Brexit Referendum Superthread

Clearlier

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The 'whining' refers to the crybaby antics on this thread and in some of the media, where people are re-running the campaign, as if caught in a time warp, and making all sorts of outlandish statements about the Leave side, including yourself.

It's outlandish to suggest that the 'battle bus' didn't persuade some people to vote leave because they believed that if they did the NHS would get £350 Million more a week. Now, call them stupid if you like but please stop pretending that it didn't happen.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Of course, because the Leave side WON.

If Lord Scoundrel beats Road to Riches, in the Galway Plate tomorrow, the winning owner and trainer are not going to be holding a post mortem, are they? They'll have got their win, which is the bottom line.

If Road to Riches loses the race, and loses badly when he ought to win, then there will have to be questions asked of the strategy, and the people who pay the price for the loss would be quite right to demand answers.

They certainly don't have any business accosting the winning trainer and jockey, like petulant crybabies, not even in a dirty race.

Like horseracing, politics is a rough and tumble sport. If you lose, take it on the chin and learn from it. But please don't whine.

Have you never watched match of the day even once? Tell me, do the pundits spend all their time analysing why the losing team lost or do they perhaps spend a smidgen of their time looking at why the winners won?

Also, while I'm not into horse racing scene at all I can tell you that plenty of professional sports teams analyse performance just as much when they win as when they lose. Famously Clive Woodward believed in analysing victories not losses.

HivemindXX

Let's say, hypothetically, that the UK government came out and said that the referendum was just advisory and the leave campaign was based on insubstantial vagaries like "taking things back" and outright lies like the £350M so they are sorry that 17 million people fell for it but they were not going to leave the EU.

What I'm reading here means that the leave people would think to themselves, "well no point in being a whining crybaby, I'm just going to move on!"

Of course they wouldn't. The real reason pro-leave people are trying to shut up the opposition is that they are rightfully afraid that the more they highlight the nonsense preached by the leave side the more likely things are to be reversed. Also, claiming that you are not trying to shut up the opposition when you call them crybabies and whiners and demand that they just move on is pitifully dishonest.

Bit cynical

HivemindXX wrote: »

Of course they wouldn't. The real reason pro-leave people are trying to shut up the opposition is that they are rightfully afraid that the more they highlight the nonsense preached by the leave side the more likely things are to be reversed. Also, claiming that you are not trying to shut up the opposition when you call them crybabies and whiners and demand that they just move on is pitifully dishonest.

In fairness, I don't think there was (or is) any question of the referendum result being reversed or another referendum held. The only thing that would change it would be strong evidence of vote rigging or the like.

The business of the 350m figure was never going to be grounds for reversal as it was open to challenge during the debate.

ancapailldorcha

Clearlier wrote: »

Have you never watched match of the day even once? Tell me, do the pundits spend all their time analysing why the losing team lost or do they perhaps spend a smidgen of their time looking at why the winners won?

Also, while I'm not into horse racing scene at all I can tell you that plenty of professional sports teams analyse performance just as much when they win as when they lose. Famously Clive Woodward believed in analysing victories not losses.

Well put. There was a general election in 2015 which the Tories won. This doesn't mean the other parties suddenly have to disappear.

Zubeneschamali

Why, why, why don't you stop whinging about what other people wrote in this thread! That's in the past!

So what if what we write is untrue? Truth doesn't matter! It's politics!

Focus on the future!

Clearlier

Clearlier wrote: »

It's outlandish to suggest that the 'battle bus' didn't persuade some people to vote leave because they believed that if they did the NHS would get £350 Million more a week. Now, call them stupid if you like but please stop pretending that it didn't happen.

I won't call them stupid.

I'll just ask you to properly read what I said. Boris Johnson issued a statement with Michael Gove and Gisela Stuart which disagreed with that declaration, and said they only wanted to spend 30% of that amount on the NHS.

As I said, some idiot obviously decided to pledge £350 million, but Johnson & co's statement was clearly in conflict with that idea. That's what I'm saying.

Have you never watched match of the day even once?

No, not even once. Horrific 'sport'.

Also, while I'm not into horse racing scene at all I can tell you that plenty of professional sports teams analyse performance just as much when they win as when they lose. Famously Clive Woodward believed in analysing victories not losses.

I said that the Remain voters should blame the Remain campaign, just like an owner blames his trainer if a racehorse fails to meet expectations. I didn't say that either side should be analysing their tactics so obsessively.

I suppose racing was an imperfect analogy, in the sense that a referendum is a one-off question. A racehorse will go on to race again, a soccer club will go on to compete against other teams. There is to be no re-run of Brexit, according to Theresa May. The Leave campaign has disbanded. Neither side need to sit around asking questions of their tactics, because the question has been resolved.

It's over. I'm moving on now, you can stay here.

