Brexit discussion thread III

VonZan

I see the Guardian has moved on from Corbyn to being anti-Jewish to now telling the world that he meets in the wrong Jewish groups.

Any critism of Israel is perceived as anti-Semitism and as such the word has become largely meaningless.

I don't doubt there are some levels of anti-Semitism within grassroots labour but the outrage over this has been absolutely embarrassing for all involved.

There is a huge vaccum of critical reporting in the media in the UK.

Frito

Leroy42 wrote: »

Frito wrote: »

To clarify for another poster, I voted to remain, and would vote the same way again. But I do understand leave voters better now. Just after the vote, I was shocked and had a touch of sore loser about me, so I thought they were all ignorant. But I was wrong to think that.

Yet it appears that all the reasons that leavers have given to you are based on ignorance of reality.

I can understand the reasons why people voted to leave, doesn't mean that they were not ignorant, or to put it more politiley, ill-informed,

That doesn't mean, btw, that they were wrong. As I said, based on what they understood they were correct to vote for the UK to leave. Unfortunately, the information that they based their decision on (£350m per week for NHS, EU migrants being a massive drain on resources which only leaving could fix, UK having little to no say in the EU, EU to blame for holding up trade with 3rd Party countries etc) is almost entirely incorrect or only part of the full story.

We'll agree to differ. I used to think the same, then realised I can't determine whether people are ill-informed or deceived, they can only determine that for themselves. But even if they were, it wouldn't invalidate the vote, only a second referendum could do that. There is no appetite for a second referendum outside of remain circles.
The media plays up the bus and Cambridge Analytica/Facebook. I've probably not articulated leave well, so I'd suggest Leave Alliance, Pete North, Sam Hooper blogs if you're interested in leave voter opinions.

oscarBravo

Frito wrote: »

We'll agree to differ. I used to think the same, then realised I can't determine whether people are ill-informed or deceived, they can only determine that for themselves.

Of course you can. If they advance reasons for leaving that are untrue, then they're ill-informed or deceived.

I've probably not articulated leave well, so I'd suggest Leave Alliance, Pete North, Sam Hooper blogs if you're interested in leave voter opinions.

I've had a skim through Pete North's most recent blog post, and I'm unimpressed. He talks about the EU's protectionist trade policies, then admits that the UK leaving won't affect those policies, except to possibly make them worse. He then goes on to say that the UK won't be able to afford to have a more moral trade policy than the EU, and possibly even less so.

Professor Moriarty

oscarBravo wrote: »

Of course you can. If they advance reasons for leaving that are untrue, then they're ill-informed or deceived.

I've had a skim through Pete North's most recent blog post, and I'm unimpressed. He talks about the EU's protectionist trade policies, then admits that the UK leaving won't affect those policies, except to possibly make them worse. He then goes on to say that the UK won't be able to afford to have a more moral trade policy than the EU, and possibly even less so.

The Leave Alliance site seems to full of reasons why Britain shouldn't leave the EU. Really strange 'Leave' site.

Sam Hooper seems to be obsessed with "University Professors". If he's not ranting about them, he's doing a 'nothing to see here folks, move along' on Cambridge Analytica. That's when he's not making personalised attacks on "Liberalists". Actually, his ramblings are just full of pseudointellectual bullsh1t. More heat than light.

Frito

Again, we'll agree to differ. What people choose to believe, or disregard, or prioritise, is up to them. The electorate had access to the same resources. Leave voters could look up the same things that I did. That they came to a different conclusion doesn't mean they were less informed. I won't let them off that easy. Every disappointment they complain about is what they voted for, as they should be reminded.
I can disagree with Pete North, Sam Hooper et al, they are politically conservative, but I wouldn't insist they were ill-informed.

Econ_

'Let's agree to disagree' is a cop out.

The reality is that you are ‘agreeing to disagree’ because you are unable to defend your position any further with any degree of coherent logic.

Professor Moriarty

Frito wrote: »

Again, we'll agree to differ. What people choose to believe, or disregard, or prioritise, is up to them. The electorate had access to the same resources. Leave voters could look up the same things that I did. That they came to a different conclusion doesn't mean they were less informed. I won't let them off that easy. Every disappointment they complain about is what they voted for, as they should be reminded.
I can disagree with Pete North, Sam Hooper et al, they are politically conservative, but I wouldn't insist they were ill-informed.

I didn't bother reading North but I did read the other two you mentioned and gave my opinion. But they aren't important. What is important is that, whether people tried to inform themselves or not, the voters were misinformed. And they continue to be misinformed.

Johnson and Farage lied their way through the Brexit campaign and research has shown that it was their charisma that swung the vote for Leave. Both continue to lie about Brexit. Plus the Telegraph/Mail/Express/Sun lied and also continue to lie. If you take Farage, Johnson and the Tory press out of the equation, Brexit would just have been a silly idea.

J Mysterio

I also think the uninformed saw two options:

1) Be patriotic and vote leave - 'why wouldnt UK do well outside EU'

2) Be unpatriotic and vote remain - basically saying 'UK needs the EU', so 'talking down the UK'

Capt'n Midnight

oscarBravo wrote: »

He then goes on to say that the UK won't be able to afford to have a more moral trade policy than the EU, and possibly even less so.

Moral ?


Britain’s defence exports are worth £35bn a year.

Figures seen by i show that the Government cleared export licences worth £2.9bn in the 12 months after June 2016 to 35 countries considered “not free” by Freedom House, a respected international think-tank. The figure represents a 28 per cent increase on the 12 months before the Brexit vote.

There's also the UK Overseas Territories or Crown Dependencies that act as tax havens.

9 of the 10 poorest areas in North West Europe are in the UK.

Sand

Econ_ wrote: »

'Let's agree to disagree' is a cop out.

The reality is that you are ‘agreeing to disagree’ because you are unable to defend your position any further with any degree of coherent logic.

