade the public to vote for this mess. Negotiations are going far worse than I though they would and I was pessimistic to begin with. Anyone who lied to the public about how easy and wonderful this would be better be careful about where they go and how late they stay out in future, otherwise they could be found floating in the nearest canal. There is going to be millions of dangerously pissed off leave voters if the economic impact of leaving with no deal hits them hard enough. The vote was mainly swayed by frustration at the current status quo so imagine how folks will feel when it blows up in their faces.


It's going about as well as I thought it would. Both sides are holding on closely to their perceived trump cards. I knew Northern Ireland was going to be a sticking point.

I've said it before, I don't even feel good about being vindicated anymore.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Brexit
by Moggy » Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:46 am

Rocsteady wrote:The more i think about it i think part of the blame also lies with people like us on here.

I remember many of us laughing off the concerns of immigrants coming over but if Blair,.Brown or Cameron had made it substantially harder for immigrants to come we wouldn't have collapsed our economy and be facing down the barrel of a gun. Perhaps a lesson that we need to learn is to listen more to the general public and give some concessions to opinion when appropriate. Otherwise it all boils over, which looks something like this.


Part of the fault doesn’t lie with people like us on here that didn’t believe lies spouted by the likes of Farage and the Daily Mail. The fault lies with Farage and the Daily Mail, along with those that bought into those lies without bothering to look into whether the lies were true.

If you are saying that people like us should have supplied better arguments to those that wanted to leave, then I would love to know how you think that could have happened? Even now a huge number of leavers still believe in the lies of the Leave campaign (immigration, £350million, sovereignty, they need us more than we need them, etc). How exactly can you get through to people who refuse to believe evidence in favour of what the Sun or Daily Mail have told them?

I am not sure that restricting immigration and free movement on the basis of tabloid lies would have been a great way to fix things either. Let’s say Blair/Brown/Cameron had stopped Polish/Romanian/Bulgarian immigration, do you really think that would have fixed things for the better? I remember William Hague as Tory leader talking about immigration being too high, that was long before the Polish gained full EU rights.
What we lacked was charismatic Remain politicians that could put the case forward properly and in a way that people believed. We had Cameron, Osborne and Alistair Darling. That was the failure of Remain, not individual citizens who saw the benefit of immigration.

Edit:

I agree with you that the biggest failure of Blair/Brown/Cameron was not listening to working class people, but I don't think it was immigration they should have been listening to. They should have improved the lives of the working class to make immigration concerns irrelevant. The price of housing should have been looked at over 15 years ago. Wages for those at the bottom should never have been allowed to stagnate. If the Labour/Conservative governments had fixed those two things alone then I think we would have seen a different result. People were poor, pissed off and fed a constant diet of lies that it was immigrants that caused their poverty. Fix the poverty and they would have been less pissed off and less inclined to believe Farage.

Last edited by Moggy on Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Karl
Imi Wakannai
Imi Wakannai
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Brexit
by Karl » Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:48 am

Rocsteady wrote:
Karl wrote:I don't think we should blame ourselves for not being racist.

That's a very glib way of putting it.

Sure, OK, I'll try harder. As we both know, immigration is at least good for the economy. It's a little more subjective, but I believe it to be good for us culturally as well (hard to measure, but racism being lower in higher-immigration areas would seem to bear this out). You're saying, well, we know that, but maybe it would be better to make some concessions to people who are maybe racist or a bit ignorant given there are a lot of them. I'm not calling you out, I can see that this is coming from a position of pragmatism and I understand that - I wish there was something 'we' (as in liberal, sensible people) could have done differently or could do differently next time too - but there seem to be two arguments for it:

Rocsteady wrote:Otherwise it all boils over, which looks something like this.

Would racists be satisfied and settle down if we had said "OK, your concerns are legitimate, so we're going to do [some arbitrary, restrictive, slightly racist thing]" in (say) 2014? I think ultimately they are boiling over because their lives are shitty, and their lives wouldn't get less shitty for us legitimising their scapegoat. Remember how hate crimes went up, not down, after their Brexit 'victory'.

