UK Politics
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
view the rest of the comments
A very naïve view on how the world works. There are plenty of countries that have voted for secession, and secession will always have an economic impact.
It can only be considered stupid if there was enough information to understand the effects of the decision prior to taking it. Because of the lies and money spent on campaigns, the relevant information was tainted. Sitting on your high horse and calling people stupid is never going to convince people to change their minds.
The most googled search reference of 2016 was not “What is the EU?”. It did not even strike the top 10.
I agree Brexit was a bad decision, but two wrong don't make a right. Attacking people for being misinformed is not an intelligent choice imo.
It is very disingenous of you to compare actual independence referendums to the brexit referendum. Those are all about national entities gaining indepence from other national entities. That is not what brexit is, and EU is not a national entity. So those events are not comparable in the slightest.
EU was a trade union, and it was objectively a net benefit for the UK (since it was the biggest market for the UK), and has nothing to do with national independence referendums, even though that is of course what brexit propagandists wanted brexit voters to think it was.
And this is exactly why this particular event is monumentally stupid and without historical precedence.
I would never argue it was not stupid. I am against calling the people stupid as it solves nothing.
As for the rest of your comments that is just down to definitions. The UK was most definitely part of a trading block and took part in the political structure. This is much akin to saying a town is not a city.
Sorry, just a bit angry about it. None of the lies have come true and the politicians refuse to talk about it like it hasn't made things worse in the country.
I am with you all the way on that one.
C'mon man.
An article from The Times?
A magazine based in the US; with search terms involving the US election, hurricanes, and the Powerball?
These are obviously search terms exclusive to the US.
Here are the 2016 search results directly from The Goog, itself - but from the UK - y'know, where Brexit happened.
While not number 1 under the "What is" section, it does pop as #4, alongside "What is Brexit" at #2.
It was top in a sub category of a specific country. This is not what the poster said. All I am saying is keep the arguments for rejoining genuine. Don't give the conmen ammunition to feed on.
~~I was with you until this comment, that's intellectually dishonest to focus on the specific words instead of the intent~~
Edit: I misread
Read it again
You're right, I misread. Sorry for the previous response.
Sorry but I find this naive. The information was there. We have a highly literate population and widespread technology that means the vast majority of the adult population have instant access to unparalleled levels information through a user-friendly device carried in their pockets. It is unacceptable for them to use 'I don't have a PhD in economics' as an excuse for not bothering to inform themselves before voting, in this day and age.
I agree there were lies and disinformation, but for many Brexiters this isn't what decided their vote. Indeed, many of them were crystal clear that they thought Brexit was a desirable outcome regardless of whether it would cause economic damage - 61% of Leave voters saying significant economic damage would be a price worth paying, 39% going further and saying they'd consider it acceptable if Brexit led to them or their family members losing their jobs.
We shouldn't make excuses for these people. Call a fool a fool.
Typical gaslighting narrative. Everything was there right in front of your face.
I have a 70 year old living next door to me who was bragging about having her first email address last month. It is this sort of ignorance that you conmen rely on.
I'm relying on the fact that:
Your point on a 70 year having less access to modern technology does not represent most of the population. It doesn't even represent most 70 year olds - my parents are that age and they've both had email addresses since the 1990s and smart phones for over a decade, and use them very actively.
What does represent the wider population is that a majority of Leavers were pretty clear they wanted Brexit to happen regardless of any economic consequences. They didn't vote based on empirical factors, they voted based on ideology. Brexit wasn't science for them, it was religion.
So you are saying that conning most of the population is perfectly acceptable. While ignoring the fact that the con was in the information given.
Says who? Which moron broke with the traditional lies and told people there would be economic consequences?
People voted for Brexit because the lies were that things would be cheaper, there would be no change in access to Europe, and we would have more money for services. Didn't you have a bus around your village?
I literally linked to an example of polling on this matter. If you Google it you'll find the were several more similar ones - e.g. there was one showing that many Leave voters considered the breakup of the UK a price worth paying too. They didn't give a shit.
You made a quote. Where is it from?
Scroll up buddy. I quoted my previous comment (which you had selectively quoted from) which includes the hyperlink to a news article about one such poll. But as I said, there were several polls along these lines showing analogous results during the Brexit period.
The devil is always in the question when it comes to polls. As you originally stated 61% of Leave voters. The poll covered 2,043 Leave and 2,248 remain voters. Which breaks down to the fact, out of the 4291 polled 1247 were happy to take on economic damage to get a Brexit, 30% of the people who voted were happy to accept economic damage. The poll was in 2017 so before anyone had any real information on what that damage entailed. The public were still being gaslighted at that time that there would be no damage. Any information they did have was tainted. Expecting people to understand the good V's the bad is unrealistic in the extreme.
Now that people have some of that information, remembering there is more hardship to come, you still have the same 30% who wish to stay out of the EU. Given the vote again under the same circumstances only 31% would commit to voting to leave, 55% would vote remain and that leaves 6% up for grabs on either side.
From that it is an easy conclusion that people did not have the relevant information. Now that they have it, the voting would change dramatically. You still have the 30% of voter base who are Eurosceptical. Whereas 55% are not interested in the slightest.
They asked the question separately to Leave and Remain voters on whether they would be willing to cause significant economic damage to the UK economy to get their way. 61% of the Leave voters (vs 34% of the Remain voters) they polled answered yes.
The referendum was in 2016. Most of the Remain campaign's information was about the economic impact. The government send a leaflet to every household. The Bank of England published a report into the economic impact. Business leaders and economists spoke out. The economic damage of Brexit was a topic - the topic - discussed extensively before the referendum.
This really is pathetic in the extreme.
But, I was told people were not stupid and they knew what they were voting for. How dare I assume they didn't understand the implication and how dare I think I know more about it than they did.
I understand your point that attacking people and calling them stupid wont "make them change their mind". But they had the time to research and understand the implications before the referendum. They've had much more time now to go back over it.
Banging your head on the wall pretending it won't hurt, doesn't make you misinformed or need education. It makes you stupid and it needs to be called out. I don't need to convince someone that banging their head on a wall will hurt.
Sadly, I do need them to stop banging their head on the wall. As it's a shared house and we've all got to live here. Holes in the wall ain't helping anyone.
Stupid is as stupid does. You have no evidence that people understood. There is plenty of evidence people are changing their mind now they are seeing the effects.
If they were misinformed then it was willful ignorance. Anyone with several functioning brain cells could see that it was an idiotic idea. And then they had an infinite number of opportunities to roll it back, but they decided to swim to the bottom of the boiling lake instead of just saying "maybe not."
The people who heard Gove say they'd "had enough of experts" and thought: "yup that's me, I hate people who know what they're talking about".
It's obviously condescending to say that it was stupid. But what's the more generous read of it? A spiteful protest vote against social progress? There could conceivably be coherent arguments for independence, but certainly there weren't any anywhere near the leave campaign.
It is clear that the referendum result could not be repeated today. This in itself is very indicative. What exactly has changed?
agree with this but just to add that the assertion that "what is the eu" was the most googled term is wrong, but slightly less wrong if you refer to a uk source, it's still not there but "what is brexit" and "what is article 50" did appear in the top tens by region. source: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/top-google-searches-trends-2016-uk
There was a top trending search within the UK for "Brexit", which was also within a sub category. I am sorry but this is a far cry from what you said. I agree Brexit is bad, but using information that is not correct gets swooped up by the con artists that try and push the Brexit narrative.