I think that's unfair. The criticism I would have of the Remain campaign was that it was almost entirely economic/transactional based. There was no effort to communicate any concept of the UK being a European country, with a role to play in a wider European community as expressed however awkwardly by the EU. Zero. And UK politicians are largely incapable of doing so. For 40 years they have seen the EU as merely a vehicle for economic gain. GDP stats was the only argument they had.

What the Leave voters stated was they had non-economic priorities. This is why support for Brexit remains stubbornly high despite all the economic bad news. To paraphrase the Clinton/Blair mantra, it's not the economy.

Leroy42

The problem that the remain side had, was that they really only had the economic argument. They had, MPs and parties, spent the last 40 years complaining that the EU (in its various forms) was the cause of nearly every problem that the UK faced.

Cameron had just been on a mission to try to get additional allowances from the EU (which in did receive some, but below the fantasy that he had promised) so even he would have a difficult time telling people the UK was in control in the EU.

To run a campaign extolling the virtues (non economic) of the EU would have been to lay bare just how useless they all had been. Many (not all) of the improvements had come about because of the EU, the best the parties could argue is that they had helped forge those changes.

But even in economic terms the stats didn't ring true. Throughout the crash and following years, the picture was painted by Cameron and Osbourne, and by Brown, that the UK were holding everything together. That they, because they were outside the Euro, because they hadn't joined up totally with EU, had escaped the worst parts of the crash.

So suddenly having to paint the EU as some sort of benefit was always going to be difficult.

The Leave side knew the position that the remain side were in, that the remain side would not be able to fight back against anything they put out. They basically could determine the debating points. The remain side wanted to only talk about the economy (which they really didn't fully believe in anyway). As was pointed out earlier, it almost because a patriotic thing.

Anyone who tried to extol the virtues of the EU, who tried to point out how much greater Great Britain was because of membership of the EU was met with calls of talking the country down and on more than one occasion I heard people reply that "why don't you think the UK is good enough".

It was a poor decision to hold the ref, a poor decision to make the ref so binary, a poor decision on the question asked, a poor decision to simply go into it with no plan, a poor decision not to get some sort of cross party support, a poorly ran campaign, lack of leadership from Cameron who basically left ot to Osbourne to make the case, a poor decision to let Osbourne make the case and a poor decision not to attempt to engage the youth vote.

Skedaddle

The global financial crisis and the near collapse of several UK banks, which remain largely nationalised, seems to have been successfully ignored in the UK media which tended to refer to it as "the Eurozone crisis" at all times.

There's an ability to induce collective amnesia and bury things in spin in the UK that is really second to none.

If you also track the rhetoric, it was UK media that coined extremely insulting phrases like PIGS / PIIGS and then others like "Club Med" in reference to the countries in the Eurozone that were facing fiscal problems after 2008.

There's some really bizzarely "let's paint national stereotypes" thing happens in the UK media far too much, even amongst pretty respected titles.

It seems to just be coupled with a default position of jingoistic bullying in the UK media and it's the same kind of mentality that seems to poison their relationship with the EU.

I genuinely haven't seen anything quite like it anywhere else in Europe.

Leroy42

Here is a case in point in terms of the way that things are being reported.

The Brexit Commons select committee, chaired by Benn, has released a report with a number of measures that they feel any Brexit deal should be valued against.

This committee is made up of a selection of elected MP's.

And the line in the Express comes from JRM

“The High Priests of Remain have pushed through another report that seeks to overturn the referendum result by stealth."

Not discussion of the reason why the 15 tests are not appropriate. No discussion of what other values should be used. Just a blanket "they is trying to rob us of our democratic rights".

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/940937/brexit-news-latest-eu-referendum-jacob-rees-mogg-commons-select-committee-report

Econ_

Sand wrote: »

I think that's unfair.

He claimed that we can't declare that other people have been deceived or misinformed and that only them themselves can decide such a thing.

It was then pointed out that if people are espousing verifiably untrue information, then they are by definition either misinformed/deceived or they are lying.

'Agreeing to disagree' at the junction in the debate is a cop out.

The criticism I would have of the Remain campaign was that it was almost entirely economic/transactional based. There was no effort to communicate any concept of the UK being a European country, with a role to play in a wider European community as expressed however awkwardly by the EU. Zero. And UK politicians are largely incapable of doing so. For 40 years they have seen the EU as merely a vehicle for economic gain. GDP stats was the only argument they had.

The stronger together in Europe argument was never going to gain traction with voters, partly for reasons you then go on to mention. I think the remain campaign were right not to go down that road.

Their major problem was that they couldn't get to grip with the immigration topic. For too long they were happy to let the public believe that free movement of people was responsible for the strains on the NHS and other public services. To tackle this false narrative would involve criticising themselves and their own policy decisions. So they didn't tackle it - they just avoided the question and that was a fatal error.

What the Leave voters stated was they had non-economic priorities. This is why support for Brexit remains stubbornly high despite all the economic bad news. To paraphrase the Clinton/Blair mantra, it's not the economy.

The priorities of leave voters are mainly non-economical and nonsensical.

For instance many leave voters will talk about sovereignty and the ability to make their own laws. But when they are asked 'which law do you currently follow because of the EU, that you don't want to?' - they invariably cannot give one single example.

Leave voters are high on rhetoric and slogans but unfortunately facts and detail are not high on the agenda. People are fed up of 'experts' indeed.

Skedaddle

You can add to that a series of weak governments that have been actively following trends behaving more like marketeers than actually trying to provide any kind of leadership.

The UK tabloid press has always been into hyperbole and stirring the pot, often with an agenda similar to an internet troll that can sometimes have an agenda or may simply be basking in the attention.

I just see a whole era where the UK has allowed itself to be bounced along by the tabloids and now social media.

It's become government by tabloid rather than ballot-box.

