UKC

If you care, be there.

http://www.stopbrexitmarch.com/

In reply to ian caton:
Protesting against a majority decision? What are you hoping to achieve? there was a vote and the majority of people voted leave, this is how it works in a democracy.

In reply to Lantys Tarn:
Thanks for the bump.

This is democracy, free speech etc.

There was a vote once before but that wasn't sufficient. It will get revisited.

In reply to ian caton:

If you get 16 million people there it will still show a majority wants to leave the EU.

In reply to Lantys Tarn:

Remember what Farage said on the day of the referendum when he thought remain would win? Most brexiteers have conveniently forgotten.

In reply to David Riley:


Do you really think that?

In reply to Lantys Tarn:


A decision based on misinformation and lies? If it had been a Jury decision in a court of law found to have been made following significant distortion of the truth by major witnesses it would have been grounds for a retrial.


Another Referendum, this time based on truthful facts, figures and information.


Actually it was a very small majority of those that voted made on the basis of misinformation and lies (see above), it certainly did not indicate the "will" of the 65 million people who live in the UK.

In reply to Trangia:

>
You mean like just about every election or referendum ever held?

In reply to Postmanpat:

What other UK referendums can you quote where there have shown to have been significant lies and misinformation banded about in advance?

In reply to Trangia:

Imagine how many more people would have voted leave if there was no financial downsides.
A huge majority actually wanted out of the EU. But many were scared of the consequences.
Others were prepared to accept it might cost.

In reply to David Riley:




"huge majority"? How huge? What's your source?

In reply to Trangia:

All of them? Certainly the common market referendum was based on the knowingly false premise that we were joining a common market as opposed to a European Union.

Can you name any that weren't?

In reply to Lantys Tarn:


I think the clue is in the name.

I'm one of The People, I'm just a leaver,
Gimme 350, I'm a slack-jawed believer,
I don't place much trust in statistical authority
Verifiable facts - they don't bother me,
So when you say democracy's pretty complex
Courts and protests and balances and checks,
You say you've got the right to be a demonstrator
Well that's nothing but the talk of a traitor
It's just futile, and it don't compute
The people have spoke, so don't dilute
Our precious vote with your petty concerns
Of jobs, prosperity and trading terms,
Whatever the course, there's no reverse
So don't protest, go home, disperse!

In reply to Postmanpat:

In 1975 the vote was whether to stay in the Common Market and was non binding. We already knew what we were voting for. In the last Referendum, we hadn't a real clue as to the real consequences of the vote would be, yet we were blatantly lied to by leading politicians on all sides who also hadn't a clue as to what the real consequences would be, as we are now finding out. Amazingly this "muddle" is supposed to be binding.

In reply to Trangia:

>
Nonsense. The referendum was held under false pretences, which you apparently haven't spotted yet. Heath knew perfectly well that the aim of the "Common Market" from its first inception was to create a federal union. So we didn't in fat know what we were voting for at all, certainly no more than we did when voting for brexit.

In reply to David Riley:


Yes, if there were no downsides people would vote for anything. What a stupid f*cking argument.

In reply to Lantys Tarn:


I'm sorry but you're deeply mistaken about democracy, this isn't how it should work at all.

In reply to Lantys Tarn:

The problem though is that there was no manifiesto for the leave or remain campaign, no plan for what to do with the result and a high proportion of misinformation before the vote, it was all very poorly done. I'd bet almost anything that the vote would go the other way tomorrow, as potential realities start to become apparent. Democracy? It was democracy done really badly, and it's going to cost us dear.

In reply to Rich W Parker:

I agree for what it's worth, I was playing devils advocate. For what it's worth I think very little will change in reality, it will just be dressed up in a way to please as many people on both sides as possible.

In reply to Lantys Tarn:

I tend to feel (based on very little knowledge of politics and economics) that it will probably be ok in the end, but that there will be a cost likely to outweigh any benefits, for some years to come.

Something I wonder is: under what circumstances would brexit be halted and if so how would it go down with the population?

In reply to Rich W Parker:


Ultimately, I think it could only be halted by another vote - either a second referendum, or the election of an anti-Brexit party.

Of course, there's nothing to stop the government pushing for an infinite transition period, but that's surely a wholly unsatisfactory outcome.

In reply to ian caton:

We've spent the last 40 years half in and will now spend the next 40 years half out.

To all of those who want another referendum: No matter the outcome, then what? Grow up.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:

Not sure that "growing up" is going to fix anything. If you mean "roll over and play dead" that's not very British bulldog is it?

I'd settle for half out, but it won't happen on its own.

In reply to ian caton:


Excellent, I haven't been rioting since Moss Side.

In reply to Trangia:


Like all elections then?

In reply to ian caton:

The Brexit referendum vote was June 2016, that's 15 months ago. If you feel so strongly why didn't you all start matching the following week?
Sitting on your arses doing nothing for over a year sort of takes the edge off the importance of it.

In reply to Moley:

There have been many anti-Brexit marches since the referendum, and I have been on several.

In reply to Lantys Tarn:

It is not how our parliamentary democracy is supposed to work.

In reply to JayPee630:

Arguably none of which have had such far reaching consequences as the referendum will have, making truthfulness all the more important.

In reply to Trangia:


1975, voting for only a trade deal?

In reply to summo:

and that one didn't stick, so why should this one. The precedent has been set.

In reply to Moley:

They (the marches) that have been weren't on your news feed either then.

In reply to Moley:

You could argue that it should be the Leavers rioting, sorry, marching.
Technically speaking, the UK could be leaving the EU in eight and half months time, but now, it's been stretched out till at least five years, and who knows how much longer. That vote was to leave the EU.
Leave or Remain, the whole affair's an enormous bad joke, run by a useless Prime Minister leading a minority Government, who's bribed a bunch of DUP bigots with £1.5 Billion of our money to get their policies through Parliament, and with a cabinet full of inept idiots
Thank you Tories!

In reply to Lusk:





Before you start pointing the finger at Tories have look at Corbyn's track record during the referendum campaign. Utterly lacklustre for a party leader whose party policy was to support Remain. More effort on his part would have swung the vote in favour of Remain.

I am not Tory, and was once Labour, but Corbyn's mishandling of the referendum put me right off voting for a party led by him. He, Farage,Cameron and Boris between them cocked it up well and truly for the country.

In reply to ian caton:


Every 42 years; not weeks.

In reply to ian caton:

It's a bit like when you're in the pub after a nice day's climbing and having a few beers. Then you start talking about what to do tomorrow. Several pints into the evening and the braggadocio kicks in. Yeah, we can do Left Wall tomorrow. As a warm up. Then Right Wall. And back down here for a beer by lunchtime. At the end of the evening we stumble off, still determined on a course of action. Then we wake up the next morning and think 'Oh.'

And we back out.

Shouldn't it be like that with a referendum?

Who cares? Brexit, if it happens and in whatever form it happens, will be decided by a bunch of parasites whose strings are pulled by the tiny minority who control all of the wealth. For the rest of us, it'll be wage-slavery as usual.

In reply to Lantys Tarn:


Agreed; very little will change.

In reply to Rigid Raider:

How can be you sure?

In reply to Timmd:
"If voting changed anything they would make it illegal". Quote from a famous anarchist/feminist/free thinker but I can't help but think that there is an element of truth to it.

Al

In reply to Postmanpat:


Huh? The Union only came into existence in the 1990s. The vote was in the 70s.

In reply to GridNorth:

Probs more accurate to say that if voting could change things they just wouldn't ask you in the first place. But it's all part of the illusion. Like when you get to choose who leads you. Me? I'm quite taken with Bob Dylan's suggestion. 'Don't follow leaders/And watch the parking meters.' Except that parking meters are even more turgidly boring than television. Which I don't watch either. Just to be clear.

In reply to TobyA:

pssst! He was too young to vote on the EEC in the 70s

In reply to DoctorYoghourt:

Tongue firmly in cheek, I blame it on the Health and Safety culture in this country.

So if you were allowed to vote leave then there couldn't be any harm in it could there?

In reply to GridNorth:


It does change things, I think, because if you look back on how much Thatcher and Blair shaped society, and created events, whatever one things of them, people voting for them let them have their influence. The more we engage, the more we can influence things as a population IMHO.

In reply to GridNorth:

You have got to be kidding:

Would it have made no difference if Corbyn had won the election?

Would we be in the present situation if we hadn't had a Tory government for the last 10 years?

But people need to be engaged, start walking.

In reply to ian caton:


Wow this is great I'm sure Brexit will be cancelled right after the march

In reply to profitofdoom:

Hopefully yes.

I think Farage was laughed at in the beginning.

In reply to ian caton:




Yes

In reply to TobyA:


Read what I wrote

In reply to ian caton:

Is it a stop brexit! march
Or a stop....brexit march!
Either way I dunno if I can be bovved.
Soz

In reply to Postmanpat:

I don't know who you are but you're a clever bloke with lots to say politically. One of the few right wingers on here who can hold his ground and put a good argument forward in most circumstances.
But like everyone else with your views Brexit has found you out. It saddens me when clever blokes like you put heart before head.