My take (may or may not be hot) is that the 'legitimate concerns' narrative only helped the Leave campaign. Remember that the messaging was "you guys are totally right, the EU isn't perfect, but please don't vote to leave" and very much wasn't "you'd have to legit have less than 50 IQ and be an EDL level racist to think Brexit is a good idea" -- that's something Leavers seem to have made up since (I suspect because winning wasn't good enough for them: they had to win against this smug liberal cuck conspiracy they so desperately want to believe exists).

Rocsteady wrote:If I only read the Sun (good sport section) am i going to take their word for it or get home after an 11 hour shift and think 'I'll just read through the latest meta immigration analysis?'

To me this says "we need a way to cut through The Sun's bullshit". Which is 100% true. I don't know if tightening legislation concerning corrections for inaccurate articles might be part of the answer.

User avatar
Karl
Imi Wakannai
Imi Wakannai
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Brexit
by Karl » Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:51 am

Moggy wrote:What we lacked was charismatic Remain politicians that could put the case forward properly and in a way that people believed. We had Cameron, Osborne and Alistair Darling. That was the failure of Remain, not individual citizens who saw the benefit of immigration.

Don't forget Corbyn, the champion of Remain who has wanted to leave the EU for decades. :lol: :fp:

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Brexit
by Moggy » Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:53 am

Karl wrote:
Moggy wrote:What we lacked was charismatic Remain politicians that could put the case forward properly and in a way that people believed. We had Cameron, Osborne and Alistair Darling. That was the failure of Remain, not individual citizens who saw the benefit of immigration.

Don't forget Corbyn, the champion of Remain who has wanted to leave the EU for decades. :lol: :fp:


I deliberately left him out as we didn't have him.

User avatar
KK
Moderator
Joined in 2008
Location: Botswana
Contact:

PostRe: Brexit
by KK » Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:43 am

A tad more optimism this morning...

BBC News wrote:Brexit: EU 'to prepare' for future trade talks with UK

The EU is to begin preparing for its post-Brexit trade negotiations with the UK, while refusing to discuss the matter with the British government.

An internal draft document seen by the BBC
suggests the 27 European Union countries should discuss trade among themselves while officials in Brussels prepare the details.

The draft text could yet be revised.

It comes as the EU's chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, said there was "deadlock" over the UK's Brexit bill.

As the fifth round of talks ended in Brussels on Thursday, Mr Barnier said there had not been enough progress to move to the next stage of post-Brexit trade talks, but added that he hoped for "decisive progress" by the time of the December summit of the European Council.

The draft paper submitted to the 27 EU states by European Council president Donald Tusk, suggests free trade talks could open in December - should Prime Minister Theresa May improve her offer on what the UK pays when it leaves.

The BBC's Europe correspondent Adam Fleming said the paper has been described as an "opening to the UK" to encourage the government to reach a deal with the EU.

The document calls for talks - about a transition period and the future relationship - to move to the next phase "as soon as possible".

The draft conclusions - to be put to EU leaders next Friday - also call for more concessions from the UK on its financial obligations and the rights of
European nationals who wish to stay after Brexit.

The paper confirms Mr Barnier's assessment, that there has not been "sufficient progress" on three key elements of a withdrawal treaty for leaders to agree to open the trade talks now.

But it says the leaders would welcome developments on these key issues: the rights of three million EU citizens in the UK, protecting peace in Northern Ireland from the effect of a new border and Britain's outstanding "financial obligations".

The council would then pledge to "reassess the state of progress" at their December summit.

Bernd Kolmel, chairman of Germany's Eurosceptic Liberal Conservative Reformers, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme there appeared to have been little progress between the first and fifth round of talks - something he described as a "disaster".

He called on the EU to expand the talks to include its future relationships and trade with the UK.

Anders Vistisen, a Danish Eurosceptic MEP and vice-chair of the EU Parliament's foreign affairs committee, agreed, adding: "The most integral thing is the future relationship. If we are making a bad trade deal for Britain we are also hurting ourselves."

The document states that in order "to be fully ready", EU leaders would ask Mr Barnier and his officials to start preparing now for a transition - albeit without actually starting to talk to the UK about it.

"The European Council invites the Council (Article 50) together with the Union negotiator to start internal preparatory discussions," the draft reads.