I see very little big vision or aspirational politics being put forward. It's just a whole load of pushing people's fear buttons to attain political power.

I honestly don't see any possibility of this changing until it, inevitably causes major economic chaos and people snap out of it.

The parallels with Trump's America are very strong and that too will likely only self-correct when it reaches a major crisis and the wheels fall off.

My view of it at this stage is a chaotic UK exit from the EU is inevitable because there's no political leadership strong enough to steer the ship from the rocks. So it's going to just crash straight into them. All we can hope is that the damage is minimal.

It may well result in a major rethink of how things work afterwards, but you're not really dealing with a rational debate and trying to argue using rationality doesn't work.

The facts have been laid out over and over and I really think at this stage it's the UK's mistake to make and all we can really do is watch and attempt to dodge out of the way of as much of the chaos as we can avoid.

Zubeneschamali

Econ_ wrote: »

To tackle this false narrative would involve criticising themselves and their own policy decisions. So they didn't tackle it - they just avoided the question and that was a fatal error.

I agree it was an error in the sense that Brexit as a whole is an error, but it is not really a fatal error if you are a politician at Westminster.

The UK will be poorer, more divided, more insular and more xenophobic after Brexit, but it will still elect the same jokers to Parliament, and they will have even more power.

Skedaddle

They're vastly underestimating how big a transition this will be. It's not like you can snap your fingers and become Australia, Canada or New Zealand over night and there are a whole load of huge differences between the UK and most of those economies.

I think you're looking at at least a decade or more of turmoil as the UK economy and society adjusts.

All I can say is it'll be an interesting decade as a highly networked trading hub decides to pull out the plugs into the world's largest trading bloc and all for no particular reason other than jingoism.

All the sense talked on this thread and elsewhere is really futile. None of it is being listened to by those making decisions in London.

I suppose at least in a few years time we'll be able to look back at these threads like an archive.

Econ_

Skedaddle wrote: »

They're vastly underestimating how big a transition this will be. It's not like you can snap your fingers and become Australia, Canada or New Zealand over night and there are a whole load of huge differences between the UK and most of those economies.

I think you're looking at at least a decade or more of turmoil as the UK economy and society adjusts.

All I can say is it'll be an interesting decade as a highly networked trading hub decides to pull out the plugs into the world's largest trading bloc and all for no particular reason other than jingoism.

All the sense talked on this thread and elsewhere is really futile. None of it is being listened to by those making decisions in London.

I suppose at least in a few years time we'll be able to look back at these threads like an archive.

I think the UK will eventually fall into a Norway style position. There is no genuine appetite for them to set up new customs arrangements and fundamentally renegotiate dozens of new trade treaties and trade deals - all to be worse off.

The transport minister was on Question Time a few weeks ago and when asked about additional customs checks, Lorry queues, building new Lorry parks in Dover etc. he just said 'it won't happen and it can't happen' - apparently unaware that it would have to happen if the UK don't remain tied to the rules of the Customs Union and Single Market.

They will huff and puff until they run out of time to be able to implement new customs arrangements and will eventually have no choice but sign up to stay aligned with Europe. I reckon most inside the UK govt see this but think it's politically impossible to come out and state it.

They will however continue to do enormous damage to existing business and future investment by essentially making their government trade policy uncertain.

Amazing to type that but I believe that is the UK's current trade policy; uncertainty.

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

The problem that the remain side had, was that they really only had the economic argument. They had, MPs and parties, spent the last 40 years complaining that the EU (in its various forms) was the cause of nearly every problem that the UK faced.

Cameron had just been on a mission to try to get additional allowances from the EU (which in did receive some, but below the fantasy that he had promised) so even he would have a difficult time telling people the UK was in control in the EU.

Hindsight is always 20/20 so it is easy to see where they went wrong. They didn't only have the economic argument, they decided to only focus on the economic argument. From David Cameron's side this made sense, he had won the Scottish referendum by focusing on the economic argument and the same for the next general election as well. So he thought he could win a third election, when he was predicted to lose his majority at the 2015 general election, with the same tactics.

What could he have focused on instead? You are correct that they effectively shot themselves in the foot by blaming the EU for a lot of their woes. But showing the integration of the EU and the benefits that brings to the UK. How does the airlines operate within the EU? How do the UK benefit from other EU agencies?

There is a competition on who the worst PM ever for the UK is, David Cameron is in the lead, but Theresa May is keeping herself in the race to at least be remembered for something.

Sam Russell

Enzokk wrote: »

Hindsight is always 20/20 so it is easy to see where they went wrong. They didn't only have the economic argument, they decided to only focus on the economic argument. From David Cameron's side this made sense, he had won the Scottish referendum by focusing on the economic argument and the same for the next general election as well. So he thought he could win a third election, when he was predicted to lose his majority at the 2015 general election, with the same tactics.

I do not agree.

It was the SNP who had done all the work on the Scottish Indyref, and had all the economic arguments worked out. It was the 'Stronger Together' who used the emotional arguments like 'You can't use the GB Pound', or 'You will have to leave the EU' or you will not get the BBC, or other such arguments. Most of this type of rhetoric was of uncertin truth and would have been subject to negotiation.

It was emotion what won it.

Angry bird

Econ_ wrote: »

Skedaddle wrote: »

They're vastly underestimating how big a transition this will be. It's not like you can snap your fingers and become Australia, Canada or New Zealand over night and there are a whole load of huge differences between the UK and most of those economies.

I think you're looking at at least a decade or more of turmoil as the UK economy and society adjusts.

All I can say is it'll be an interesting decade as a highly networked trading hub decides to pull out the plugs into the world's largest trading bloc and all for no particular reason other than jingoism.

All the sense talked on this thread and elsewhere is really futile. None of it is being listened to by those making decisions in London.

I suppose at least in a few years time we'll be able to look back at these threads like an archive.