W

In reply to John Stainforth:


They passed me by, but if you want to keep on marching and honestly believe you can change something, carry on marching.
Personally I am sick to death of the whole affair, suck it up and move on.

In reply to Bogwalloper:

It saddens me that so many remainers are so oblivious to the issues that they can only attribute a brexit vote to emotions. The opposite is actually the case. Personally I am quite sad to have to sacrifice the practical benefits and emotional ties of EU membership in order to protect the greater principles of democratic accountability which are clearly at risk across the globe. But, as you have shown, most remainers are so obsessed with their dubious fears of the practical outcomes that they are happy to sacrifice the greater principles.

Most remainers, as UKC exemplifies, have long ago lost interest in any real analysis of the issues, and simply come on here to vent their emotions and have their prejudices reinforced. Debate is pointless.

In reply to Postmanpat:



From a Tory. Hey ho.

W

In reply to Bogwalloper:



Whatever that may mean or you think it means.

I'm actually more of an anti-socialist than a Tory.

In reply to Trangia:


Haha f*cking ha, are you taking the piss?
Corbyn's got nowt to do with all this, this shit fest rests entirely on Tory shoulders, promising referendums to get UKIP votes to keep themselves in power, for starters.
And it all goes further back to the previous decade because no one would ever discuss immigration from the fear of being accused a racist. I remember if any one dared to bring up the subject of immigration, it would be rapidly sidelined in the interests of keeping their PC credentials intact. If everyone was honest and didn't bleat what they think they need to say to make themselves look good, the world would be a better place.

A spade's a spade

In reply to Postmanpat:


Greater principles are why I voted remain. Europe is where I live.

In reply to Jonathan Emett:


How does where you live make your vote a matter of principle?

In reply to ian caton:

No worries, the usual rent-a-crowd of dreamers, no-hopers, left-wing activists, lefty celebs, anarchists, and students will all go along, wave their virtue banners, make pretty speeches, and then go home.

Nothing will change.

In reply to Postmanpat:


What total bollocks. The UK is currently one of the least democratic countries in Europe. We may have invented many of the principles of democracy but we haven't modernised fast enough and the system we have now is dysfunctional compared with European countries where the constitutional arrangements were largely redrawn and updated after the second world war. We have no proportional representation, no written constitution and constitutional court and no second chamber of parliament representing the regions as in a modern federal state.

If we had democratic accountability in the UK one of the major parties would have a centre-ground, moderate leader who was willing to represent the roughly 50% of people who do not want the UK to leave the EU and we would get a level of resistance in parliament consistent with the number of voters who are against Brexit.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I think I am far from alone in feeling that the greatest principle at stake is that of nations building ever closer ties for mutual benefit and as a guarantor of peace. If the EU does move towards becoming a United States of Europe I think it will greatly diminish the UK not to be part of it.

It is the leavers who are sacrificing the greater principle for their misguided delusions of Little Britain.

In reply to ian caton:

I hope to heck that brexit is stopped or watered down, but for that to happen, a lot of leavers need to be convinced.
Will this march make that more likely? Or antagonise them even more?

In reply to Postmanpat:

You perhaps think that is true. I think many reading your posts post-brexit see a previously thoughtful small c conservative who has accidentally got into bed with populist, anti intellectual, zealots who is seeking ever wilder justifications for continuing to support their obviously failing cause. Either you are us are wrong. You might reflect that those pointing this out to you are mostly clearly not fools.

In reply to Lusk:



What the hell are you talking about? If you believe Corbyn's performance during the referendum campaign was good, then you must believe in fairies. As for the others, you clearly didn't read my post.

In reply to Trangia:

Exactly. Labour still can't give a straight answer on their Brexit stance. Abbot dodged the question on any questions the other day, simply saying they would get a better deal than the Tories. No one knows Corbyns real stance, either then or now. He is a fence sitter chasing the young popular vote.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

>
Which of course is a point I have made numerous times over the years. It seems counterintuitive to think that the solution to this is to devolve power upwards to an even more distant, unresponsive and unaccountable power made up largely by countries with quite recent and quite shallow democratic traditions.

There is a debate to be had on this but much of the remain camp prefers simply to sneer.

In reply to Robert Durran:

>
There is a debate to be had about at what level and how nation states co-operate or whether they should exist at all.

However, simply smearing everyone who thinks that nation States should not be subsumed into a supra States and that
cooperation does not have to mean that with the label "Little Britain" or "little Englanders" simply confirms that many remainers are not even prepared to concede that other views may be valid.

In reply to MG:
>
This is a bit like saying that because a lot of football supporters are a***holes and only go to matches to chant foul songs that all football supporters are a***holes who only go to football matches to chant foul songs.
There are obviously millions of football supporters who enjoy the game for other reasons. It is not their fault that it also attracts less salubrious elements.

Yours, and most of the other replies to my OP simply confirm that some remainers have become so emotional about the subject that they can no longer even acknowledge that their are perfectly respectable arguments for leaving. You have become sadly small time caricatures of the arrogant political and corporate elite that dominate decision making in the UK and dismiss the concerns of the "little people" as populist and anti intellectual (I'm sure I'm supposed to mention the Daily Mail here).

I barely participate in EU debates now because there isn't any, just a regurgitating of stale tropes about Little Englanders and nasty stupid Tories and a quite extraordinary gullibility about the EU.

It is this arrogance and unaccountability displayed by the ruling classes which will likely result, one way or other, in the breakdown of democracy. Let Trump be a warning to you.

In reply to stevieb:

Neither Torries nor Labour are going to stop it or water it down. Both are lead by dimwits. Lib Dems are dead.

Hard Brexit is coming unless somebody does something about it.

I have never been out on the street before but can't see any other way to influence and provide tangible evidence of support to those with power who are trying to bring some sense to the shambles.

Get out there, start walking.

Nobody will be antagonised. It's more likely to make them aware it's not posh London elites but ordinary people who oppose Brexit

In reply to Postmanpat:



I gave a description of how you come across to me and clearly quite a few others. I also acknowledged we could be wrong. Contrast this with your reply which makes direct accusations with absolute certainty. Who is being arrogant here? I made no mention of "little people", nor dismissed anyone's concerns. You just invented.that.

In reply to MG:

You referred to "populist, anti intellectual, zealots" and Robert referred to "Little Britain". The tone of such descriptions is very clear. Given that I know my reasons for voting out so I must be best placed to identify the difference between your perceptions and the reality, a difference which is probably true of millions of brexit voters. If yourself and others refuse to see that then it seems reasonable to point it out.

And given the patronising and arrogant tone of the endless remainer back slapping threads it seems reasonable to point it out in strong terms.

In reply to Postmanpat:


The populists, anti intellectual zealots and the little Britain faction were a significant enough faction to have swung the referendum. But yes, clearly plenty of leavers do not come under that label and have respectable arguments for leaving which I believe are, however, far outweighed by the greater principle of a united Europe - not to mention the economic ones.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I thought it was.pretty obvious I was referring to Johnson, Farage, Gove and the rest, who fit that description very well.

In reply to MG:

It wasn't obvious at all. And only Farage fits all terms. Boris fits the first. Gove possibly fits the third. But let's not go there......

In reply to ian caton:

I voted remain, but seeing as how leave won, looking at the two options of a hard or soft brexit, i want a hard brexit, a soft brexit will be a cludge leaving us with the current issues of being in europe (as percieved by the leave vote) that led us here in the first place.

In reply to andrew breckill:

One of these..?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.urbandictionary.com/define.php%3fterm=Clud...

I think that would be a better fit for some of the high profile proponents of a hard brexit....

In reply to Robert Durran:

>
In which case desist from comments such as "It is the leavers who are sacrificing the greater principle for their misguided delusions of Little Britain."

In reply to Postmanpat:


Ok. Fair enough. Replace "misguided delusions of Little Britain" with "misguided vision of Britain's place in Europe".

In reply to Lantys Tarn:

The referendum (not vote) was advisory, not compulsory. The government could have turned round and said "don't be so stupid".

In reply to Trevers:


No need for a second vote, the referendum was advisory, not compulsory

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I think he meant a kludge, a computing term from the days of green screen terminals and 8" floppies

In reply to Skip:

Indeed, but such subtleties of democracy are lost on a lot of people. The only way to give unbrexit legitimacy in their eyes would be another vote.

In reply to Postmanpat:


There was an opinion piece in the Guardian recently by an anonymous academic, who'd voted to leave for good reasons (not detailed but I accept there are good reasons for Euroscepticism) and couldn't understand why he was being shunned by colleagues who should have been more open-minded and willing to engage in debate.

I suspect that his colleague's reactions were less to do with his views - I imagine they may well have been happy to have a lively debate before the referendum - but rather because of how he actually voted. The leave campaigns were based on lies and xenophobia and led by some deeply unpleasant people who either wanted no responsibility for the mess they created. Chaos, uncertainty and antagonism towards foreigners and Europe were highly predictable outcomes of a vote to leave following the hysteria of the referendum. A sensible and reasoned dialogue about people's concerns and the way forward was not.