Our correspondent said that would go some way to meet the request made by Brexit Secretary David Davis at the end of this week's talks, when he called on EU leaders to acknowledge the new momentum injected into the process by the prime minister's speech in Florence last month.

Brexit talks doomed? Not so fast...

By Laura Kuenssberg

"Deadlock!". "L'impasse". "Quelle Horreur". You can hear the cries from across the Channel, and the cages of the City rattling in fear, as Michel Barnier's language took a dramatic turn at this morning's press conference, painting the Brexit talks as at a brick wall.

True, not even Brexit's biggest cheerleader could claim the discussions in Brussels have been going well. And there are visible frustrations on both sides.

But before claiming this morning's drama means the whole thing is doomed there are a few things worth remembering.

At the very start of this whole process, the hope was that in October, the EU would agree to move on to the next phase of the talks, to talk about our future relationship. But for months it has been clear that the chances of that were essentially zero.

It is not, therefore, a surprise to hear Mr Barnier saying right now, he doesn't feel able to press the button on phase 2, however much he enjoyed the drama of saying so today.

Second, behind the scenes, although it has been slow, there has been some progress in the talks but officials in some areas have reached the end of the line until their political masters give them permission to move on.

Forgive what comes next as nerdy detail, but it hopefully helps make this clear.

For example, the UK side is unwilling to move on to talking in more detail about the money, until the EU side is willing to talk about transition (the idea is, until we know what we might get in future, whether access to certain agencies, or EU programmes, how can we assess what we might be prepared to pay).

Mr Barnier is understood to have asked the EU 27 last Friday if he can start exploring transition for that reason, but Germany is resisting. So in this area, it is a possible, and would be a positive outcome for the UK, if at next week's political summit, Barnier asks the 27 for formal permission to talk transition.

It would not be as big a step as moving on to phase 2, but it is the next political decision that could ease the deadlock in this area. And there was a clue from Mr Barnier in his remarks this morning that this is what he will continue to pursue.

And third, if you had been writing the script of these negotiations before they even began, there's no question that at some point in the plot, there would have been a declaration of digging in, a cry that it's all impossible, it is almost the end of the road, all is lost!

Then, at the last moment in a late night summit, emerges the one side of A4 in the clammy hand of an official. On it, not many details, but a few lines that sketch out agreement, show some progress.

Finally, the heroic politicians have snatched victory from the jaws of defeat! (Leaving officials in a quiet way to work out the boring details for the next ten years)

That is not to say for a second that all is well or indeed to minimise the real and possibly very serious consequences of the talks genuinely breaking down.

And whether it is all pantomime or real politics, the remarks will of course stir the pot in Westminster too, likely adding to the drum beat among some
Brexiteers that a swifter exit with no deal is better than this drawn out agony - and Remainers' deep anxiety and uncertainty for business about whether a deal can really be done.

But both on the UK side and the EU side, to translate this morning's remarks into certain Armageddon for the deal would be to misunderstand.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41598453

User avatar
Cuttooth
Moderator
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Brexit
by Cuttooth » Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:47 am

Moggy wrote:
Karl wrote:
Moggy wrote:What we lacked was charismatic Remain politicians that could put the case forward properly and in a way that people believed. We had Cameron, Osborne and Alistair Darling. That was the failure of Remain, not individual citizens who saw the benefit of immigration.

Don't forget Corbyn, the champion of Remain who has wanted to leave the EU for decades. :lol: :fp:


I deliberately left him out as we didn't have him.

Hey look now, he's said he would absolutely, no doubt about it vote Remain in a second referendum!

See May, that's the kind of (probably) untrue answer you're supposed to give your party base.

User avatar
Rex Kramer
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: rich_brad29

PostRe: Brexit
by Rex Kramer » Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:50 am

KK wrote:A tad more optimism this morning...

BBC News wrote:Brexit: EU 'to prepare' for future trade talks with UK

The EU is to begin preparing for its post-Brexit trade negotiations with the UK, while refusing to discuss the matter with the British government.

An internal draft document seen by the BBC
suggests the 27 European Union countries should discuss trade among themselves while officials in Brussels prepare the details.

The draft text could yet be revised.