I think the UK will eventually fall into a Norway style position. There is no genuine appetite for them to set up new customs arrangements and fundamentally renegotiate dozens of new trade treaties and trade deals - all to be worse off.

The transport minister was on Question Time a few weeks ago and when asked about additional customs checks, Lorry queues, building new Lorry parks in Dover etc. he just said 'it won't happen and it can't happen' - apparently unaware that it would have to happen if the UK don't remain tied to the rules of the Customs Union and Single Market.

They will huff and puff until they run out of time to be able to implement new customs arrangements and will eventually have no choice but sign up to stay aligned with Europe. I reckon most inside the UK govt see this but think it's politically impossible to come out and state it.

They will however continue to do enormous damage to existing business and future investment by essentially making their government trade policy uncertain.

Amazing to type that but I believe that is the UK's current trade policy; uncertainty.

Largely agree. The current parliament is largely impotent, both government and opposition don't want to be seen as opposing the Brexit dream (whatever that is), walk right up to the cliff and then suddenly determine we best have an interim agreement, cave into the EU, blame the EU and kick the can down the road.

Enzokk

Sam Russell wrote: »

I do not agree.

It was the SNP who had done all the work on the Scottish Indyref, and had all the economic arguments worked out. It was the 'Stronger Together' who used the emotional arguments like 'You can't use the GB Pound', or 'You will have to leave the EU' or you will not get the BBC, or other such arguments. Most of this type of rhetoric was of uncertin truth and would have been subject to negotiation.

It was emotion what won it.

I cannot dispute that, but most of those arguments along with the amount of oil revenues they will have fall under the economy for me. It is mostly to do whether people will be worse off or not.

The EU referendum on the other hand was about blue passports, their laws, fish and their identity.

Strazdas

Econ_ wrote: »

The priorities of leave voters are mainly non-economical and nonsensical.

For instance many leave voters will talk about sovereignty and the ability to make their own laws. But when they are asked 'which law do you currently follow because of the EU, that you don't want to?' - they invariably cannot give one single example.

Leave voters are high on rhetoric and slogans but unfortunately facts and detail are not high on the agenda. People are fed up of 'experts' indeed.

It's so obvious that they're taking their cue from the right wing press, Farage, Rees-Mogg etc. When pressed for any detail, they clam up and keep spouting soundbites about control and sovereignty and 'the will of the people'.

It's an interesting scenario. They clearly know very little about the EU but think they know enough to make an informed decision about leaving it for good.

Memnoch

wes wrote: »

The attacks on Corbyn are really taking the cake. I am not fan of him, due to his position on Brexit, but the stuff being said is some nonsense. Apparently he is an anti-Semite for attending a Jewish event now, but apparently the people behind the event aren't really Jewish or something (because they criticized Israel apparently, what next people aren't Muslim if they criticize Saudi Arabia for the Yemen slaughter?). The whole thing is a farce, and doubly so when you have far right racist nutters like Guido Fawkes thinking they get to decide who is and isn't Jewish.

There are a couple of articles that make for interesting reading on this subject. I'll note that Corbyn has been effectively muzzled, for the time being, on the issue of Israel's actions in Palestine as evidenced by his inability to condemn the recent killings of 16 Palestinian protesters by the IDF. A case could be made that this is exactly the intention of this uproar (and undermining Corbyn, of course.)

http://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/social-media/the-truth-about-corbyn-supporters-facebook-groups/

http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/corbyn-and-anti-semitism-claims-real-reason-behind-attack-labour-leader-555916863

This kind of smear campaign against Corbyn is nothing new. When Angela Smith was standing for Labour leader there was a campaign to claim that Corbyn supporters were mysoginists. In fact Corbyn supporters have variously been labelled as Fascists, entryists, trostkyists, mysoginists, racists, communists and now anti-semetic.

Brexit is a very interesting topic in this context. Take for example the actions of Boris Johnson, Theresa May, the conservative party, the vote leave campaign and their alleged links to cambridge analytica and yet somehow you have had 'centrist' posters on here claiming that with Corbyn is where the REAL blame lies for brexit. Because apparently, he did not campaign enthusiastically enough for remain. An accusation supported only by the same people who have had nothing but 'nice' things to say about his leadership from the outset.

More currently, I can understand the consternation that people like yourself have with Corbyn with regards to his stand on Brexit. I would say that this too has been, too an extent, shaped by the prevailing media narrative that is driven by the same forces that have variously labelled Corbyn supporters the above things that I mentioned.

I would argue that there needs to be a consideration of the current climate in the UK and the UK body politic before any such judgement can be reached.

Firstly, Corbyn is not in power. He cannot reverse or drastically water down brexit without being in government. A significant constituency of labour and swing votes in numerous marginal seats voted to leave and remain strongly pro-brexit.

If he were to take a stronger pro-remain stance openly, and were this to become the official position of the labour party it would only strenghten the position of the tory hard right within government and provide more stability to the May government to allow them to enact the hardest of brexits.

A lot of people have called Corbyn an idealogue. The reality is that he has acted with strong pragmatism and he continues to take a very difficult but pragmatic approach, and really, the only approach there can be to minimise the impact of brexit in the current situation.

Taking a strongly pro-remain stance and making a lot of noise might win some supporters and might look good to those of us on this side of the pond. But it will not win the election, it will not weaken the hard line pro-brexiteers, and it will not stop or derail the brexit train, it would only add more fuel to the fire and Corbyn knows this. He was proven to be right about this at the general election and will be proven right once again in time when all the accounting is done.

All this said, the official Labour position has been slowly nudging towards a softer and softer brexit, and if there is a fresh general election, following that, there may even be the possibility of another referendum. But adoption of such positions prematurely would be extremely counter productive.

LeinsterDub

Sam Russell wrote: »

I do not agree.