No wonder we're emotional. We're witnessing our country change from somewhere we felt was calm and sensible to one that's run by lunatics and incompetents. For me personally, it will make my chosen career harder to pursue and will make it harder for my partner to remain in the country once she's completed her studies. Am I supposed to be relaxed about this?



Brexit already represents that breakdown of democracy. But how many people who post on politics threads on UKC do you think are part of the ruling classes?

In reply to Trevers:


What? Explain.

In reply to Trevers:

Think you misunderstood me, or maybe I misunderstood you. I'm saying the government can turn round and say leaving is a stupid idea we're not going to leave. As the referendum (not vote) was advisory they don't have to follow the will of the people.

In reply to Jonathan Emett:

Europe or the EU?

In reply to GridNorth:

- The vote was called neither for any pressing need nor because of any great desire for it but to settle an internal party issue.
- The vote was called by a party wishing to maintain the status quo, not wishing for change. Noone to take responsibility of the fallout.
- No clear idea of what Brexit meant. No white paper beforehand, unlike the Scottish Indy ref, laying out a framework for what leaving meant.
- The vote wasn't set up so that only a supermajority would win, as is often the threshold for major constitutional case.
- The vote was conceived as advisory only, a point that was immediately ignored, despite the very narrow margin of victory.
- EU citizens living in the UK and UK citizens living in Europe were excluded from the electorate.
- The referendum was dominated by lies, fearmongering, exaggeration and xenophobia. There was no space for a rational dialogue.
- The two sides treating the referendum as though it were a general election dominated by personalities, thus allowing either side to make suggestions they had no intention of honouring as though they were manifesto promises.
- The total disenfranchisement of the 48% following the vote.

There may be more but I think I've made the point. There's far more to democracy than simply having a vote.

In reply to Skip:

Leaders of all major parties said specifically that they would abide by the outcome of the referendum. They effectively made the outcome binding on themselves. Don't you think that politicians are held in low enough esteem without reneging on such public commitments?

In reply to Trevers:


That's your opinion


Again your opinion



Neither was the last one.


I must have missed that but if that's the case what's the point?


I don't have a problem with that.


Agreed but both sides were guilty


Conceded


Well if it had gone the other way you would have had different group of disenfranchised citizens


No you haven't. Voting is the essence of democracy and one could argue that a referendum is the purest kind of voting.

In reply to GridNorth:

No it's not - nobody cared before the referendum:
https://www.slideshare.net/IpsosMORI/ipsos-mori-issues-index-april-2017


Cameron called the referendum and campaigned to remain. The day after the vote, he quit, and most of the leading leave campaigners distanced themselves from responsibility as far as possible.


Good question. Ambiguity about what will be the outcome of a vote is hardly constructive.


That comes across as pretty callous, since those people will be affected more than you will.


Yep. I'm not saying the Remain side were innocent. Two wrongs don't make a right.



By disenfranchisement, I don't simply mean that one side lost. I mean the nastiness that has pervaded the press and been encouraged by some politicians. Remoaners, "you lost, get over it" etc. The conflation of every single leave vote into what the government has currently decided Brexit means. The suggestion made by some politicians that the chaos of Brexit is the fault of those who didn't want it. etc. etc.


We love spectating on less-developed countries than ours where votes are clearly rigged, or even dominated by the threat of violence. Would you argue that this is democracy simply because a vote is cast.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Maybe they would be held in higher esteem if, given the way the referendum was conducted and in the light of the repercussions, they admitted that they had made a horrible mistake.

In reply to Postmanpat:

This troubles me - people from both sides said a lot of disingenuous and self-interested things during the referendum campaign. When did we confer upon individual politicians the power to, with hindsight, turn the advisory nature of the referendum as it was voted through Parliament into a legally binding vote, merely by publicly stating so?

In reply to Trevers:
I cared before the referendum.
So did millions of others, unless you think we were all persuaded by what were obviously lying politicians.
The referendum was simply the first real opportunity for people to voice there discontent with the EU (and politics in general).
Everything else since the referendum could have been handled better.

In reply to baron:




I think we've possibly discussed this point before - the polls show no major concern about our place in the EU until the start of 2016 when it really entered the news. I don't remember it being a major issue during the 2015 GE campaign. I'm not saying you didn't care, but I'm not aware that there was strong public concern before then. But that is a long time ago now.

Discontent with the EU and discontent with politics in general are two completely different things. I suspect the latter was far more widespread than the former.

In reply to baron:


"And politics in general". Yes, and this alone should be enough not to feel bound by the result.

In reply to ian caton:

If a referendum is merely advisory then I can see little point in having them, but that's another debate. Yes it was an expression of peoples frustration both with the EU and politicians in general but none the less a majority of those eligible to vote wanted out. The rest is just hot air and I agree it has been handled badly. Very few expected the result and nobody foresaw the chaos that has ensued but that's because the leader of the Tories was, at heart a remainer and is making a hash of it. If we had a leader who was pro Brexit, I think we would be in a better position but I have no idea who that might be. As it stands my prediction is proving to be correct. We were half in but now are half out. I think it was Peter Hitchens who said it.

In reply to Trevers:


We didn't. They made it a morally binding vote.

In reply to Robert Durran:

What, by allowing people to voice a view?

In reply to Trevers:

What would happen if it went the wrong way again, do we keep trying until the right result is obtained?

In reply to andrew breckill:

If those perceived issues weren't a problem for you before the referendum why are they now? If you were ok with being in the EU what economic (or other) arguments have you heard that make you want to distance yourself from it and it's markets now?

In reply to Postmanpat:


No, by admitting that the whole thing has been a complete farce, and that it would therefore be better for the country to take a deep breath and think, probably via a second referendum on the deal we get, where it really wants to go from here.

In reply to Robert Durran:

And then another and another and perhaps one more for good luck? That's the EU way, keep repeating till you get the result you want. You being those in authority and in the case of the EU a non elected authority.

Al

In reply to Robert Durran:

But we can't go back, at least not on the same terms as before,,even though we haven't left.

In reply to Robert Durran:

It wasn't "farce" . It was low quality and a lot of rubbish was talked by both sides but that is the downside of democracy. You wouldn't want a rerun if it had gone the other way.

Do you realise that you sound suspiciously as if you basically think that the hoi polloi are a bit dumb and easily manipulated and that therefore their views should be overuled by the educated elite?

Even if you don't, Brussels does and has shown so in the past, and that attitude is why the hoi polloi took the opportunity to take a pop at the "elite". Simply overuling them will store up bigger problems.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Morally binding? That doesn't sound legal or constitutional to me. That's going to require a bit more explanation of what you mean.

In reply to GridNorth:
What do you say about the pressure put on people to vote by politicians, press and other media - In the run up it was repeatedly said that people must vote or miss the chance to have a say - even if they didn't know which way to vote!

The rational advice would have been to vote for the status quo if you were a "don't know" as you don't steer an important course randomly changing direction if you don't have a good reason to.

I saw this on the night it was broadcast locally and I despaired http://www.itv.com/news/border/update/2016-06-27/stobart-boss-used-coin-tos...

The betrayal of democracy

In reply to Trevers:

The reason it doesn't sound legal or constitutional is because it isn't. (I helped you on this by previously saying it wasn't) I'm not sure what your confusion is. If you tell your partner you will be faithful but you are not you have not done anything illegal or unconstitutional but he or she might be mighty pissed off and understandably so. This would because you have behaved immorally by lying.

In reply to wercat:
Being rational isn't always the reason for voting a certain way.

In reply to Postmanpat:


There are obviously a lot of clever, non-bigots who have looked at the evidence and decided we're better off out of the EU and these views are to be respected but I'd say such people make up a very small proportion of the leave vote. The rest are made up of nationalists (not necessarily a bad trait of itself) and the ignorant who were persuaded by bullshit arguments about £350 million per week, Turkey, Muslim immigrants etc. Unfortunately you, as very definitely a member of the former group, are straying into the latter's territory when you talk about the UK being subsumed into European supra state when you know full well this would not happen. Sure there are federalises such as Junker who's words the leavers jump on as if they are law but you are being disingenuous to not point out that there could be no more federalism without the UK govts say so.

The fact is the influence of the EU has been overplayed, it's really no more than another branch of the civil service dealing with the sort of shit no one cares or knows about. The only area where it might have an influence on any policy the general electorate cares about is immigration but even here we are now discovering how essential immigration from the EU is not to mention the fact that the UK has always had control over non-EU migration and done little to deal with it (if you think it is something that needs dealing with).

In reply to Postmanpat:


But we're extrapolating from something said by a politician (desperate to keep his job it must be pointed out, Cameron said this towards the end of the campaign) to a duty placed upon the entire country.