It comes as the EU's chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, said there was "deadlock" over the UK's Brexit bill.

As the fifth round of talks ended in Brussels on Thursday, Mr Barnier said there had not been enough progress to move to the next stage of post-Brexit trade talks, but added that he hoped for "decisive progress" by the time of the December summit of the European Council.

The draft paper submitted to the 27 EU states by European Council president Donald Tusk, suggests free trade talks could open in December - should Prime Minister Theresa May improve her offer on what the UK pays when it leaves.

The BBC's Europe correspondent Adam Fleming said the paper has been described as an "opening to the UK" to encourage the government to reach a deal with the EU.

The document calls for talks - about a transition period and the future relationship - to move to the next phase "as soon as possible".

The draft conclusions - to be put to EU leaders next Friday - also call for more concessions from the UK on its financial obligations and the rights of
European nationals who wish to stay after Brexit.

The paper confirms Mr Barnier's assessment, that there has not been "sufficient progress" on three key elements of a withdrawal treaty for leaders to agree to open the trade talks now.

But it says the leaders would welcome developments on these key issues: the rights of three million EU citizens in the UK, protecting peace in Northern Ireland from the effect of a new border and Britain's outstanding "financial obligations".

The council would then pledge to "reassess the state of progress" at their December summit.

Bernd Kolmel, chairman of Germany's Eurosceptic Liberal Conservative Reformers, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme there appeared to have been little progress between the first and fifth round of talks - something he described as a "disaster".

He called on the EU to expand the talks to include its future relationships and trade with the UK.

Anders Vistisen, a Danish Eurosceptic MEP and vice-chair of the EU Parliament's foreign affairs committee, agreed, adding: "The most integral thing is the future relationship. If we are making a bad trade deal for Britain we are also hurting ourselves."

The document states that in order "to be fully ready", EU leaders would ask Mr Barnier and his officials to start preparing now for a transition - albeit without actually starting to talk to the UK about it.

"The European Council invites the Council (Article 50) together with the Union negotiator to start internal preparatory discussions," the draft reads.

Our correspondent said that would go some way to meet the request made by Brexit Secretary David Davis at the end of this week's talks, when he called on EU leaders to acknowledge the new momentum injected into the process by the prime minister's speech in Florence last month.

Brexit talks doomed? Not so fast...

By Laura Kuenssberg

"Deadlock!". "L'impasse". "Quelle Horreur". You can hear the cries from across the Channel, and the cages of the City rattling in fear, as Michel Barnier's language took a dramatic turn at this morning's press conference, painting the Brexit talks as at a brick wall.

True, not even Brexit's biggest cheerleader could claim the discussions in Brussels have been going well. And there are visible frustrations on both sides.

But before claiming this morning's drama means the whole thing is doomed there are a few things worth remembering.

At the very start of this whole process, the hope was that in October, the EU would agree to move on to the next phase of the talks, to talk about our future relationship. But for months it has been clear that the chances of that were essentially zero.

It is not, therefore, a surprise to hear Mr Barnier saying right now, he doesn't feel able to press the button on phase 2, however much he enjoyed the drama of saying so today.

Second, behind the scenes, although it has been slow, there has been some progress in the talks but officials in some areas have reached the end of the line until their political masters give them permission to move on.

Forgive what comes next as nerdy detail, but it hopefully helps make this clear.

For example, the UK side is unwilling to move on to talking in more detail about the money, until the EU side is willing to talk about transition (the idea is, until we know what we might get in future, whether access to certain agencies, or EU programmes, how can we assess what we might be prepared to pay).

Mr Barnier is understood to have asked the EU 27 last Friday if he can start exploring transition for that reason, but Germany is resisting. So in this area, it is a possible, and would be a positive outcome for the UK, if at next week's political summit, Barnier asks the 27 for formal permission to talk transition.

It would not be as big a step as moving on to phase 2, but it is the next political decision that could ease the deadlock in this area. And there was a clue from Mr Barnier in his remarks this morning that this is what he will continue to pursue.

And third, if you had been writing the script of these negotiations before they even began, there's no question that at some point in the plot, there would have been a declaration of digging in, a cry that it's all impossible, it is almost the end of the road, all is lost!