I'll say one thing on the subject of whining, there's a difference between whining, and pointing out (or criticising) whining. If there were not, any criticism of whining would be a contradiction in terms, and whining would be immune from criticism.

Criticism is a negative judgment or a statement of disapproval which, although perhaps sustained, is often constructive. Whining is merely a complaint that never gets anywhere by dint of reason, it merely seeks to irritate its audience that it might succumb to the incessant pitch. Have a nice evening of... doing what you guys are doing.

HiJacques

Brexit is a question which should have never been put to the British people.

As a foreigner I think I observed more of English antagonism towards outsiders.

They did it anyway.

A Dub in Glasgo

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I won't call them stupid.

I'll just ask you to properly read what I said. Boris Johnson issued a statement with Michael Gove and Gisela Stuart which disagreed with that declaration, and said they only wanted to spend 30% of that amount on the NHS.

As I said, some idiot obviously decided to pledge £350 million, but Johnson & co's statement was clearly in conflict with that idea. That's what I'm saying.

Yes, they disagreed with it so much that the campaign group they were leading decided to use it as the main argument and put it on all their posters, literature and campaign bus

Clearlier

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I won't call them stupid.

I'll just ask you to properly read what I said. Boris Johnson issued a statement with Michael Gove and Gisela Stuart which disagreed with that declaration, and said they only wanted to spend 30% of that amount on the NHS.

As I said, some idiot obviously decided to pledge £350 million, but Johnson & co's statement was clearly in conflict with that idea. That's what I'm saying.

It's pretty clear that a large number of people believed the £350 million for the NHS statement. All I'm saying is that that was a lie which almost certainly had a pretty big impact on the result.

The original question was about whether the remain side did a good enough job and the answer seems to be that the leave side were better at lying than the remain side.

As it happens I didn't mentioned Boris, Gove or Stuart but the idea that they could issue a statement (once they realised that they had got their numbers wrong IIRC) about spending 100 million a week on the NHS (or any other number) while still associating themselves with the bus that carried the £350 million a week message is laughable. They lied, they are liars, they were liars, they are politicians and will almost certainly lie again.

That's not BTW to say that the Remain side didn't lie, they did, repeatedly and it bugged the hell out of me. I don't think that they were quite as carefree with the truth as the leave side (although how you would measure such a thing is a thorny question) which leaves me to think that when you say that the remain side didn't do their job as well what you actually mean is that they weren't good enough liars which is a depressing thought. BTW, they did challenge the £350 million lie, their message didn't get through very well though. By contrast Boris in particular was quite effective at counter acting any suggestion that there might be any negative effects if people voted to leave. He was lying most of the time but he was pretty good at it, better than the remainers.

molloyjh

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I won't call them stupid.

I'll just ask you to properly read what I said. Boris Johnson issued a statement with Michael Gove and Gisela Stuart which disagreed with that declaration, and said they only wanted to spend 30% of that amount on the NHS.

As I said, some idiot obviously decided to pledge £350 million, but Johnson & co's statement was clearly in conflict with that idea. That's what I'm saying.

This is just getting into the realms of farce now at this stage. The lie was not the amount of money going to the NHS. The lie was that there was £350 million going to the EU that could be reinvested back into the UK if they left. The NHS bit is superfluous.

molloyjh

Right, given how utterly ridiculous this has gotten let's take a look at some facts on the £350 million figure.

Johnson was challenged over the figure and he not only defended it in a live television debate when challenged on it by multiple Remain campaigners, bus insisted it was true (there's a video of him stating the £350 million in the last link):

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2016/may/23/does-the-eu-really-cost-the-uk-350m-a-week
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/09/eu-referendum-sturgeon-accuses-johnson-of-telling-350m-whopper
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3633937/Boris-Johnson-slams-Eurocrats-Brexit-free-350million-NHS-televised-referendum-showdown.html

Gove defended it as well:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/03/eu-referendum-michael-gove-agrees-to-audit-of-vote-leave-350m-claim

A conservative MP even defected to Remain off the back of the lie, calling it "absurd" and an attempt to "play the public like fools":

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36485464
http://www.politico.eu/blogs/spence-on-media/2016/05/brexit-campaign-broadcast-vote-leaves-nhs-warning/

It was called "bogus" and a "damning indictment of the Leave campaign" by Remian campaigners:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36104163

The Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee called it "the most disgraceful" claim of the entire debate:

http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/news/tyrie-backs-remain-and-brands-leave-camp-claims-absurd/a918580

Vote Leave were also reported to the Electoral Commission over it:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-remain-campaign-reports-vote-leave-to-electoral-commission-over-misleading-leaflet-a6971311.html

And that doesn't include all the fact checking articles written on it throughout the media etc. So is there any chance we can now put this whole thing to bed. Boris pushed the £350 million lie, Gove defended the use of the figure, plenty of Remain campaigners and media outlets flagged how inaccurate it was and it even led to a defection from Leave to Remain that was publicised as well.