In reply to Postmanpat:

"... in order to protect the greater principles of democratic accountability"

Well, the cynic's response might be, that's going well isn't it? A government buying power via the DUP, Henry VIII laws... More seriously, I wonder what your understanding of where the threats to democracy are for the UK today actually is? I'd suggest that diminishing voter registration, diminishing voting, fake news, cyber attacks and other interference by foreign governments, the growing power of trans-national companies and so on are far more significant.

You're also not looking at the balance sheet of whether or not the EU adds to or takes away from our democracy. It's not as clear-cut as you seem to think (I'd like to see your arguments btw.). It's arguable that the EU has brought with it a range of checks and balances that stabilise our democracy and encourage longer-term policy-making. That will all disappear of course. Have a look at this: http://www.democraticaudit.com/2017/07/25/how-democratic-and-effective-are-...

In reply to Postmanpat:

Do you realise you sound as if you think everyone is equally informed and that there are no thick people.

In reply to Tyler:

>
I hate to break this to you but most of the electorate is made up of the ignorant and apathetic. You know as well as I do that most remainers hadn't done a forensic analysis of the issues. They had been told it stopped wars, it made going on holiday easier and provided a cheap (and sometimes quite cute) cleaning lady. I remember my university tutor telling me in 1976 that he'd not understood the issues of the first referendum but liked French wine and cheese so voted "in". I'm not sure we've moved on much.

I don't actually buy your point about the UK being able to veto further integration. The EU could not stay as it was. It had to integrate further or take a step backwards. It was made as clear as it could be that the UK's days of "cherry picking" were numbered. Thus, even though the power to stop integration theoretically existed, in practice the UK would either have been forced in or left on the sidelines with decreasing power but forced to conform.

In reply to Tyler:


LOL. I think the opposite. See my next post. Do you think they should be ignored because of their thickness?

In reply to Postmanpat:

If we are leaving the EU because people voted in the referendum on any other issues other than that of whether or not we should be in the EU, then, yes, I think that their views should, if possible, not have been taken into account. This seems entirely obvious to me. And yes, I think that people who were stupid enough to do so are probably generally less educated than those who voted on the correct issue. So, I suppose yes, I may sound like that and am unapologetic about it.

One reason that a referendum on far reaching constitutional change should have a higher bar than 50% for change is the impossibility of discounting such votes on an individual basis.

In reply to Postmanpat:
Yep totally agree but it so happens that the ignorant who voted remain happen (by chance) to be in concord with the majority of people who have researched it and do understand the issues. Whereas those who voted leave agreed with a minority of economists but the over whelming majority of people that keen to see lighter environmental and employment regulation.

Then you are ignoring the fact that one of the concessions Cameron did get (not that I think it was a concession as the veto was already in place) was that there would be no further integration without the acquiescence of the UK govt.

I've heard many leavers say (and this is not something I necessarily disagree with) that the EU will be forced to take a step backwards. Surely the vote to leave should come when there were tangible moves to move for more integrtion.



I'm not sure what the mechanism for this would be or why you think our views would diverge so far from other countries such as Poland but were this to happen this would be the time to hold a referendum, until that point this is nothing but some made up bogeyman like Turkey joining the EU or conscription to a European army.

In reply to Tyler:

>
I long ago stopped believing that the consensus, even of experts, would necessarily be right on political and economic matters and I'm surprised if you still adhere to that view.

>
The deal was that we would not be forced in to further union, not that it wouldn't happen. Hence we would increasingly become second class members. If a serious proposal had agreed of a reformed EU with an inner and outer ring with democratic structures to match it then maybe I would have voted differently. But then again, pigs might fly.

If, like Robert, one believes that nation States should be subsumed into a super State, which I profoundly disagree with and think is probably unworkable in a democratic structure, then it was logical to vote remain. What was illogical was to think that the status quo could be maintained or that the future within the EU was any more predictable and assured than that outside it.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Well, you seem to have confirmed the idea that many remainers don't really believe in democracy at all. They believe in it only if electors are perfectly informed and perfectly rational and then on the assumption that those electors views will conform to their own. This is, sadly, not how democracy is.

This is also why they like the EU, because they assume that a dirigiste political system controlled by the educated and informed (as opposed to one accountable to the hoi polloi) will produce the best outcomes, a bit like a "super Singapore". I don't believe that to be necessarily true, but even were it so, it implies a system so divorced from the electorate that it no longer has democratic legitimacy and will lose the support of the disenfranchised electorate accordingly. Alternatively, democracy will just wither on the vine.

In reply to Postmanpat:


That is an absurd misrepresentation of what I said.


Indeed, sadly and obviously. And why there should be checks and balances against complete travesties it can throw up.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Straw Argument Alert

delete "educated and informed"

insert "sensible"

to remove false assertion of selection by membership of an elite

In reply to wercat:





"Sensible" is a subjective term usually meaning "people I agree with"

In reply to GridNorth:

I think you will find that in the three cases in the EU where there has been a second referendum, Denmark and Ireland twice, the EU acted to address specific electorate concerns before the second votes took place.

That seems good to me. I see no good reason why that couldn't happen here and hopefully move us away from this 50:50 split.

I feel though, that even if the EU went down on bended knee and offered the UK as much cake as it could eat it wouldn't be sufficient for the Brexiteers.

In reply to Robert Durran:

>

It's obviously not what you said because you won't see it, but it is the logical inference from what you said. These people are "stupid" (your word) and don't vote on the issues in a way that you think is relevant, therefore they should be overruled AKA...,

In reply to tom_in_edinbu


Answer honestly.
If the vote had gone 52 in 48 out would you still be arguing that it's an un democratic decision?
If roughly 50% want out and 50% want in then surely both staying in and leaving are un democratic so what's the answer?

In reply to Postmanpat:

One person's alleged beliefs confirms this? I've heard of big generalisations but that's ridiculous...

In reply to Postmanpat:

"These people are "stupid" (your word)"
As opposed to your word(s) above: "I hate to break this to you but most of the electorate is made up of the ignorant and apathetic.

In reply to Bob Kemp:



As Tom said, the British system is a 19th century system failing to meet the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century. Its party system and electoral system fails to provide the alternatives and the variety that voters demand. Parliamentary scrutiny is inadequate. Cabinet responsibility has been replaced by cronyism. Institutional lobbyists have supplanted the power of the voters. Power is overcentralised in Westminster and Whitehall and therefore unresponsive to local demands and requirements. The list goes on.
Falling voter registration etc are a symptom of disillusionment with the political system, and that includes the EU which has the lowest voter turnout of the lot.

I cannot accept increasing the power of a distant institution that embraces many of Westminster's faults but on a grand scale can improve things.

In reply to Bob Kemp:



Sheesh!! The difference is that I don't give this as as a justification to overrule them!!!!

In reply to Postmanpat:

I agree with almost all of what you say above, which is why I can't understand your emphasis on how bad the EU is for democracy. When you remove the EU's checks and balances you give carte blanch to the kind of cronyism you're talking about, to the power of the lobbyists (and btw it's not just institutional lobbyists, it's the private sector too) and more.

I don't know if you bothered reading any of that Democratic Audit item I linked to, but this is what they said:
"The Brexit process will remove a whole set of checks and balances on UK decision-making that have operated for 43 years at EU level in Brussels. These mainly enhanced stability and a long-run perspective in policy-making. As a result, the organisational culture of more short-termist and failure-prone modes of decision-making (that prevail in defence, foreign policy and welfare state management) may reinvade key parts of UK policy, especially in economic regulation, innovation and environmental policies."

What do you make of that?

In reply to Bob Kemp:


The sort of thing he has been saying is consistently said by remainers on UKC and in the media etc. It's certainly illuminating that when one delves down into the rationale nothing comes back to disabuse one.

In reply to Postmanpat:

"The sort of thing he has been saying is consistently said by remainers on UKC and in the media etc."
Maybe, but I suspect your confirmation bias is showing... Without firm evidence there's not really much point in over-claiming on points like this.

In reply to Bob Kemp:

https://www1.essex.ac.uk/hrc/documents/research/publications/under_blair.pd...

I read the above, as well as your original link.
Is this the same organisation because if it is it has some very strong views on the UK.

In reply to Postmanpat:
Always worth questioning the received wisdom but I'd take the view of an overwhelming majority of experts who have studied the subject over a wafer thin (on the day) majority of, by your own admission, largely ill informed voters. This has been reinforced by my analysis of the situation and the fact that there has been no credible counter argument. The last pro-Brexit economic argument was that one from Patrik Minford which was immediately debunked because he'd ignored certain issues. Other than that we've had a few Tory minister saying it will be a terrific success (in between admitting we won't be able to make the trade deals they had previously said we would).

We've lived (and prospered) largely outside the most federalist structures such as the Euro and Schengen and this was not about to change. Freedom of movement aside there was really nothing in the EU to be arsed about. It dealt with boring stuff like Eurotron which no one cared about but now it's suddenly very important we leave even though no one has been able to say why. Yes reform has been slow in coming but that cuts both ways, how do you think the EU would have reached a consensus on the increased federalism you see as inevitable.

