Labour's attempts to differentiate their position on Brexit and specifically

[Monty92]

membership of the single market and customs union from the Tories through semantics is absolutely fúcking hilarious.

All the middle class people I know who voted Labour did so because a) they wanted a soft (i.e. 'no') Brexit and b) they felt Labour's policies were more likely to reduce inequality.

And yet,

1) Labour campaigned on a hard brexit manifesto which they are now committed to supporting, unless they are playing a very dangerous long game which would ultimately lose them much of the working class support they managed to claw back at the election.
2) Labour opposed the means testing of the winter fuel allowance, meaning that wealthy pensioners continue receiving money they have no need for
3) Labour opposed the Tory's social care policy which would have placed the burden of care costs on the very same elderly home owners who Labour supporters have always maintained have had it too good for too long at the expense of the younger generation
2) Labour proposed an abolition of tuition fees that has been shown would overwhelmingly negatively impact the poor and benefit the middle class

When are these middle class Labour voters gonna realise they voted for a party whose core policies they inherently disagree with?

[Herbette Chapman - aged 15]

membership of the single market and customs union from the Tories through semantics is absolutely fúcking hilarious.



Oh do shut up you tiresome Tory wánker

[Pokster]

Oh do shut up you tiresome Tory wánker

Sometimes less words say so much more... wd h

[Burney]

membership of the single market and customs union from the Tories through semantics is absolutely fúcking hilarious.

All the middle class people I know who voted Labour did so because a) they wanted a soft (i.e. 'no') Brexit and b) they felt Labour's policies were more likely to reduce inequality.

And yet,

1) Labour campaigned on a hard brexit manifesto which they are now committed to supporting, unless they are playing a very dangerous long game which would ultimately lose them much of the working class support they managed to claw back at the election.
2) Labour opposed the means testing of the winter fuel allowance, meaning that wealthy pensioners continue receiving money they have no need for
3) Labour opposed the Tory's social care policy which would have placed the burden of care costs on the very same elderly home owners who Labour supporters have always maintained have had it too good for too long at the expense of the younger generation
2) Labour proposed an abolition of tuition fees that has been shown would overwhelmingly negatively impact the poor and benefit the middle class

When are these middle class Labour voters gonna realise they voted for a party whose core policies they inherently disagree with?

I don't yet think it's dawned on the political establishment that what we saw two weeks ago was not so much a shift in the political landscape as a mass protest vote. Like most protest votes, it was ill-thought-out and incoherent. Labour may currently feel emboldened by it, but they would be well-advised not to treat those votes as any kind of endorsement of them or their policies.

[Monty92]

I don't yet think it's dawned on the political establishment that what we saw two weeks ago was not so much a shift in the political landscape as a mass protest vote. Like most protest votes, it was ill-thought-out and incoherent. Labour may currently feel emboldened by it, but they would be well-advised not to treat those votes as any kind of endorsement of them or their policies.

Yes, although similar could very well be said of the Brexit vote.

[Burney]

Yes, although similar could very well be said of the Brexit vote.

Of course it could. That doesn't invalidate it, though. Any more than the seats Labour gained by the election are invalid because of it. My only point is that the febrile nature of politics at the moment makes any grand claims of vindication from the Labour party dubious in the extreme.

[redgunamo]

membership of the single market and customs union from the Tories through semantics is absolutely fúcking hilarious.

All the middle class people I know who voted Labour did so because a) they wanted a soft (i.e. 'no') Brexit and b) they felt Labour's policies were more likely to reduce inequality.

And yet,

1) Labour campaigned on a hard brexit manifesto which they are now committed to supporting, unless they are playing a very dangerous long game which would ultimately lose them much of the working class support they managed to claw back at the election.
2) Labour opposed the means testing of the winter fuel allowance, meaning that wealthy pensioners continue receiving money they have no need for
3) Labour opposed the Tory's social care policy which would have placed the burden of care costs on the very same elderly home owners who Labour supporters have always maintained have had it too good for too long at the expense of the younger generation
2) Labour proposed an abolition of tuition fees that has been shown would overwhelmingly negatively impact the poor and benefit the middle class

When are these middle class Labour voters gonna realise they voted for a party whose core policies they inherently disagree with?

I doubt they inherently disagree with them; they just don't want the wrong sort to gain advantage from them.

[Herbette Chapman - aged 15]

Of course it could. That doesn't invalidate it, though. Any more than the seats Labour gained by the election are invalid because of it. My only point is that the febrile nature of politics at the moment makes any grand claims of vindication from the Labour party dubious in the extreme.

To be honest B, I think any claims you make to possessing political insight are a little dubious. I think it was a Conservative majority of at least 60 and Jezza repairing to the political wilderness for all eternity?

[Monty92]

To be honest B, I think any claims you make to possessing political insight are a little dubious. I think it was a Conservative majority of at least 60 and Jezza repairing to the political wilderness for all eternity?

