Brexit Referendum Superthread

CrabRevolution

AnGaelach wrote: »

I don't understand this thing people sometimes do. They refuse to recognise differences in ethnicities, yet they also use a person's ethnicity as a shtick to beat their opponents.

Either Joshua is British, in which case Farage is right in celebrating him as being British, or he's an Irish/Nigerian and Farage is wrong to celebrate him for being British. Either a person's ethnicity matters, or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.

Did you see the tweet? Because it sounds like you've the wrong end of the stick here. The point made wasn't really about ethnicity or Britishness.

It was pointing out that in Vote Leave's ideal world, Anthony Joshuas ancestors would never have been allowed immigrate to the UK.Yet somehow they see nothing wrong with using a man of Nigerian and Irish descent to push an anti immigrant agenda.

AnGaelach

CrabRevolution wrote: »

Did you see the tweet? Because it sounds like you've the wrong end of the stick here. The point made wasn't really about ethnicity or Britishness.

It was pointing out that in Vote Leave's ideal world, Anthony Joshuas ancestors would never have been allowed immigrate to the UK.Yet somehow they see nothing wrong with using a man of Nigerian and Irish descent to push an anti immigrant agenda.

So what you're saying is that they shouldn't consider him British?

ambro25

Rightwing wrote: »

Massive drop in political standards everywhere. Look at Turkey/US/EU etc.

You seem to post about this like that's a good thing?

Every country gets the government it deserves.

All the same, you'll have to explain the inclusion of the EU in your list above. Did you mean Hungary?

Or Russia? Or maybe the Philippines?

Nody

ambro25 wrote: »

Every country gets the government it deserves.

I'd argue democracy (and real once not the faux Iraq Saddam style "democracy") rather than country in the above sentence. The only problem is of course that the voting population failure to not only hold the politicians responsible but also holding themselves responsible for who they vote in and understanding what they vote for. Far to much time is spent by people moaning about politicians without recognising that they are personally responsible for their vote and their part of making a change; all benefits and no responsibility and of course not helped by populistic politicians (it's not your fault but those guys over there).

ambro25

Nody wrote: »

I'd argue democracy (and real once not the faux Iraq Saddam style "democracy") rather than country in the above sentence.

Well, the expression is true regardless of the political system in use, and is meant to extend to e.g. dictatorships just the same.

But yours could be a fitting modern update, I'll grant you that

A transition from democracy (within the true meaning of the word) to one-party state, eventually to dictatorship, fuelled by nationalism borne and stoked from socio-economic hardship, is nothing we haven't seen before e.g. in the 1930s (a historical reference which reinforces the truism of the expression, IMHO). The big problem is what it takes to eventually revert back to a democracy.

No Godwinism was harmed in the typing of this post

steddyeddy

AnGaelach wrote: »

So what you're saying is that they shouldn't consider him British?

No, what he's saying is he wouldn't be here if Farage had his way.

Rightwing

Nody wrote: »

I'd argue democracy (and real once not the faux Iraq Saddam style "democracy") rather than country in the above sentence. The only problem is of course that the voting population failure to not only hold the politicians responsible but also holding themselves responsible for who they vote in and understanding what they vote for. Far to much time is spent by people moaning about politicians without recognising that they are personally responsible for their vote and their part of making a change; all benefits and no responsibility and of course not helped by populistic politicians (it's not your fault but those guys over there).

It's rather hard to hold oneself responsible when politicans completely change from their manifesto e.g Labour, 'not another red cent'. And then they wonder why voters abandon them. Whatever about educating the people, the politicans certainly could do with it.

djpbarry

Rightwing wrote: »

How many work in the City? 700,000+ (certainly not all elites...in the political sense at any rate)

700,000 is an over-estimate (about 300,000 people work in the City), but anyway, in the eyes of many who voted Leave, they absolutely are elites. The average income in the City is estimated to be roughly double the national average (which is low by Northern European standards).

djpbarry

Rightwing wrote: »

It's rather hard to hold oneself responsible when politicans completely change from their manifesto e.g Labour, 'not another red cent'. And then they wonder why voters abandon them.