On the first sentence I'd say my view is probably closer to yours than Roberts but I've no idea how you've reached the conclusion you have, the future for the EU is and was unpredictable but you could say that about every country and organisation in the world. For instance when the referendum was held would you have predicted what is happening in the U.S.? For some people closer trade links with the U.S. was one of the benefits of Brexit.

In reply to baron:

I believe so. What particular views are you talking about?

In reply to Bob Kemp:
>
That it's another version of the argument that what we need is not more democracy but less democracy-the checks and balances provided by the EU may in practical terms be helpful but this is the same as saying that informed and educated but unelected professionals, immune to the demands of electors should be left to get on with government. We should give power to barely accountable institutions in Brussels because we're a bit crap. The problem is that if Brussels turns out to be a bit crap as well we can't even replace them.

I would also point out that the audit itself points out that much of the failure of central government, and its attempt to usurp the powers of local government, stemmed from the loss of its own power to Brussels. It was a form of displacement activity.

The logical policy is surely not to compound the problem but to reform the system (which we can't do in Europe) not least by devolving power downwards closer to the electorate.

In reply to Postmanpat:


While brexiteers here and in the media have consistently taken a xenophobic(at best) line, been completely indifferent the economic damage being caused and that will be caused, and shown zero ability to plan or negotiate a serious consistent line. Given the choice, being in a group perceived by some as coming over somewhat superior is fine by me,

In reply to Postmanpat:

Distort and infer all you like. It won't change what I actually wrote.


I find it beyond belief that you think it is ok for people to have voted (either leave or remain) on an issue other than that which the referendum is about. Obviously it can distort the result and obviously such people are either badly informed or stupid.

In reply to Postmanpat:
As a remainder I believe in democracy, it doesn't stop me disparing that the electorate is frequently ill informed and is distracted by trivia whilst missing the bigger picture. Your use of the word 'sadly' suggests to me you feel the same.

Hardly, there are after all more UKIP MPs in the euro parliament than there are in our own!

> it implies a system so divorced from the electorate that it no longer has democratic legitimacy and will lose the support of the disenfranchised electorate accordingly.
This has happened already, the neat trick of the right wing of UK politics was to make the EU take the blame for this. We therefore have people in Newport and Sunderland voting for something that will make them poorer in the same way as there are Trump voters doing the same across the Atlantic.

In reply to Tyler:

>
Most of the economic prognostications simply ignored the issues of democracy and sovereignty (not unreasonably because they are economists, but if the political backlash is strong enough their economic prognostications will become nonsense). Like so many remainers they ignored the political implications and hence misjudged the outcome. As I've pointed out before, even the scenarios they came up with were not nearly as negative as the media portrayed them. The consensus of political economists and the "elite" was wrong on Thatcherism, wrong on the ERM, wrong on the Euro and missed the biggest financial crisis in a century despite having predicted ten out of the last two recessions.


The elites of Germany and France want it and Brussels wants it. It will therefore be attempted. Whether it will happen or will end in disaster remains to be seen.

>
I said it because one of the remainer mantras was "but brexit is a journey into the unknown". My reply was always that so is remaining, and you seem to be saying the same.

In reply to Bob Kemp:

Page 4 of my linked article paints a rather bleak picture of the UK.
The rest of the article seems to find fault with just about all aspects of UK life.
While there is truth in some of the faults there seems to be a bias against the UK.

In reply to MG:
>
That's just utter rubbish. That you have convinced yourself that it is true shows how divorced you have become from reality. You seem to live in a parallel dystopian fantasy world created by the Independent.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I'm not talking about in the run up but now, the economic consensus is that we will be worse off out of the EU than in it.

Possibly not (although a fair portion of the printed press were pro-Brexit) but the incompetence of the govts leave team may mean the exaggerated position proved correct.

I know nothing of the first few but there were plenty of economists predicting the last recession, they got the timing wrong is all.

Those are the only two possible outcomes are they? Also, whilst the current govts of those countries might wish it they will be mindful of their own electorate who don't share the same enthusiasm (assuming it is as unbridled as you say).

Nothing ever stays the same but you must see there's a world of difference between things evolving naturally and making a concious decision to to choose turmoil over stability. Anyway, the issue for me wasn't that Brexit was an unknown more that we know what it would lead to (trade friction, reduced influence in the world etc etc).

In reply to Tyler:

I'm taking about both.

>
There were plenty of ordinary people predicting the crash but precious few economists. Mervyn King, the governor of the BOE of people, makes it sound like it was a complete surprise to him and his expert advisors. Maybe it was to them.

>
Exactly. Just as successive UK governments should have been more mindful of the UK electorate. Macron is acting as if a win over the anti EU parties of left and right, which together would give him a close run challenge, gives him carte blanche to push for greater integration.

In reply to ian caton:

Brexit means Brexit !

In reply to baron:


I thought it was quite realistic about the UK at the time (Blair's government).

Again, much of it seems to be quite factual - the House of Lords was an unelected body... the two main parties got the vastly greater share of funding and media attention, and so on. They do make a point of mentioning the good things about British democracy too.

I think they are just trying to present the facts as they see them. There is always something to disagree with in a publication like this - they can't be wholly objective because politics doesn't lend itself to total objectivity. But they do a reasonably good job of presenting the evidence and not making totally unsupported claims.

In reply to Bob Kemp:
It was comments like 'ethnic and racial minorities experience discrimination at the hands of the police and the courts' that I found biased
The article has other examples which are open to very different interpretations.
Sorry I'm too slow at typing to list them all.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Short answer as it's late... first, checks and balances are essential to preserve democracy as you acknowledge. The extent to which they are being administered by unelected professionals 'immune to the demands of electors' is arguable. It's also worth noting that administering of aspects of government by unelected professionals is actually an essential part of a democracy - it provides a protection against misuse of a wide range of powers by the government of the day, much as the judiciary do in other areas.

Much of the problem of perceived lack of democratic control of the EU is a result of a failure to understand how the EU works - you might find another Democratic Audit article on this interesting -
http://www.democraticaudit.com/2016/06/23/is-the-eu-really-run-by-unelected...

I am surprised you want to devolve more power down to the (ignorant?) electorate. You are beginning to sound quite Corbynite...

I liked your idea of the UK government's usurping of the powers of local government as displacement activity btw!

In reply to baron:

I think there was plenty of evidence to show that ethnic and racial minorities still experienced discrimination at the hands of the police and the courts at the time. And the report is otherwise pretty pro the UK - "...and police conduct is high by comparison with similar European nations.", "British politics are relatively uncorrupt by the standards of the larger European nations."The government has made good use of public inquiries [...] to demonstrate its willingness to give concerned member of the public a voice on matters of particular concern."
- there are plenty of examples of positive aspects of UK democracy in there.

In reply to jay lafferty:


If <Brexit> means <Brexit !>, what does <Brexit !> mean?

In reply to Robert Durran:


I await your statistics, and method of divining the degree of zealotry or "minutiae Britannia" feeling amongst the voting population.

Please Inform us their percentage, and how you deduced this "fact".

Or shall we just accept that you show nothing but bigotry by using these terms?

In reply to Big Ger:

Is your point that such people don't exist or just that because RD can't quantify them to your satisfaction they can be ignored? Which of the terms he used do you find bigoted BTW.

In reply to Big Ger:


It's an educated estimate based on what I read and heard. Obviously nobody can produce actual statistics for reasons people voted the way they did.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Again you have distorted what I said. I actually said that if there is eventually a United States of Europe, I think the UK would be better in than out. I did not say that I wanted that United States of Europe in the first place.

In reply to Tyler:


Errr...no? What made you think that? Such people do exist, but he has made a definitive statement that they were; "a significant enough faction to have swung the referendum. " I was wondering where he had gained that special knowledge from, and would he be kind enough to share his statistics with us.



I'm going to need a bigger spoon soon; "anti intellectual zealots and the little Britain faction".

In reply to Robert Durran:


aka; "I made a guess based on my prejudices". At least you are honest enough to admit your claim has no foundation.


But you can use your superpower of extrasensory perception to determine how they did...

In reply to Big Ger:

No. As I said it is based on what I read and heard.


No I didn't. As I said it is based on what I read and heard.

In reply to Robert Durran:



So, your choice of reading, and what you take from "what you read and heard", is in no way an influenced by your personality, your politics, your philosophy, your morals, your upbringing, your social group, your location, in formulating this idea that; "populists, anti intellectual zealots and the little Britain faction were a significant enough faction to have swung the referendum. "?

Amazing, you must be unique

Isn't the fact that you choose to use such pejorative, and prejudiced terms for people a distinct contradiction of that idea.

In reply to ian caton:

Last time I vote if they get away with it - what a joke !

In reply to Postmanpat:

It's laughable that you spend of the thread claiming that those who disagree with you are "emotional" and "sneering" and won't engage with issues, and then resort to this sort of thing.
.