It was the SNP who had done all the work on the Scottish Indyref, and had all the economic arguments worked out. It was the 'Stronger Together' who used the emotional arguments like 'You can't use the GB Pound', or 'You will have to leave the EU' or you will not get the BBC, or other such arguments. Most of this type of rhetoric was of uncertin truth and would have been subject to negotiation.

It was emotion what won it.

They were economic arguments. The leave side in Scotland argument was mainly "to be that nation again" . Which is why brexit was so ironic because many who argued economics in Scotland ignored them in in favour of sovereignty and emotion.

Blowfish

In other tangential Brexit news, Facebook won't extend GDPR protections worldwide. Goes to show the value of personal data and that if the UK don't get their equivalent data protection laws in place quickly, companies are going to take advantage if they can.

flatty

Given the number of cctv cameras across the UK, and the likelihood that the govt are already recording many many phone conversations, I'm not convinced they are overly concerned about strong privacy and data protection laws.

Sand

Sam Russell wrote: »

I do not agree.

It was the SNP who had done all the work on the Scottish Indyref, and had all the economic arguments worked out. It was the 'Stronger Together' who used the emotional arguments like 'You can't use the GB Pound', or 'You will have to leave the EU' or you will not get the BBC, or other such arguments. Most of this type of rhetoric was of uncertin truth and would have been subject to negotiation.

It was emotion what won it.

Those are not emotive arguments. They are quite factual. An independent Scotland would have to leave the EU, just like Catalonia. Scotland is not on the list of members. It might reapply, but the UK could veto it and certainly would be incredibly foolish not to use the threat of a veto as leverage in negotiations on the divorce with Scotland, much as Spain is doing on Gibraltar. An independent Scotland, leaving the UK club would not continue to be able to have full access to the benefits of being a member of the club. Cold hard facts won the day in the Scottish independence vote. It was a lot of risks, with little upside other than the emotive desire for sovereignty.

The key difference with the Brexit vote is not the strategy of the UK government changed from factual to emotive, it was that the desire for sovereignty at any cost won out. To a large degree all the fairly obvious downsides were either dismissed entirely as project fear or viewed as a price worth paying.

Econ_ wrote: »

He claimed that we can't declare that other people have been deceived or misinformed and that only them themselves can decide such a thing.

It was then pointed out that if people are espousing verifiably untrue information, then they are by definition either misinformed/deceived or they are lying.

'Agreeing to disagree' at the junction in the debate is a cop out.

My reading of it was he said that just because people have access to the same data but reach a different conclusion does not make them deceived or misinformed.

People are arguing Leave voters were deceived or misinformed because of the NHS lie etc. Thats an irrelevance. The top three reasons the Ashcroft poll gave for voting Leave was 1. The principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK, 2. Voting leave offered the UK the best chance to regain control over immigration and its own borders, 3. Remaining meant little or no choice about how the EU extended its powers or membership.

Economic rationales/lies peddled by the Leave campaign - 350mn a week to the NHS etc - don't factor. The Leave voters by and large had very different principles and values. The EU by definition does mean a pooling of sovereignty. Some view they economic prosperity that results as worth it, others do not. If GDP and jobs were important, you voted Remain. If you had different priorities you voted Leave.

Now I get why Frito said 'agree to disagree' because there's a fierce refusal to acknowledge or accept that, and its gets tiresome to see people talking past the problem. Many Leave voters simply do not care if London house prices decline, or yuppies find it harder to travel around Europe taking a year out, or rich farmers cant import foreigners to pick their crops, or if the contributions to the EU were 350 mn or 200 mn a week, or if a GDP figure which is increasingly notional to them is a few percent higher or lower. They do not care. They want to feel empowered and in control of their destiny and their country.

This feeling of powerlessness is mainly an UK political problem which Brexit will not solve (and indeed could make much worse), but talking about lies told in Brexit and calling Leave voters deceived/misinformed/stupid is largely irrelevant to addressing it.

Zubeneschamali

But of course the impact will not be on yuppies and rich people - it will mainly be on the poor. Unemployment will reappear, food prices will shoot up, jobs will be poorly paid for competitiveness etc. The EU will no longer be helping the regions, and if you think Boris will, you can whistle for it.

Sand

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But of course the impact will not be on yuppies and rich people - it will mainly be on the poor. Unemployment will reappear, food prices will shoot up, jobs will be poorly paid for competitiveness etc. The EU will no longer be helping the regions, and if you think Boris will, you can whistle for it.

Well, I think there has been research done which shows the Leave voters were not necessarily unusually poor. Not certain on that, might be confusing it with Trump voters.

That aside, we're talking about yuppies and rich people who felt so contemptuous of the losers in their society that The Financial Times could publish an opinion piece by Janan Ganesh arguing that 'Rich democracies may have to live with a caucus of permanently aggrieved voters amounting to a quarter or a third of the whole...A seething minority is still a minority'

This goes back to the sense of powerlessness, and Brexit as a revolt against it. If you were one of the 'seething minority' seeing that sort of contempt towards you, the belief you are irrelevant and you can just be managed like background noise to the 'real politics' of the day would you really be thinking about GDP or food prices? Or would you accept some pain to kick back against a view that is in the long run very dangerous to your interests? That Ganesh can voice such reprehensible views, which accurately surmise in my view the issue in British politics that needs to be addressed regardless of how Brexit turns out in the short term. Because 'reclaiming sovereignty' from the EU is meaningless when the real disconnect and abuse is between the British (largely English) and Westminster, not Brussels.

Capt'n Midnight

Blowfish wrote: »

In other tangential Brexit news, Facebook won't extend GDPR protections worldwide. Goes to show the value of personal data and that if the UK don't get their equivalent data protection laws in place quickly, companies are going to take advantage if they can.

Without EU data protection laws it's not going to be good.

They've already offshored passports to save a few quid.
There's the snoopers charter.

Worst case they offshore data processing to places like India where the data on the Indian equivalent of a USC card can be got for £6.