If the promises are unrealistic, then voters should be questioning them and not blindly voting for whoever promises the most ice-cream.

Nody

Rightwing wrote: »

It's rather hard to hold oneself responsible when politicans completely change from their manifesto e.g Labour, 'not another red cent'. And then they wonder why voters abandon them. Whatever about educating the people, the politicans certainly could do with it.

But that's holding politicians unaccountable; take Ireland and the pump politics who get voted in no matter what they do as an example of not holding politicians accountable because they fixed a pothole last year.

Rightwing

I accept your points, but it's the system that is wrong. Everyone will vote for something locally.

djpbarry

Rightwing wrote: »

Everyone will vote for something locally.

Will they? So why did so many people vote for UKIP in the last general election?

ambro25

Rightwing wrote: »

I accept your points, but it's the system that is wrong. Everyone will vote for something locally.

Many Brits (-and not) certainly did yesterday :pac:

demfad

djpbarry wrote: »

If the promises are unrealistic, then voters should be questioning them and not blindly voting for whoever promises the most ice-cream.

The media play a huge part in a State and elections. They are the prism through which people view the political world. If the media is compromised as it is now you have a fundamental problem with electing people who can solve today's complex problems.
The people might get the democracy they deserve assuming a reasonable media to give them a fair shot at decifering good from bad choices. What if the prism is fixed to make bad choices look good?

But do the people get the media they deserve? ATM I would doubt it.

Nody

demfad wrote: »

The media play a huge part in a State and elections. They are the prism through which people view the political world. If the media is compromised as it is now you have a fundamental problem with electing people who can solve today's complex problems.
The people might get the democracy they deserve assuming a reasonable media to give them a fair shot at decifering good from bad choices. What if the prism is fixed to make bad choices look good?

But do the people get the media they deserve? ATM I would doubt it.

Sorry but that's weaksauce excuse; what stops a voter from checking their party's program directly on their website, asking the local office of the party/person what their policy is/means etc. Oh I could not see it summarized on TV so therefore it's not my fault if I vote in someone bad.

Chips Lovell

You could have the most sober, objective newspaper in the world on the stands and still more people would buy the one telling people that "Bureaucrats in Brussels want to Unbend British Bananas".

demfad

Nody wrote: »

Sorry but that's weaksauce excuse; what stops a voter from checking their party's program directly on their website, asking the local office of the party/person what their policy is/means etc. Oh I could not see it summarized on TV so therefore it's not my fault if I vote in someone bad.

How many people actually call to their local office to grill people?
What if the media you trust backs a parties program says its correct?
What if you dont trust the media, don't trust politicians?

You need to look at what most voters would reasonably do.
The nature of media, advent of authoritanarianism, fake news, disinformation, big data voter manipulation and supression, outright lies by politicians. The level of these things have taken media, politicians everyone by storm.

Harsh to blame the average punter when access to the truth has become unforseeably difficult in such a short space of time.

The failure of the 4th estate since the great recession is a systemic problem and threat to democratic accountability that needs to be tackled.

demfad

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

You could have the most sober, objective newspaper in the world on the stands and still more people would buy the one telling people that "Bureaucrats in Brussels want to Unbend British Bananas".

Indeed. With respect, if you were not well educated and had been brainswashed with similar over many years you might be quickly over to make a purchase.

The issue is papers being allowed to mislead the public and the diverging gap between what is reported and what is true. Granted perceived truth is always biased but there must be a correlation.

djpbarry

demfad wrote: »

How many people actually call to their local office to grill people?
What if the media you trust backs a parties program says its correct?
What if you dont trust the media, don't trust politicians?

You need to look at what most voters would reasonably do.