In reply to Big Ger:

I try to read objective stuff and to draw objective conclusions.



I concede that I should have begun the sentence with "I strongly suspect that....... "


No, I think the terms are a fair way of describing some people based on their stated views.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Don't we all, fact of the matter is that our biases will inform us in what we believe is "objective". I'm sure some here would find Owen Jones "objective", (as opposed to objectionable, as I do.)


Fair play to you.


Who stated those views?

In reply to MG:
I make no apology. Your comment was so far off beam that I actually wondered whether you'd been drinking. Sometimes a comment is so at odds with the reality that it needs to be called out. The brexit "faction on UK has simply not been "consistently xenophobic (at best)". It has seldom been that, and it's insulting to say otherwise. Water off a ducks back to me but when something is bollox with a capital "B" then there is no point in beating about the bush. I can only assume that in your head "brexit" and "xenophobia" have become so synonymous that you can no longer see the difference when it is written in front of you.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Fair enough.

In reply to Postmanpat:

You're basically saying that you so confident you are correct and others wrong that sneering and condescension from you is fine but not from others. And it's those others who are arrogant...

In reply to MG:
>
I am saying that groundless insults should be identified as such. Stop digging. Your fellow remainers have at least acknowledged that brexitism is often not grounded in xenophobia. You should do the same.

I'll now consider this particular exchange closed. Have a nice day

In reply to summo:

Maybe 20. Let a good number of oldies die off.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Hmm... plenty of evidence to say that it has been xenophobic and racist. Your get-out clause is that MG used the word 'consistently' - that was an exaggeration. It's certainly true to say that large numbers of Leave campaigners and supporters are by no means xenophobic - there are many reasons for people to vote 'leave'. But I think you are over-stating your position to say that the Brexit faction has 'seldom' been xenophobic.

I don't think I should need to remind you of Farage's borrowing of Nazi propaganda in his advert with a queue of refugees, but in care you want further evidence, here's a quote from a Guardian article just after the referendum:
"But over the past few months, the men who are now shaping Britain’s future outside the EU effectively ditched public decency, and decided it was OK to be racist. In the process, as Michael Keith at Oxford University’s migration research centre, Compas, says, “The unspeakable became not only speakable, but commonplace.”
- https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/28/campaign-bigotry-raci...

And just in case you don't want to trust the Guardian, here's the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/25/the-uncomforta...

In reply to Bob Kemp:
>
It is not a "get out clause". It's what he said! He also said "here" ie. UKC which is the bit that I think is rubbish. We can all agree that there are xenophobic elements within the brexit campaign but I refer you back to my earlier analogy to football fans.

The media outlets you refer to have made a massive thing of the supposed upsurge in racism and racist incidents. The evidence of it is pretty flimsy. I note, for example, that the infamous incident of the Polish guy murdered in August 2016 which was reported all around the world as a symptom of brexit inspired racism was eventually judged to have been neither racist nor a hate crime let alone related to brexit. Did the Guardina report that?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Yes

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/08/teenager-killed-polish-man-...

You come across as paranoid with questions like that.

In reply to Postmanpat:
"It is not a "get out clause"."

You're missing the point - I was picking up on your notion that the Leave campaign was seldom xenophobic. It was often xenophobic, and you don't need to just look at the Guardian to find plenty of evidence of that. How about an ex-chair of the Conservative Party:

"Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Monday morning, Baroness Warsi said Vote Leave had been fostering an “environment of hate”.
“This kind of nudge nudge, wink wink, xenophobic racist campaign may be politically savvy or politically useful in the short term but it causes long term damage to communities,” she said."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/baroness-warsi-switches-sides-in-eu-r...

As for the Polish man's murder, you're just using that to smear the sources I've provided. And we're talking about xenophobia in the Leave campaign, not evidence for or against post-referendum hate crime, where I believe there are too many easy assumptions made too quickly.

In reply to Bob Kemp:


>
That wasn't my point. My point was that people on UKC were seldom xenophobic. See my post of 7.54.

>
We're talking about the integrity and motivation of such sources which have consistently propagandised the elements of racism before and after the referendum.

In reply to Mike Stretford:



No doubt hidden away on page 29 like a Daily Mail apology

In reply to Robert Durran:


In other words a guess which you phrased in such a way as to infer it was a fact, when it was not.

In reply to Bob Kemp:

What you say fits in with Germany waking up to the unthinkable success of the right AfD who now will speak the unspeakable, allied overtly by Farage

In reply to Mike Stretford: "You come across as paranoid with questions like that."

Probably because the Guardian ran 60 stories on it since he was murdered, all bar the one you link along the lines of the below.(BREXIT/hate crime/xenophobia etc) It fitted perfectly with their agenda and they ran with it with news stories, opinion pieces, linking it with different crimes in different areas as more evidence etc. (they were not alone in this)

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/05/death-arkadiusz-jozwi...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/04/assault-on-polish-men-harlo...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/31/mp-horror-over-killing-of-p...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/14/juncker-european-unity-brexit...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/14/warsaw-sends-police-officer...

In reply to Lion Bakes:


Yes, I have already owned up to that slip and accepted I should have said "I strongly suspect that........ "

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:



https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/27/boy-15-pleads-not-guilty-ma...

That would be one of your 60. It was news here and big news in Poland, that's why it was reported. The ones you actually posted don't fit your description, the first one is the closest but starts with a disclaimer that the murder was not necessarily a hate crime. Until I searched I didn't realise right wing websites were crowing about this.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4487050/polish-death-not-brexit-hate-crime/

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4511726/anti-brexit-boors-have-gone-silent-ov...

In reply to Mike Stretford: "The ones you actually posted don't fit your description"

I disagree

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/14/juncker-european-unity-brexit...

"The president of the European commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, has condemned attacks on Polish people in the UK in the aftermath of the Brexit vote.“We Europeans can never accept Polish workers being beaten up, harassed or even murdered in the streets of Essex,”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/31/mp-horror-over-killing-of-p...

"Polish envoy voices concerns about Brexit xenophobia after Harlow killing Ambassador to UK says problem has become much worse since referendum, as he visits scene of Arkadiusz Jó?wik’s death"

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/04/assault-on-polish-men-harlo...

"The killing, which is also being investigated as a possible hate crime, raised fears about an upsurge in hate crime targeted at eastern Europeans following Britain’s EU referendum. As a result, the Polish community held a “march of silence” through the town on Saturday."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/14/warsaw-sends-police-officer...

"Two Polish police officers have been sent to patrol the streets of Harlow in Essex following the killing of a Polish man in the town and a spike in hate crime directed at Poles in the wake of the vote to leave the European Union"


See a pattern? He was killed (probably because we hope it's got something to do with so we can wax lyrical about it) the EU referendum. That was the only point I was making

In reply to Postmanpat:

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/magazine-41361662/i-want-to-get-rid-of-my-polish...

W

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Yeah, shoot the messenger. I'm not the biggest fan of the Guardian and they don't need me to defend it, but I do think you've swallowed a line here. The reporting is factual...... it was investigated as a hate crime, it was big news in Poland, Junker did feel the need to say something (I won't be defending him either). The incident did happen at the same time as police reported a spike in the hate crime.

In reply to Bogwalloper:


Maybe she spent too much time reading the Garaniad and got spooked.....

In reply to Mike Stretford:

Sorry Mike, i'm only labouring the point because you said they didn't fit my description (admittedly I could have been clearer in my original reply to you) The reporting was factual to the extent that a polish man was killed by a punch to the head by a local white boy. It was the rampant shoehorning of the EU referendum as a likely cause that everyone had to swallow by mentioning it in every news piece about the poor blokes demise , and the likely reason for Postmanpats jaundiced eye on the Guardians reporting of the whole sorry affair.

In reply to ian caton:

Can we stop arguing about this. It doesn't look as though we are going to be leaving after all.

Al

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


I still think you're taking a pop at the messenger here. The timing of the incident, and crucially, an interview given by the victims brother, led to this becoming big news here and more so in Poland. Reactions to that were then reported.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I believe that's what's called 'moving the goalposts.' Your original objection was to MG's statement: "While brexiteers here and in the media have consistently taken a xenophobic(at best) line, ". So whilst you may be talking exclusively about UKC people now, your earlier comment rubbishing his statement must have also included the media.

In reply to Bob Kemp:

Going way back, this all started over PMP apparently being trapped by his support for brexit into making ever wilder justifications for his position. I think his responses here just reinforce this view. The nasty post just above laughing at an immigrant Pole's experience is a low point

In reply to wintertree:
I presume it means we are leaving the EU mate.

In reply to ian caton:

It would do many of you good to read the attached about the dying art of disagreement.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/24/opinion/dying-art-of-disagreement.htm...

In reply to MG:


Yep - pretty shit.