CelticRambler

Sand wrote: »

Well, I think there has been research done which shows the Leave voters were not necessarily unusually poor. Not certain on that, might be confusing it with Trump voters.

See this breakdown of the result (specifically figure 17, page 25)

95% of "economically deprived, anti-immigration" voted to leave - those who would typically benefit most from the EU's regional assistance schemes, and who will be hit hardest by rising food prices as a result of restricting EU migrant harvester workers.

Experience_day

CelticRambler wrote: »

See this breakdown of the result (specifically figure 17, page 25)

95% of "economically deprived, anti-immigration" voted to leave - those who would typically benefit most from the EU's regional assistance schemes, and who will be hit hardest by rising food prices as a result of restricting EU migrant harvester workers.

Is everything in life about economics? The old left vanguard must be turning in their graves!

The political class do their very best to ignore the issue that people thought their communities were changing irrevocably and wanted to do something about it. Was it the most direct action? No. But then again good luck trying for that. Any party outside of the mainstream gets shot down to pieces, aided and abetted by the media.

We have an easy life here in Ireland. I've lived in a few places and we have had next to zero immigration the likes of which the UK has received. Maybe we'll understand in 30-50 years when we have swathes of people who steadfastly do not want to integrate into a community. That is, not because they are not allowed, but because they do not want to....

J Mysterio

Experience_day wrote: »

Is everything in life about economics? The old left vanguard must be turning in their graves!

The political class do their very best to ignore the issue that people thought their communities were changing irrevocably and wanted to do something about it. Was it the most direct action? No. But then again good luck trying for that. Any party outside of the mainstream gets shot down to pieces, aided and abetted by the media.

We have an easy life here in Ireland. I've lived in a few places and we have had next to zero immigration the likes of which the UK has received. Maybe we'll understand in 30-50 years when we have swathes of people who steadfastly do not want to integrate into a community. That is, not because they are not allowed, but because they do not want to....

Nothing was stopping the UK limiting immigration from around the world, outside of EU countries. The UK have always had full control over that but have not made changes in that regard.

The vote only affects EU freedom of movement, which by and large is not the cause of English ghettos.

The UK can't blame the EU for their mismanagement of immigration over the years and the subsequent failure to integrate and support these communties. So - again - that would be a vote based on a misunderstanding/ mistruth and lack of knowledge.

Leroy42

I do understand the desire for the voters to see something done about immigration, and the issues that have developed because of it.

I don't think that leaving the EU is the correct way to channel that though.

However, I do think that it will have the desired effect. Already we can see that immigration has been effected, certainly the UK, anecdotally, would appear to less welcoming than before. In addition, if the economic predictions come to pass then the downturn in the economy will see less people looking to come to the UK.

So from a singular "reduce immigration" POV, leaving the EU may well be considered the right thing to do.

IMO, the cost to achieve that is simply too high and there were plenty of other ways to deal with it. In particular, the very people that championed immigration (big business etc) are still in charge and I don't see how they will simply accept that in stead of paying some Romanian the minimum wage for picking fruit they are now going to have to offer living wage and benefits to UK citizens. So I foresee either the jobs moving abroad or other forms of immigration to cover (replace the Romanians with Indians for example).

Christy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

I do understand the desire for the voters to see something done about immigration, and the issues that have developed because of it.

I don't think that leaving the EU is the correct way to channel that though.

However, I do think that it will have the desired effect. Already we can see that immigration has been effected, certainly the UK, anecdotally, would appear to less welcoming than before. In addition, if the economic predictions come to pass then the downturn in the economy will see less people looking to come to the UK.

So from a singular "reduce immigration" POV, leaving the EU may well be considered the right thing to do.

IMO, the cost to achieve that is simply too high and there were plenty of other ways to deal with it. In particular, the very people that championed immigration (big business etc) are still in charge and I don't see how they will simply accept that in stead of paying some Romanian the minimum wage for picking fruit they are now going to have to offer living wage and benefits to UK citizens. So I foresee either the jobs moving abroad or other forms of immigration to cover (replace the Romanians with Indians for example).

Why would they have to offer the living wage? Minimum wage was a well used baseline for a reason. There were enough people willing to work at that level (and realistically well below which I why there is a minimum wage). There is less competition for places now but you have to wonder if it is enough to bring a lot of jobs above minimum wage (keeping in mind in a pure capitalistic society those jobs would be well below the minimum wage).

ambro25

The immigration ratio here, in Luxembourg, is about 47%. I’m talking residents, here. About 1 in 2 is not a native. For a country the size of a English county, numbering 0.6m residents. That ratio temporarily gets into the high 50s/low 60s in daytime, once you’ve added the cross-border commuters from France, Germany & Belgium.

40-odd years ago, the country was chiefly rural and agrarian, besides some mining & steel-making in the South. Today it’s plowing beeellions in public education, health & infrastructure to help better integrate, and keep hold of, its highly-multicultural societal make-up.

The immigration ‘crisis’ in the U.K. that contributed to the Leave vote, is solely of successive U.K. governments’ making, and principally down to an endemic lack of vision and follow-up by adequate policies. The U.K.’s adherence to the EEC, as it was then, long post-dates this issue: it’s not as if the U.K. hadn’t been a magnet for economical migrants for centuries, before the EU accession states came along in the noughties.

Leroy42

Christy42 wrote: »

Why would they have to offer the living wage? Minimum wage was a well used baseline for a reason. There were enough people willing to work at that level (and realistically well below which I why there is a minimum wage). There is less competition for places now but you have to wonder if it is enough to bring a lot of jobs above minimum wage (keeping in mind in a pure capitalistic society those jobs would be well below the minimum wage).

Because they won't work for the wages on offer, as they already do ( I don't say that as a negative against it, just a fact). The mere existence of foreign workers shows that there are not sufficient people within the UK to undertake the jobs at the current offering.