Then, at the last moment in a late night summit, emerges the one side of A4 in the clammy hand of an official. On it, not many details, but a few lines that sketch out agreement, show some progress.

Finally, the heroic politicians have snatched victory from the jaws of defeat! (Leaving officials in a quiet way to work out the boring details for the next ten years)

That is not to say for a second that all is well or indeed to minimise the real and possibly very serious consequences of the talks genuinely breaking down.

And whether it is all pantomime or real politics, the remarks will of course stir the pot in Westminster too, likely adding to the drum beat among some
Brexiteers that a swifter exit with no deal is better than this drawn out agony - and Remainers' deep anxiety and uncertainty for business about whether a deal can really be done.

But both on the UK side and the EU side, to translate this morning's remarks into certain Armageddon for the deal would be to misunderstand.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41598453

I'm not sure this signifies anything other than them getting prepared, trade talks are going to happen at some point no matter what. Maybe David Davies should take a leaf out of their book.

Image
Current castaway: Rax can be found here. All the previous contributors can be found here.
Tackling the pile of shame part 2 - http://grview.grcade.co.uk/articles/the-7-commandments-of-tackling-the-pile-of-shame/
User avatar
Hyperion
Member
Joined in 2009
Location: Beyond the wall

PostRe: Brexit
by Hyperion » Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:52 am

Cuttooth wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Karl wrote:
Moggy wrote:What we lacked was charismatic Remain politicians that could put the case forward properly and in a way that people believed. We had Cameron, Osborne and Alistair Darling. That was the failure of Remain, not individual citizens who saw the benefit of immigration.

Don't forget Corbyn, the champion of Remain who has wanted to leave the EU for decades. :lol: :fp:


I deliberately left him out as we didn't have him.

Hey look now, he's said he would absolutely, no doubt about it vote Remain in a second referendum!

See May, that's the kind of (probably) untrue answer you're supposed to give your party base.


She went hiding in the referendum so you wouldn't know what she wanted in the first place

Image Image
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Brexit
by Moggy » Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:58 am

Hyperion wrote:
Cuttooth wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Karl wrote:
Moggy wrote:What we lacked was charismatic Remain politicians that could put the case forward properly and in a way that people believed. We had Cameron, Osborne and Alistair Darling. That was the failure of Remain, not individual citizens who saw the benefit of immigration.

Don't forget Corbyn, the champion of Remain who has wanted to leave the EU for decades. :lol: :fp:


I deliberately left him out as we didn't have him.

Hey look now, he's said he would absolutely, no doubt about it vote Remain in a second referendum!

See May, that's the kind of (probably) untrue answer you're supposed to give your party base.


She went hiding in the referendum so you wouldn't know what she wanted in the first place


To be fair to her, she was out campaigning, it's not her fault that the media didn't focus on her.

Image

Image

User avatar
Hexx
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Brexit
by Hexx » Fri Oct 13, 2017 10:10 am



The shitshower that's going to spray from prominent Leavers as the firestorm hits is going to be epic.

And strawberry floating depressing because it'll work on the vast majority of their moronic dittoheads.

User avatar
Lagamorph
Member ♥
Joined in 2010

PostRe: Brexit
by Lagamorph » Fri Oct 13, 2017 10:14 am

Hexx wrote:

The shitshower that's going to spray from prominent Leavers as the firestorm hits is going to be epic.

And strawberry floating depressing because it'll work on the vast majority of their moronic dittoheads.

I think Julia Hartley-Brewer is a stupid bitch.

Lagamorph's Underwater Photography Thread
Zellery wrote:Good post Lagamorph.
Turboman wrote:Lagomorph..... Is ..... Right
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Brexit
by Moggy » Fri Oct 13, 2017 10:29 am

Hexx wrote:The shitshower that's going to spray from prominent Leavers as the firestorm hits is going to be epic.

And strawberry floating depressing because it'll work on the vast majority of their moronic dittoheads.


It's your fault for not being positive enough and not believing in the country.

User avatar
Squinty
Member
Joined in 2009
Location: Norn Oirland

PostRe: Brexit
by Squinty » Fri Oct 13, 2017 10:42 am

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... xit-impact

This should be pretty interesting whenever it comes out. And it will come out.