W

In reply to MG:

Oh please.....talking of new lows now you really are struggling. I really don't think she'll be reading UKC and if she did she might have a taste for dark humour. The serious point is that is the remainer media that stirs up this sort of reaction by exaggerating the facts. I actually made a point of asking numerous non-Brits about the supposed upsurge in anti-foreigner sentiment at the time and they all replied something along the lines of "what the hell are you talking about"

My explanation for my vote has been the same since the referendum. It wasn't wild then and it isn't now. It is you that has got increasingly hysterical. You've never addressed the issues, preferring to dismiss them as "wild" (God alone knows why you think that. They're pretty conventional) and take solace in the unfounded assumption that anybody who disagrees with you a "xenophobe".

In reply to Bob Kemp:


And it was quite clear at 7.54 what I specifically objected to you but you chose to ignore that and now resort to silly claims about about "moving goalposts".

But come to think of it, nor has the brexit taken a "consistently xenophobic line" unless you regard any position that accepts that national borders might be important and that the rights of citizens might legitimately be different to those of non-citizens as by definition "xenophobic". I suspect many remainers do believe that although these are distinctions almost universally accepted across the globe.

Certain elements have been xenophobic at certain times. Most haven't most of the time.

In reply to GridNorth:

Who knows what might happen?

Never imagined the chaos we have now.

Just read that WTO might collapse for various reasons, but basically because a rules based world is a restriction on sovereignty/democracy.

I guess that's the impasse it all boils down to.

In reply to jay lafferty:


I believe you misunderstood my post.

In reply to Postmanpat:

You should try being an immigrant in an EU country. Either an EU citizen in the UK or a British citizen in the EU. You'd never take the piss out of anyone in that situation again.
You really have no idea at all.

W

In reply to Bogwalloper:

>
My wife is an immigrant in an EU country. I take the piss out of her all the time. (that's a "joke" by the way)

Still, well done, you've shown what a fine sensitive fellow you are and how evil all us brexiteers are. Well done, I bow low. You can now go and bathe in your own warm glow.

As I wrote it I wondered which of you would choose to take offence. Now I know. Anyway I'm off to find some foreigners to mug. (that's also not serious by the way)

For the record, since I suspect this is the source of your angst, I have much sympathy for those caught up in the bureacratic wrangling about residency rights but I think it will be satisfactorily resolved and don't think we it means we all have to become po faced puritans about it.etc

In reply to Bogwalloper:


I am and I'm still pro Brexit. Eu migration is a shambles, which ever way you view it. The supposed migration for employment, refugees, visa for non eu, study permits, or asylum... It's all interpreted completely differently in every country, or in the case of many completely ignored.

Although it's not the reason I voted out. As CAP, fisheries, Strasbourg, their ever growing budget, their cheap loans so businesses leave the UK for eastern Europe etc.. are far bigger shambles.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I'm sure she would find it hilarious


Ever post you make emphasises my point. There is nothing even slightly hysterical about concern over the economic effects, making immigrants unwelcome, or the complete lack of leadership or planning for Brexit.

In reply to Postmanpat:

"And it was quite clear at 7.54 what I specifically objected to you but you chose to ignore that and now resort to silly claims about about "moving goalposts".

Not a silly claim at all. You narrowed down your area of focus at 7.54 to make it easier for you to defend your comments. Hence moving the goalposts.

In reply to Postmanpat:

"nor has the brexit taken a "consistently xenophobic line" unless you regard any position that accepts that national borders might be important and that the rights of citizens might legitimately be different to those of non-citizens as by definition "xenophobic"."

Of course I don't. But you are consistently downplaying the role of xenophobia in the Leave campaign. 'Certain elements' include Farage, Johnson and others. Not insignificant.

In reply to summo:


The question was whether you would take the piss out of those trying to navigate what you see as a shambles, or the hostility brexit generates. Not whether you support brexit. Would you?

In reply to Bob Kemp:



No, I didn't. I simply went to sleep. I acknowledge that there is room for that interpretation but it is mistaken.What actually happened is that you failed to note meaning the 7.54 post and are now blustering because you know you missed the point. (This is one interpretation which you cannot prove to be wrong although it may be wrong, just as I cannot prove yours wrong although I know it is)

So let's not waste time on who meant what. MG's statement about is utter rubbish about UKC and wrong about the media. UKC was hardly ever xenophobic. The media was sometimes but certainly not "consistently" xenophobic (unless you adhere to the definition of xenophobia I outlined above)

In reply to Postmanpat:


That's simply wrong. There are posters who have openly said they don't care what happens to EU citizens. That is absolutely xenophobic.

In reply to MG:
>
No, and I'm very happy to acknowledge and always have acknowledged that that there was case for remaining, that anti-immigrant sentiment per se (including May's policies) is a bad thing and that the negotiations could have been handled better. I simply judge that these will eventually be offset by the benefits of brexit.

But you're neither prepared to accept that there was a rational case for leaving, albeit one you believe is outweighed by the negatives, nor that the economic forecasts may be misleading or that the fault for the impasse in negotiations may not lie exclusively with the UK. Instead of accepting that their is room for different but quite rational interpretations you seem to have convinced yourself that brexit is based exclusively on mad or bad motivations and that the EU not only has no responsibility for the the outcome itself but more particularly for the current impasse.

From somebody who I've always regarded as generally sensible and rational I find it genuinely weird that on this issue you can appear so fanatical that you want to dismiss any nuanced view let alone a different view as mad or bad without even entertaining it. I just think that the world is seldom that black and white.

In reply to MG:


Hence I used the term "seldom" and later "hardly ever". I deliberately didn't use "never".

In reply to Postmanpat:

As we are clearly at odds in our interpretation of what happened I agree that we should stop wasting our time on this. But I don't think you need to resort to accusations of blustering - what's that, to talk in a loud or aggressive way? I haven't been doing that at all.

In reply to Bob Kemp:


"to talk in an indignant way with little effect." It's often used in the sense of going on the attack to disguise the weakness of one's case.
I only used it to point out how you might feel if accused of something you knew not to be true.

I'll settle for a no score draw

In reply to summo:
"their cheap loans so businesses leave the UK for eastern Europe"

There have been a number of claims about this over the years. There is some truth in some of them, but the full picture is usually more complex than this kind of statement suggests. You need to take into account things like the European Investment Bank's funding for UK businesses, for example the £450m that they provided to Ford UK to develop greener engines a few years back. It's not all one-way traffic.

In reply to Postmanpat:

"I'll settle for a no score draw "

I'll go for that... always good to stop when things are in danger of descending into 'yes you did', 'no I didn't territory!

In reply to MG:

I think a provocative, emotive statement like that deserves some evidence to support it. Can you provide any? If you can I will support you in your condemnation.

Al

In reply to Postmanpat:


How the "benefits" of Brexit are going to "offset" things for EU citizens kicked out or pushed out of the country they live in ? I wonder.

In reply to GridNorth:

You're right, but I can't be bothered to trawl through just now, no.

In reply to MG:
'Rights of EU citizens post Brexit'.
A thread from may of this year.
Heated and animated posts as one would expect from such an emotive topic.
But a definite lack of xenophobia.
But I didn't search every post on this forum just those I'd posted in so I might have missed something.

In reply to Postmanpat:




I'm British living in the EU - in France. I've been here for about 14 years. My son was born in the UK but has lived here since the age of 6 months. He's been schooled here and is fluent in the language. He's basicaly French.
Since June last year we have a black cloud over our heads and my son, when he sees May and Davis and Johnson on the news asks me what is going to happen to us. I obviously say everything is ok but I don't really know.
You sir are a cu*t. I'm guessing you're old. You need to give your head a wobble and have some empathy. Bye.

W

In reply to summo:

You can f*ck off too.

W

In reply to MG:


No. Because I think it's pretty childish. But plenty intolerant left leaning remainers here have been pretty rude towards me. I do my best to ignore them, it's not their fault, I blame the parents (genetics).

In reply to Bob Kemp:


It's not complex, do some research about where ford moved some UK production to, with eu assistance.. . Turkey(kocaeli)!! I bet the workers in Southampton won't share your love.

In reply to andrew breckill:

If we leave the EU that's a result for the people who voted leave. Why wouldn't they be satisfied with that?
Nobody is going to deny that LEAVE is a broad church stretching from outright foreigner hater to principled constitutionalist. So why are Leavers expected to accept a crash out Brexit? I am sure that many of the 17 million are as appalled as I am at the prospect of a hard border in Ireland and leaving the single market.
Stay in the the EEA ;leave the EU. Then we can all claim to have won.

In reply to Lantys Tarn:


No it's not, that's how it works in a pseudo-democratic dictatorship. A functional democracy requires effective opposition. At the moment that isn't coming from parliament so unfortunately it must come from the people.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

I always thought that democracy was the control of a country, organization or group by the majority of its members. By that definition a referendum is democracy in it's simplest and some might say purest form.

If anything is a prime example of a "pseudo-democratic dictatorship" it is the EU.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:


I think you are confusing democracy and mob rule! Meaningful democracy isn't any one election or type of government but a combination of voting, rule of law, freedom of expression and so on. It also isn't discrete but a continuous thing. A decision taken at one time can be changed or overruled at another time due to change of opinion or circumstance. All of which is saying that objections to brexit or the type of brexit planned are entirely legitimate and to be welcomed.