With the immigrants gone, why would the remaining now work for the came conditions that they rejected previously?

Now, why won't they to the jobs? Maybe they already have better jobs. The business nows faces a worker shortage. Instead of easy access to the east european market for workers, they will need to go through immigration etc, thus increasing the cost for the business

Maybe they don't see the value in all that work for such little reward (as compared to welfare etc). Nothing will change there so the situation reverts to the above.

Christy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

Because they won't work for the wages on offer, as they already do ( I don't say that as a negative against it, just a fact). The mere existence of foreign workers shows that there are not sufficient people within the UK to undertake the jobs at the current offering.

With the immigrants gone, why would the remaining now work for the came conditions that they rejected previously?

Now, why won't they to the jobs? Maybe they already have better jobs. The business nows faces a worker shortage. Instead of easy access to the east european market for workers, they will need to go through immigration etc, thus increasing the cost for the business

Maybe they don't see the value in all that work for such little reward (as compared to welfare etc). Nothing will change there so the situation reverts to the above.

How do you know that there are no UK people willing to do the jobs at the current price? All we know is that on some occasions foreign workers were favoured.

Places may let some roles disappear (smaller population so less people to serve) or get more reliant on students/interns or other segments of society. Some small increases I could see but anywhere close to a full living wage and benefits is unlikely even with every company staying (which as you say is unlikely anyway).

Large companies have always held the edge against lower skill workers (without government intervention) and I don't see that changing.

Leroy42

Christy42 wrote: »

How do you know that there are no UK people willing to do the jobs at the current price? All we know is that on some occasions foreign workers were favoured.

I am basing it on the premise that it is easier to recruit locally (all things being equal) and only after that is no longer an option do you look elsewhere.

Many of the fruit companies (for example) have claimed that they can't get the local workers and need foreign workers.

CelticRambler

ambro25 wrote: »

The immigration ‘crisis’ in the U.K. that contributed to the Leave vote, is solely of successive U.K. governments’ making, and principally down to an endemic lack of vision and follow-up by adequate policies.

Here in France, lots of rural areas are losing their local services (schools, shops, doctors) because of a declining population of natives. The response of many councils is to invite foreigners into the area and give them all the support they can - free French lessons, free accommodation, free professional premises, etc. When we arrived with four children in tow, we were welcomed with open arms, mainly because we boosted the school numbers by 10% and guaranteed its survival as a two-teacher establishment for another few years.

Despite the supposed close ties between Ireland and Britain, I never felt as welcome there as I have here.

Christy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

I am basing it on the premise that it is easier to recruit locally (all things being equal) and only after that is no longer an option do you look elsewhere.

Many of the fruit companies (for example) have claimed that they can't get the local workers and need foreign workers.

I was more thinking foreign born workers already in the UK but I guess they have to come over at some point and it would generally be for a specific job.

Rain Ascending

Blowfish wrote: »

In other tangential Brexit news, Facebook won't extend GDPR protections worldwide. Goes to show the value of personal data and that if the UK don't get their equivalent data protection laws in place quickly, companies are going to take advantage if they can.

It looks like Facebook are gradually shifting their position. See this article today from Politico. For me, the key quote from Zuckerberg is this one...

“But let me repeat this, we’ll make all controls and settings the same everywhere, not just in Europe.”

... which makes this very much a Brexit story. Companies really don't like having to customize their products or services for different markets -- it reduces economies of scale. So contrary to some of the speculation here, the UK can deregulate all it likes, many companies won't care. They'll conform to one of the bigger regulatory regimes anyway, usually that of the EU or the US, depending on what markets they target. For example, in some industries South America follows US regulations and Africa, European. So, I'm not surprised at Facebook deciding to go all in on the EU's GDPR.

Of course, the recent Cambridge Analytica scandal has made the decision easier...

Inquitus

Rain Ascending wrote: »

It looks like Facebook are gradually shifting their position. See this article today from Politico. For me, the key quote from Zuckerberg is this one...

... which makes this very much a Brexit story. Companies really don't like having to customize their products or services for different markets -- it reduces economies of scale. So contrary to some of the speculation here, the UK can deregulate all it likes, many companies won't care. They'll conform to one of the bigger regulatory regimes anyway, usually that of the EU or the US, depending on what markets they target. For example, in some industries South America follows US regulations and Africa, European. So, I'm not surprised at Facebook deciding to go all in on the EU's GDPR.

Of course, the recent Cambridge Analytica scandal has made the decision easier...

That doesn't work, if you voluntarily adhere to someone else's standards it doesn't mean your goods or services can freely cross borders to another regulatory regime.

Companies can stick to the highest regulatory standard, but a country cannot have a lower standard and still freely access the EU market regardless of what those companies do, and nor can companies in that non-EU country do the same.

LeinsterDub

Little progress from 'magical thinking' in Brexit talks on Irish border...

However, there is creeping concern that with less than a year to go Britain is no closer to finding a solution, with no ideas considered developed enough to form the framework for a post-Brexit plan...

It is said that the British team, led by Olly Robbins, have acknowledged that so-called “non-tariff barriers”, and not customs checks, are the main stumbling block on the trade side of the equation.

These include the need for food hygiene and agricultural checks to accommodate the continued free flow of lamb, beef and dairy products criss-crossing the border....

However, the British side is also insisting on the future right to diverge from EU law, which the EU fears could open the floodgates to chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef if the UK agrees a free-trade deal with the US that includes agriculture.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/05/little-progress-from-magical-thinking-in-brexit-talks-on-irish-border

It seems the penny is staring to drop for the UK but they haven't grasped the nettle quite yet as they are still proposing unicorn solutions (sorry for mixing so many metaphors )

Rain Ascending

Inquitus wrote: »

That doesn't work, if you voluntarily adhere to someone else's standards it doesn't mean your goods or services can freely cross borders to another regulatory regime.