You seem to be just excusing laziness?

When people say they don't "trust" a media source, it's generally because that media source is producing content that challenges their preconceptions. Challenging one's preconceptions and considering an alternative point of view requires effort, effort that a lot of people are seemingly unprepared to make.

And what the hell has "trust" in politicians got to do with anything? It shouldn't come down to trust. If my local MP calls to my doorstep over the next few weeks and promises that her party will cut public transport costs if they get into power, I'm not going to just blindly trust that statement - I'm going to question how that's going to be achieved. Their success in securing my vote will depend on their ability to argue a convincing case, not how "trustworthy" they are.

demfad wrote: »

Harsh to blame the average punter when access to the truth has become unforseeably difficult in such a short space of time.

The average punter has access to virtually all of the information in the world in the palm of their hand. Choosing to blindly believe everything you read without doing a bit more research is pure laziness.

djpbarry

demfad wrote: »

The issue is papers being allowed to mislead the public and the diverging gap between what is reported and what is true.

I don't understand why you think this is a recent development? Tabloids have been around for decades. Propaganda has been in use for considerably longer.

demfad

djpbarry wrote: »

I don't understand why you think this is a recent development? Tabloids have been around for decades. Propaganda has been in use for considerably longer.

I was too lazy to elaborate. The divergence has obviously taken a leap with the advent of fake news and post truth where many tabloid articles and outright fake news are brought directly to a users facebook timelines.

Tabloid journalism mixed with fake news has been weaponised now to a massive degree in elections. Way past a critical point know if it wasnt before.

Harry Palmr

Anyone know what that eurocrat was on about? He insisted on speaking French.

swampgas

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Anyone know what that eurocrat was on about? He insisted on speaking French.

Better than Irish anyway :pac:

BlitzKrieg

Rightwing wrote: »

Water John wrote: »

Demfad, it is usually difficult for a politician to strike the right balance in tone and language, when they adopt a position that in truth they disagree with.
May is at hearth a remainer, but for political oppertunism is fronting Brexit with a false eagerness.
Thus IMO, she's a fraud, every much as Farage.

Farage is no fraud. He ran his campaign very well, and won. I laud him for that.

I'd argue that sentiment.
People seem to have selective memory on the results of brexit.

yes Leave won

but not by a landslide. Which is a crucial detail because when you start removing the stances that Farage (rightly or wrongly) stood against that lead vanishes.

Farage was against staying in the Common Market, A norway style relationship to the EU and the $350 million NHS claim.

All points that were popular in the campaign, you can browse through the part of this thread that was during the debate and you'll find a number of them popping up.

yes Immigration is rightly considered the biggest chunk for the voting block for leave and that was what Farage championed. But he himself thought they had lost on the day because despite what some might think Immigration on its own does not win elections nor does it win referendums.

If David Cameron had let Nigel Farage run loose in the referendum as the defacto opposition, made it that the choice was between Farage's image for Brexit and remaining I dont think it would have been a leave victory. I think the slimmer of hope and promise that fraudsters like Boris Johnson added was enough to push Leave over the top.

That will be the flaw of the EU referendum, it allowed one of the choices to be open ended, something that really shouldnt happen in referendums. If you let one choice be open to many possibilities then it just needs to be filled with all those possibilities regardless if they conflict with each other or not. Scottish independence had the same problem, they left independence open ended which let it get filled with a bucket of fears. Perhaps Cameron had hoped to do the same with Brexit but personnally I think he would have done better doing the same as the alternate vote referendum. Make both choices clear and straight. Its either A or its B. Of course he also intentionally made both A and B sh*t so people opted to go with what they knew.

Lesson for Scotland's possible Indyref 2 perhaps. Ground it in something solid like a proposed Scottish constitution or something, what I always like about Irish referendums is they tend to be tied to a constitutional amendment or other document so it's harder to go running off on some extremes (but people still do try see Lisbon)

Rightwing

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I'd argue that sentiment.
People seem to have selective memory on the results of brexit.

yes Leave won

but not by a landslide. Which is a crucial detail because when you start removing the stances that Farage (rightly or wrongly) stood against that lead vanishes.