Pro Hoc Vice

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/us-spurns-offer-of-trade-talks-wsk6gc5wx

"The US has rebuffed attempts by Liam Fox to open negotiations on a free trade deal, saying that “meaningful” talks before Brexit were impossible."

Sam Russell

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/us-spurns-offer-of-trade-talks-wsk6gc5wx

"The US has rebuffed attempts by Liam Fox to open negotiations on a free trade deal, saying that “meaningful” talks before Brexit were impossible."

Does that mean 'back of the queue' or is it ruder than that?

CMOTDibbler

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/us-spurns-offer-of-trade-talks-wsk6gc5wx

"The US has rebuffed attempts by Liam Fox to open negotiations on a free trade deal, saying that “meaningful” talks before Brexit were impossible."

Well that's a triumph of reality over optimism. I was scratching my head as to how they could engage in any trade talks before Brexit. The manner and method of their leaving the EU could impinge on any agreements made before leaving and it would be beyond daft of the US or any country to make plans on that basis.

But that didn't stop the brexiteers saying they could. :rolleyes:

wes

The US are right not to engage in any talks yet. There would be no point, as until the EU negotiations are done and dusted, we won't know what the UK status will be.

Calina

Lead negotiator on the EU Commission side is Michel Barnier.

Bob24

Calina wrote: »

Lead negotiator on the EU Commission side is Michel Barnier.

I will just point out that the people who were saying a few weeks ago that no negotiation could take place before article 50 was invoked have just appointed a lead negotiator.

ancapailldorcha

Bob24 wrote: »

I will just point out that the people who were saying a few weeks ago that no negotiation could take place before article 50 was invoked have just appointed a lead negotiator.

This doesn't that negotiations will begin though, just that the Commission is readying itself.

Bob24

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This doesn't that negotiations will begin though, just that the Commission is readying itself.

Getting ready is indeed the duty if the commission. But officially appointing a lead negotiator is sending a political message. He could have prepared for the talks under a different title.

Pro Hoc Vice

Bob24 wrote: »

I will just point out that the people who were saying a few weeks ago that no negotiation could take place before article 50 was invoked have just appointed a lead negotiator.

Any person who is aware of upcoming negotiations is well advised to put a team together sooner rather than later, especially when your side can not decide on the start date for the negotiations, and on the face of it such negotiations are time limited.

ancapailldorcha

Bob24 wrote: »

Getting ready is indeed the duty if the commission. But officially appointing a lead negotiator is sending a political message. He could have prepared for the talks under a different title.

True but at least this way the EU is prepared for the invocation of Article 50 instead of dillydallying which would be unfair to the UK.

Bob24

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Any person who is aware of upcoming negotiations is well advised to put a team together sooner rather than later, especially when your side can not decide on the start date for the negotiations, and on the face of it such negotiations are time limited.

Agreed, of course you should prepare for it and it is only right for the EC to be building-up a team. But they didn't have to officially announce the appointment of a lead negotiator - which does send a political message.

Nate--IRL--

Bob24 wrote: »

Agreed, of course you should prepare for it and it is only right for the EC to be building-up a team. But they didn't have to officially announce the appointment of a lead negotiator - which does send a political message.

What is the message?

Nate

Bob24

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

What is the message?

Nate

"We are ready to talk"

The message until now was "no talks before article 50 is invoked".

ancapailldorcha

Bob24 wrote: »

"We are ready to talk"

The message until now was "no talks before article 50 is invoked".

I would infer it as, "We are ready to talk once you invoke Article 50."

Pro Hoc Vice

Bob24 wrote: »

Agreed, of course you should prepare for it and it is only right for the EC to be building-up a team. But they didn't have to officially announce the appointment of a lead negotiator - which does send a political message.

Usually teams like this are built from the top down. No use starting with tea lady.

Nate--IRL--

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I would infer it as, "We are ready to talk once you invoke Article 50."

Same here to be honest.

Nate

Bob24

Bob24 wrote: »

"We are ready to talk"

The message until now was "no talks before article 50 is invoked".

"You might not have been prepared, but we shall be"

Bob24

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Usually teams like this are built from the top down. No use starting with tea lady.

Not what I said though. He will obviously start informally under a different title and form a team top to bottom.

The role will officially only start in October. The announcement that early is purely a communication exercise and nothing technical.

molloyjh

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I would infer it as, "We are ready to talk once you invoke Article 50."

This. All the EU are doing is acknowledging that Article 50 will be invoked and ensuring that they are good to go as soon as it is. Which is exactly what they should be doing. How it can be twisted any other way is beyond me, although I'm not surprised that it is being.