User avatar
Rocsteady
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Brexit
by Rocsteady » Fri Oct 13, 2017 10:47 am

Knoyleo wrote:
Rocsteady wrote:I remember many of us laughing off the concerns of immigrants coming over but if Blair,.Brown or Cameron had made it substantially harder for immigrants to come we wouldn't have collapsed our economy and be facing down the barrel of a gun. Perhaps a lesson that we need to learn is to listen more to the general public and give some concessions to opinion when appropriate. Otherwise it all boils over, which looks something like this.

Eh?

Rocsteady wrote:People on low incomes see their relative income falling and people from poorer countries all around them doing the same job for less and it's hardly a radical idea for them to conclude that increased immigration = lower standard of living for them and their families.

Now, we've seen studies that contradict that on a national level but we already have a progressive mindset which leads us to look up such studies. If I only read the Sun (good sport section) am i going to take their word for it or get home after an 11 hour shift and think 'I'll just read through the latest meta immigration analysis?'

So are you saying immigration tanked our economy, or that there is a popular misconception that this is the case? Because only one of those is a good argument for tougher immigration controls, while the other is an issue to do with better informing the electorate.

First point is simply alluding to Brexit.

I'm meaning the latter. It's very easy to say let's inform everyone but how do you propose educating the electorate to that? Genuinely interested. I'd be in favour of mandatory political lessons in school and some statistics classes (so that people can analyse stats themselves if they so desire without having to rely on a third party's interpretation) - which might actually already be the case but I didn't have to do stats in school - but unless we're willing to wait 50 years for the electorate to only be made up of people who have gone through such education I don't think that's a solution to more imminent problems that will come up.

And if somehow we get the information out to the general public that immigration is good for the economy - how? - we have to factor into account that the man on the street is rather untrusting of the government/official line. The press won't help. The internet's often simply an echo chamber for views you already hold (though I love this place, generally a case in point).

Image
User avatar
Rocsteady
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Brexit
by Rocsteady » Fri Oct 13, 2017 10:47 am

Cuttooth wrote:
Rocsteady wrote:
Karl wrote:I don't think we should blame ourselves for not being racist.

That's a very glib way of putting it.

People on low incomes see their relative income falling and people from poorer countries all around them doing the same job for less and it's hardly a radical idea for them to conclude that increased immigration = lower standard of living for them and their families.

Now, we've seen studies that contradict that on a national level but we already have a progressive mindset which leads us to look up such studies. If I only read the Sun (good sport section) am i going to take their word for it or get home after an 11 hour shift and think 'I'll just read through the latest meta immigration analysis?'

We live in a democracy and even if you think everyone's strawberry floating retarded we still have to bear public opinion in mind. Not having done so has quite clearly led to worse outcomes.

I'm not responsible for the right wing press printing numerous lies and skewed stories about immigration and the EU, or for people taking that information at face value. There's no way everyone who reads The Sun believes everything The Sun prints, they have to choose whether or not to do so. I can't do anything to stop someone immediately agreeing with xenophobic or racist arguments because it supports their own xenophobic or racist views.

I'm also not responsible for successive governments failing to educate people on the economic and social importance of immigration and the EU, only really putting out macro level figures that might not convince those on the lowest wages impacted the most negatively. They didn't want to have to deal with their failures in developing British people from all walks of life because it wasn't directly impacting their election chances. They should have done more to improve political engagement but didn't because the minimum effort was getting them by.

While the Remain argument wasn't very positive at all, the information was laid out all the same. Nobody can say the negative aspects of a Leave vote weren't made, nobody should be allowed to say "well you didn't convince me enough". It was their choice to believe the lies.

You're right that we live in a democracy, but it's one where supposedly only adults are allowed to vote. Those adults need to grow up and take responsibility for their actions on the outcome of their votes.

I just had a quick look and according to here (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 11651.html), 73% of people who voted to leave were worried about immigration. According to my quick calculation (which might be wrong as I'm shite at math) that's 12,709,841 people.