In reply to baron:


Really? I ask because I find that very hard to believe. It doesn't really gel with how our pre-crash, pre-austerity politics functioned nor with the views of a *lot* of the leavers I spoke with while out campaigning many of whom couldn't give me a singe example (beside bent bananas or a yearning for pounds and ounces) of what it was they actually opposed. Most had no real idea what the EU actually is/was. Being totally straight with you they didn't seem like a bunch of people who'd spent years formulating a rational political philosophy they were committed to spending many more years implementing at a high cost to themselves. I met one, just one single person I'd say fit that description and while I disagreed with the relative weights he gave to different issues he had at least considered them. Perhaps York's leavers were uniquely ill informed.
jk

In reply to MG:

I'm not confused in the slightest. I've quoted the accepted definition of democracy which seems to me to be simple and straight forward. Let me ask you this, if we have another referendum, what then? If it's the same result would you accept it? If it was a different result, would you then object to all those who might demand yet another referendum because they don't like the result. Sounds like a recipe for expensive chaos to me.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:

Sounds like a recipe for expensive chaos to me.

Where to start...

In reply to GridNorth:


Yes. I accept the result of the first referendum (although think it's disastrous and being implemented in an even worse way). If there were another, I would accept that too. As per my description of democracy, while there might be one more referendum due to changed circumstances, greater knowledge and the need to decide whether this form of exit is really wanted, there won't be endless referendums because there won't be the political will. All that said, I am not keen of referendums generally.

In reply to GridNorth:


Just on that, it might be simple and straightforward but it isn't accurate! No mature democracy is based on a majority having all the power and minority just having to put up with it!

In reply to GridNorth:

I think a second referendum would be far more reliable because people's views and awareness of lies will have been far better formed by the debate since the first referendum and because the deal or likely deal will be in front of us. If the result changed, I think it would probably fair to make it best of three though.

In reply to Pete Pozman:


Not if, like me, you are a remainer who values the greater ideals of the EU that go far beyond trade. Or, probably, some varieties of leaver

In reply to MG:

It looks like we are in agreement to some extent then. I wanted out because I did not want to be part of a federal Europe, it makes me feel semi detached from the political process. I voted in the referendum in the 70's but I thought I was voting for improved trading ties. That's how it was sold to us. All this federalism has been sneaked in via the back door and this was the first opportunity to make my voice heard. I felt betrayed by this, it's NOT what I voted for. My decision was nothing to do with immigration or monetary gain, I knew we would take a hit, but in my mind greater issues are at stake.

I now wish the referendum had never taken place, mainly because of the aggravation it has caused and the lack of preparedness. I again feel betrayed but I have not changed my views about being out of the EU despite the implication on these posts by many that I am some sort of ultra right wing, racist bigot.

Al

In reply to Robert Durran:


So what are those ideals that you think the EU will give us?

Peace in Europe is laudable but the price for that seems to be increased tension with the Soviets. Open borders are a disaster and even the EU is beginning to accept that.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:


seems to be increased tension with the Soviets.

???

In reply to GridNorth:


Soviets!? The USSR hasn't existed for several decades! In any case, would you prefer Europe at war to ease this tension with Russia, if that's what you mean?

In reply to MG:

Oops That's what come of rushing to print but to be fair a lot of the people involved probably still think of themselves as Soviets. As to your second point,of course not.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:


The almost unthinkability of another European war.
A huge bastion of liberal democracy.
Co-operation over a vast range of areas.
Freedom of movement.
the openmindedness that comes from belonging to an outward looking family of nations.

I could go on.

In reply to GridNorth:
"Sounds like a recipe for expensive chaos to me."

Sounds like the present process, resulting from Referendum V.1.0 as well,
particularly when we look at the state of the world outside that monoccupied with Brexit

In reply to Postmanpat:

No, "sensible" means it makes sense; is logical, not subjective.

In reply to wercat:



Can't disagree with you there but it's mainly brought about because the people who are implementing Brexit are at best luke warm about it and the EU is determined to give us a hard time.

I don't know why all you remainers are still going on about this it's beginning to look like we will not be leaving after all

Al

In reply to John Stainforth:


No, "sensible" means "done or chosen in accordance with wisdom or prudence".
One man's wisdom is another man's foolishness. Ie. it's subjective. It certainly us in the context he used it.

In reply to GridNorth:
I don't know what will happen at all but my best outcome would be us for to remain AND for the EU to wake up to some of its major faults and begin to put them right

In reply to summo:



It's not a simple case of EU-good or EU-bad. Some effects of EU investment are positive, some negative. Some workers have benefited, some have suffered. You also have to look at the impact of the EU on private investment - membership of the EU has had a positive effect on inward investment to the UK, with consequent effects on jobs. Getting a final balance of positive vs. negative effects is tricky because of the complexity of inward and outward flows.

Anyway, here's a few references you might find interesting:

https://www.ft.com/content/202a60c0-cfd8-11e5-831d-09f7778e7377

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-eu-investment-companies-cr...

http://www.libdemvoice.org/say-goodbye-to-the-eu-and-say-goodbye-to-the-ben...

In reply to Bob Kemp:

I see no positive in the UK giving uk taxpayers money to the eu, so it can then be loaned out at special low interest rates to profit making multi nationals, just so they can then move a factory from Southampton to Turkey, which isn't in the eu, and not likely to be.

In reply to summo:

You're focusing on one case. The EU's investment covers a multitude of cases. Not all EU loans are to multinationals, or indeed to private companies. As I said, it's complex. Look at some of the references I gave. And here's a breakdown of where EIB loans went to in the UK from 2012 to 2016 that you might want to have a look at:

http://www.eib.org/projects/regions/european-union/united-kingdom/index.htm

In reply to GridNorth:

"Can't disagree with you there but it's mainly brought about because the people who are implementing Brexit are at best luke warm about it "
Must be because they're starting to realise what a monstrously difficult and costly exercise it is... not just financially but in terms of all the agreements and services that have to be replaced, like the Euratom Treaty, the Open Skies Agreement, European Aviation Safety Agency, food standards, IPR agreements, the Emissions Trading System and so on.

"and the EU is determined to give us a hard time."
Excuses, excuses... When it all goes pear-shaped it'll be all the EU's fault, not the remarkable failure of the Leave supporters to even begin to think about how to actually Brexit. Despite having had forty years to do so...


We hope...

In reply to GridNorth:

No it's not, it's damaging us because it's a f*****g terrible idea which cannot for reasons we knew before voting be implemented 'well'. You were told time and time again that the EU wouldn't just roll over on their principals for an easy trade deal but you chose not to believe that.


There's certainly still a sliver of hope but no more than that, less if we don't "go on about it". The consequences are going to be severe and enduring now either way but we can still choose the less worse option. Forgive me if I don't think this is something I should just shrug off because a few more people believed lies on a bus than didn't.
jk

In reply to Bob Kemp:

Of course, but loans so companies can move out of the eu? Madness.

The UK is bank rolling it's own demise.

In reply to GridNorth:

Maybe leavers want us to regress so far that we can have increased tension with Tsarist Russia.

In reply to GridNorth:


When will you lot wake up? The EU are not giving us a hard time they are doing exactly what would be expected of them and exactly what we would want them to do if it was, for instance, France leaving and us staying. In fact they are doing exactly what we are doing only seemingly more competently.

Similarly the people who are implementing this are the same people who campaigned for it with the exception of May who has since decided to copy UKIPs policies on the subject anyway. The reason this will be a disaster is because it was never sensible to leave just as it would not be sensible to abandon the civil service just because it would nominally free up some cash. The people implementing Brexit face an impossible task but are exacerbating it by their own arrogance.

In reply to summo:

It's not complete madness. In the Ford/Turkey case Turkey was at the time seen as a pre-EU accession case, so the EU's interest was in helping Turkey be as economically healthy as possible. Whether or not that is a valid reason is of course another question. But it's not madness.

Many of the stories about EU investment in UK companies wanting to move abroad have been spun for propaganda purposes, or even simply made up. Here's a blog with some refutations of well-known examples:

http://ilovetheeu.co.uk/trade/no-the-eu-does-not-fund-companies-to-move-job...

In reply to summo:


You don't see *any* long term benefit in the EU working to reduce prosperity gradients across the borders at the edge of our little bit of the world (or indeed within it), especially in those bits which may one day be joining us? No security benefit? No trade benefit?
jk

In reply to GridNorth:

It's becoming tiring to knock this one down again and again.
We could have stayed in the EU without being part of a federal Europe, for the simple reason that the EU is simply a collection of treaties. Don't want to be part of a federal Europe ? Then just don't ratify any treaty change that would make it so
There was absolutely no need to leave what we had.

The irony of all this is that Brexit may well br the thing that allows a federal Europe to exist, at which point it won't really matter whether we're in or out, we'll be either completely isolated, or rule takers.