Farage was against staying in the Common Market, A norway style relationship to the EU and the $350 million NHS claim.

All points that were popular in the campaign, you can browse through the part of this thread that was during the debate and you'll find a number of them popping up.

yes Immigration is rightly considered the biggest chunk for the voting block for leave and that was what Farage championed. But he himself thought they had lost on the day because despite what some might think Immigration on its own does not win elections nor does it win referendums.

If David Cameron had let Nigel Farage run loose in the referendum as the defacto opposition, made it that the choice was between Farage's image for Brexit and remaining I dont think it would have been a leave victory. I think the slimmer of hope and promise that fraudsters like Boris Johnson added was enough to push Leave over the top.

That will be the flaw of the EU referendum, it allowed one of the choices to be open ended, something that really shouldnt happen in referendums. If you let one choice be open to many possibilities then it just needs to be filled with all those possibilities regardless if they conflict with each other or not. Scottish independence had the same problem, they left independence open ended which let it get filled with a bucket of fears. Perhaps Cameron had hoped to do the same with Brexit but personnally I think he would have done better doing the same as the alternate vote referendum. Make both choices clear and straight. Its either A or its B. Of course he also intentionally made both A and B sh*t so people opted to go with what they knew.

Lesson for Scotland's possible Indyref 2 perhaps. Ground it in something solid like a proposed Scottish constitution or something, what I always like about Irish referendums is they tend to be tied to a constitutional amendment or other document so it's harder to go running off on some extremes (but people still do try see Lisbon)

Yes indeed, most underestimated Farage, he ran a great campaign. Johnson was a fraud. We, as EU citizens also need to look at why M LePen is doing do well in France, running at 40% or so. There's something wrong.

djpbarry

demfad wrote: »

The divergence has obviously taken a leap with the advent of fake news and post truth where many tabloid articles and outright fake news are brought directly to a users facebook timelines.

Sure - it's easier than ever for people to disengage their brains.

But that's still not an excuse. I mean, the very fact that statements such as "fake news" and "alternative facts" exist suggest that such things are easily detectable, doesn't it? It really doesn't take more than about 10 seconds of searching to demonstrate that "fake" news is very obviously fake.

Rightwing

djpbarry wrote: »

Sure - it's easier than ever for people to disengage their brains.

But that's still not an excuse. I mean, the very fact that statements such as "fake news" and "alternative facts" exist suggest that such things are easily detectable, doesn't it? It really doesn't take more than about 10 seconds of searching to demonstrate that "fake" news is very obviously fake.

No. It's hard to know what is fake or not. Can we believe the CIA for instance?

djpbarry

Rightwing wrote: »

Yes indeed, most underestimated Farage, he ran a great campaign. Johnson was a fraud.

What are you talking about - they're both utter fraudsters.

Rightwing wrote: »

We, as EU citizens also need to look at why M LePen is doing do well in France, running at 40% or so. There's something wrong.

People always want someone to blame when they're under the impression that they're being hard done by. Immigrants are always an easy target.

djpbarry

Rightwing wrote: »

No. It's hard to know what is fake or not. Can we believe the CIA for instance?

The CIA is a media outlet now, is it?

Memnoch

Rightwing wrote: »

I accept your points, but it's the system that is wrong. Everyone will vote for something locally.

I have come to realise that, regrettably, the system is only a reflection of human nature.

People are inherently selfish. So they vote for politicians who promise to do something 'for them,' rather than say look for politicians who will act with genuine integrity for the greater good of society or the country as a whole.

This leaves them easily open to manipulation and divide and conquer tactics by a political class, that once it wields power, only looks out for its own self interests rather than for those of the people who elected them.