Even if they are all racist it's not helpful to simply categorise them as such and leave it as that - they're a massive chunk of the electorate and aren't going to 'grow up' without a cohesive political strategy being put in front of them that's going to improve their lives, which includes at least attempting to understand their viewpoint in order to effectively discuss with them how compromises could be made that would be mutually beneficial.

Image
User avatar
Rocsteady
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Brexit
by Rocsteady » Fri Oct 13, 2017 10:53 am

Moggy wrote:
Rocsteady wrote:The more i think about it i think part of the blame also lies with people like us on here.

I remember many of us laughing off the concerns of immigrants coming over but if Blair,.Brown or Cameron had made it substantially harder for immigrants to come we wouldn't have collapsed our economy and be facing down the barrel of a gun. Perhaps a lesson that we need to learn is to listen more to the general public and give some concessions to opinion when appropriate. Otherwise it all boils over, which looks something like this.


Part of the fault doesn’t lie with people like us on here that didn’t believe lies spouted by the likes of Farage and the Daily Mail. The fault lies with Farage and the Daily Mail, along with those that bought into those lies without bothering to look into whether the lies were true.

If you are saying that people like us should have supplied better arguments to those that wanted to leave, then I would love to know how you think that could have happened? Even now a huge number of leavers still believe in the lies of the Leave campaign (immigration, £350million, sovereignty, they need us more than we need them, etc). How exactly can you get through to people who refuse to believe evidence in favour of what the Sun or Daily Mail have told them?

I am not sure that restricting immigration and free movement on the basis of tabloid lies would have been a great way to fix things either. Let’s say Blair/Brown/Cameron had stopped Polish/Romanian/Bulgarian immigration, do you really think that would have fixed things for the better? I remember William Hague as Tory leader talking about immigration being too high, that was long before the Polish gained full EU rights.
What we lacked was charismatic Remain politicians that could put the case forward properly and in a way that people believed. We had Cameron, Osborne and Alistair Darling. That was the failure of Remain, not individual citizens who saw the benefit of immigration.

Edit:

I agree with you that the biggest failure of Blair/Brown/Cameron was not listening to working class people, but I don't think it was immigration they should have been listening to. They should have improved the lives of the working class to make immigration concerns irrelevant. The price of housing should have been looked at over 15 years ago. Wages for those at the bottom should never have been allowed to stagnate. If the Labour/Conservative governments had fixed those two things alone then I think we would have seen a different result. People were poor, pissed off and fed a constant diet of lies that it was immigrants that caused their poverty. Fix the poverty and they would have been less pissed off and less inclined to believe Farage.

I don't want to get drawn into discussing the campaigns - not because I disagree, it's just a different topic from what I was aiming for. Even if remain's campaign had been better and won 52-48 we all know that these issues wouldn't go away (as infuriating as that is when we're meant to quiet down because 'will of the people'). I do agree with the final paragraph although I suppose with the economic crash it's easier said than done. Also IIRC anti-immigrant sentiment was already rapidly rising before the crash when living standards were still on the rise so would be worth looking into what factors were responsible for that happening. Can it ever be a valid argument that people feel their culture is being diminished through a too rapid influx of people with different beliefs or cultural aspects?

Image
User avatar
Rocsteady
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Brexit
by Rocsteady » Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:02 am

Karl wrote:
Rocsteady wrote:
Karl wrote:I don't think we should blame ourselves for not being racist.

That's a very glib way of putting it.

Sure, OK, I'll try harder. As we both know, immigration is at least good for the economy. It's a little more subjective, but I believe it to be good for us culturally as well (hard to measure, but racism being lower in higher-immigration areas would seem to bear this out). You're saying, well, we know that, but maybe it would be better to make some concessions to people who are maybe racist or a bit ignorant given there are a lot of them. I'm not calling you out, I can see that this is coming from a position of pragmatism and I understand that - I wish there was something 'we' (as in liberal, sensible people) could have done differently or could do differently next time too - but there seem to be two arguments for it:

Rocsteady wrote:Otherwise it all boils over, which looks something like this.

Would racists be satisfied and settle down if we had said "OK, your concerns are legitimate, so we're going to do [some arbitrary, restrictive, slightly racist thing]" in (say) 2014? I think ultimately they are boiling over because their lives are shitty, and their lives wouldn't get less shitty for us legitimising their scapegoat. Remember how hate crimes went up, not down, after their Brexit 'victory'.