Companies can stick to the highest regulatory standard, but a country cannot have a lower standard and still freely access the EU market regardless of what those companies do, and nor can companies in that non-EU country do the same.

Agreed. In a nutshell, if you are exporting, then you conform to the rules of the country to which to you export to, not the country you export from.

The point I'm trying to make, perhaps not very clearly, is that the UK may struggle to create competitive advantage through lower regulation, e.g. by allowing the local economy to use lower cost goods and services. Internationally trading companies providing these goods and services are likely to conform anyway to one of their bigger markets with the strictest standards.

In Facebook's case, this would be the EU with GDPR.

Inquitus

Rain Ascending wrote: »

Agreed. In a nutshell, if you are exporting, then you conform to the rules of the country to which to you export to, not the country you export from.

The point I'm trying to make, perhaps not very clearly, is that the UK may struggle to create competitive advantage through lower regulation, e.g. by allowing the local economy to use lower cost goods and services. Internationally trading companies providing these goods and services are likely to conform anyway to one of their bigger markets with the strictest standards.

In Facebook's case, this would be the EU with GDPR.

I agree with your point, I misunderstood what you said. I guess my point is if your regulatory environment is not aligned with the EU you have to undergo all the EU tests, evaluations, border inspections etc. to export, which instead of increasing competitiveness is actually an additional product cost doing the exact opposite. Which means we are probably saying the same thing

Econ_

Sand wrote: »

My reading of it was he said that just because people have access to the same data but reach a different conclusion does not make them deceived or misinformed.

People are arguing Leave voters were deceived or misinformed because of the NHS lie etc. Thats an irrelevance. The top three reasons the Ashcroft poll gave for voting Leave was 1. The principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK, 2. Voting leave offered the UK the best chance to regain control over immigration and its own borders, 3. Remaining meant little or no choice about how the EU extended its powers or membership.

Economic rationales/lies peddled by the Leave campaign - 350mn a week to the NHS etc - don't factor. The Leave voters by and large had very different principles and values. The EU by definition does mean a pooling of sovereignty. Some view they economic prosperity that results as worth it, others do not. If GDP and jobs were important, you voted Remain. If you had different priorities you voted Leave.

Now I get why Frito said 'agree to disagree' because there's a fierce refusal to acknowledge or accept that, and its gets tiresome to see people talking past the problem. Many Leave voters simply do not care if London house prices decline, or yuppies find it harder to travel around Europe taking a year out, or rich farmers cant import foreigners to pick their crops, or if the contributions to the EU were 350 mn or 200 mn a week, or if a GDP figure which is increasingly notional to them is a few percent higher or lower. They do not care. They want to feel empowered and in control of their destiny and their country.

This feeling of powerlessness is mainly an UK political problem which Brexit will not solve (and indeed could make much worse), but talking about lies told in Brexit and calling Leave voters deceived/misinformed/stupid is largely irrelevant to addressing it.

Your post makes for a nice essay but it unfortunately doesn't refute the point that leave voters were deceived or misinformed.

Look at this study done by the Guardian/ICM (5000 Brits were surveyed)

On the question 'What impact do you think Brexit will have on your personal finances?' - 64% of all participants said they think it will either have no effect or it will boost their personal finances.

Do you think those people are misinformed? And if not, why not?

steddyeddy

I'm not sure if this has been shared yet. Shipping companies are scaling up EU-Irish shipping routes and introducing two new mega-freighters for the job. At least some people are thinking realistically.

www.ft.com/content/dbeecd9c-3754-11e8-8b98-2f31af407cc8

Peregrinus

Rain Ascending wrote: »

Agreed. In a nutshell, if you are exporting, then you conform to the rules of the country to which to you export to, not the country you export from.

The point I'm trying to make, perhaps not very clearly, is that the UK may struggle to create competitive advantage through lower regulation, e.g. by allowing the local economy to use lower cost goods and services. Internationally trading companies providing these goods and services are likely to conform anyway to one of their bigger markets with the strictest standards.

In Facebook's case, this would be the EU with GDPR.

Inquitus wrote: »

I agree with your point, I misunderstood what you said. I guess my point is if your regulatory environment is not aligned with the EU you have to undergo all the EU tests, evaluations, border inspections etc. to export, which instead of increasing competitiveness is actually an additional product cost doing the exact opposite. Which means we are probably saying the same thing

It’s a recognised phenomenon. It’s called the “Brussels effect”. Basically, the EU market is so large, and so important, that EU regulatory regimes increasingly become the international norm. Companies located into the EU have to conform, obviously, and so do companies wishing to trade into the EU. Sometimes the scope of EU regulatory regimes is expanded through trade deals, or through the EU regime being accepted as the basis for a global regulatory agreement. Eventually you reach a point where even companies that are not in the EU, don’t sell to the EU, and aren’t affected by trade deals or the like find that they have to produce to EU standard because of competitive pressure from other producers who already do so, and the reputational damage they will suffer if they don’t follow suit. (US-based) Dow Chemicals, for example, conforms to EU regulatory requirements in its global business.

US regulatory regimes can have a similar reach, but EU regimes are increasingly winning the informal competition to become the de facto global standard, simply because EU regimes tend to be tougher, and companies who want to produce to a standard that will qualify them for all major markets mostly find that that is the EU standard. (There are exceptions, like the EU’s relaxed attitude to unpasteurised milk and cheese, but in general EU regulation tends to be tougher.)

The result of this is that Brexiteer fantasises about the UK leaving behind the EU’s regulatory straightjacket and launching itself freely into the world trading system will mostly come to nothing. As regards internationally traded goods, even after the expiry of the transitional period UK producers are going to have to largely comply with EU standards, but (a) the UK will lose the degree of control that it now has through participation in setting and shaping those standards, and (b) UK exporters will lose the benefit of being known to comply; they’ll have to demonstrate compliance, which will add to their cost base.