My take (may or may not be hot) is that the 'legitimate concerns' narrative only helped the Leave campaign. Remember that the messaging was "you guys are totally right, the EU isn't perfect, but please don't vote to leave" and very much wasn't "you'd have to legit have less than 50 IQ and be an EDL level racist to think Brexit is a good idea" -- that's something Leavers seem to have made up since (I suspect because winning wasn't good enough for them: they had to win against this smug liberal cuck conspiracy they so desperately want to believe exists).

Rocsteady wrote:If I only read the Sun (good sport section) am i going to take their word for it or get home after an 11 hour shift and think 'I'll just read through the latest meta immigration analysis?'

To me this says "we need a way to cut through The Sun's bullshit". Which is 100% true. I don't know if tightening legislation concerning corrections for inaccurate articles might be part of the answer.

That first paragraph sort of answered my question to Moggy actually, I'd forgotten such studies exist. That would suggest a campaign promoting the benefits immigrants bring could be more successful than generally imagined, although would carry incredible risk due to critical press and going against ingrained public wisdom. Although we do have to bear in mind that very high immigration areas - such as Bradford - voted quite decisively to leave the EU so there's obviously still high levels of resentment even if there's perhaps comparatively less overt racism in such areas.

I think the rest of that is articulated well, don't really have much to debate on those points. Hopefully as the press's power diminishes IPSO will be able to be reformed and can grow a set of teeth as it is an absolute joke right now. No chance that will happen in the near future though.


Also just in case folk reply to all of these I prob won't get back to most, do have some stuff that needs doing today.

Image
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Brexit
by Moggy » Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:08 am

Rocsteady wrote: Also IIRC anti-immigrant sentiment was already rapidly rising before the crash when living standards were still on the rise so would be worth looking into what factors were responsible for that happening. Can it ever be a valid argument that people feel their culture is being diminished through a too rapid influx of people with different beliefs or cultural aspects?


Standards were on the rise, but that was not universal and it was not felt by a significant number of people. Even those that were better off before the crash probably didn’t feel it, it is hard to see that you are doing well until the crash takes it away. In my opinion the biggest failure of New Labour (other than murdering their way around the Middle East ;) ) was not getting a proper grip on house prices and not pushing up those at the bottom of society. If those two issues had been solved (e.g. massive council house building programmes), then we would be in a completely different place now.

As I said, I can remember William Hague bringing up immigration when he was Tory leader, that would have been in the early days of Blair as PM, the anti-immigration feeling in this country goes back a hell of a lot further than when the Polish, Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants arrived in the mid/late 00s. We forget, as it was just before our time, the NF protests at Black and Asian immigration in the 70s/80s, but that was still bubbling away in the 90s. The 00s just allowed far right types to shift away from outright racism and focus their efforts on more acceptable anti-immigration or anti-Muslim campaigns. After all, it’s much more palatable to the public for Nick Griffin and Nigel Farage to talk of the UK being “flooded” with immigrants that are taking our jobs and benefits, than it is for them to graffiti “Pakis go home” on peoples houses.

That’s not me saying everyone with concerns with immigration are racist, but if you look where the ideas come from and who is stoking those fires then they usually come from a pretty racist source.

People have been worried about their culture being diminished in every single century that people have lived here. I can’t view videos at work so it’s too much effort to search, but Stewart Lee did a good routine on it, bloody Beaker folk and their bloody beakers. :x

User avatar
Rocsteady
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Brexit
by Rocsteady » Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:10 am

Realistically as the polls were tightening towards the day of the vote if Cameron had grown some balls and confessed to the fact that they could have curtailed immigration but simply chose not to we would probably have stayed in the EU. But I guess hindsight is easy.

Image

Return to “Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BAKA, Bing [Bot], Captian Kil, D_C, Denster, Dowbocop, Errkal, Fade, FatDaz, jawafour, Lagamorph, Miguel007, Oblomov Boblomov, The Watching Artist, Tragic Magic, Yahoo [Bot] and 43 guests