To be fair to Berni, literally the entire country was of pretty much the same view. Even the pollsters who had Lab and Con neck and neck on election day were highly dubious about their own stats.

Saying that, I started worrying months and months ago when Corbyn started talking about harnessing social media. So as with football, it turns out I am Awimb's true political sage.

[Ash]

1) Labour campaigned on a hard brexit manifesto which they are now committed to supporting, unless they are playing a very dangerous long game which would ultimately lose them much of the working class support they managed to claw back at the election.

This is a interesting point imo. Over 80% of the turnout voted for party manifestos committed to a full Brexit, but the PLP, like all the main parties' MPs, are overwhelmingly pro-EU. With the labour vote comprising both anti-EU and pro-EU components they are something of a coalition within themselves.

Another thing that doesn't get much mention is that many of the influential voices who spent the referendum campaign telling people that they must not vote leave were also spending the last couple of years insisting that JC should not be leader of the Labour Party. Yet in both cases voters in large numbers have defied them.

[Monty92]

This is a interesting point imo. Over 80% of the turnout voted for party manifestos committed to a full Brexit, but the PLP, like all the main parties' MPs, are overwhelmingly pro-EU. With the labour vote comprising both anti-EU and pro-EU components they are something of a coalition within themselves.

Another thing that doesn't get much mention is that many of the influential voices who spent the referendum campaign telling people that they must not vote leave were also spending the last couple of years insisting that JC should not be leader of the Labour Party. Yet in both cases voters in large numbers have defied them.

How will you feel about your Labour vote if Billy Bragg turns out to be right on this?

https://twitter.com/billybragg/status/876415913079296001

[Herbette Chapman - aged 15]

To be fair to Berni, literally the entire country was of pretty much the same view. Even the pollsters who had Lab and Con neck and neck on election day were highly dubious about their own stats.

Saying that, I started worrying months and months ago when Corbyn started talking about harnessing social media. So as with football, it turns out I am Awimb's true political sage.

I thought the true litmus was your sister ( does she have a spectacularly hairy growler btw)?

[Ash]

How will you feel about your Labour vote if Billy Bragg turns out to be right on this?

https://twitter.com/billybragg/status/876415913079296001

New US Oct dates tickets on sale Friday 14 April 10am local time?

[Monty92]

New US Oct dates tickets on sale Friday 14 April 10am local time?

Soz, link now fixed

[Ash]

Soz, link now fixed

I don't believe Billy Bragg is right in his support for an institution that despises the working class, in his preference of undemocratic supra-nationalism over sovereign accountability, and his calls for Corbyn to immediately reverse his Brexit position.

If the latter does happen then it won't be the first time I've been let down by a politician and it won't be the last.

[Burney]

This is a interesting point imo. Over 80% of the turnout voted for party manifestos committed to a full Brexit, but the PLP, like all the main parties' MPs, are overwhelmingly pro-EU. With the labour vote comprising both anti-EU and pro-EU components they are something of a coalition within themselves.

Another thing that doesn't get much mention is that many of the influential voices who spent the referendum campaign telling people that they must not vote leave were also spending the last couple of years insisting that JC should not be leader of the Labour Party. Yet in both cases voters in large numbers have defied them.

Well it seems abundantly clear that lots and lots of Remain types voted Labour whilst either wilfully ignoring or simply being wholly ignorant of the party's clearly expressed stance on the EU. Young people in particular seem almost immune to the information that their beloved cuddly old uncle Jeremy has been avowedly anti-EU his entire political life. It just does not seem to compute.

[Monty92]

Well it seems abundantly clear that lots and lots of Remain types voted Labour whilst either wilfully ignoring or simply being wholly ignorant of the party's clearly expressed stance on the EU. Young people in particular seem almost immune to the information that their beloved cuddly old uncle Jeremy has been avowedly anti-EU his entire political life. It just does not seem to compute.

Unless of course yer man Billy Bragg is correct in that Labour are simply playing the long game and keeping their noses dry until such a time as either the Tories themselves fudge/abandon Brexit or Labour win the next GE at which point they revert to a pro-EU position.

[Burney]

Unless of course yer man Billy Bragg is correct in that Labour are simply playing the long game and keeping their noses dry until such a time as either the Tories themselves fudge/abandon Brexit or Labour win the next GE at which point they revert to a pro-EU position.

I don't think abandoning or reversing Brexit is a realistic option anymore. Even 'softening' it is going to prove very, very tricky. And even if that did happen, what then? You'd still have half the country utterly seething with resentment at being cheated in this way and, as May is currently finding out, such a divided country is fùcking hard to govern. Long term, the only possible resolution is in Brexit taking place in whatever form and everyone getting used to it.

[Monty92]

I don't think abandoning or reversing Brexit is a realistic option anymore. Even 'softening' it is going to prove very, very tricky. And even if that did happen, what then? You'd still have half the country utterly seething with resentment at being cheated in this way and, as May is currently finding out, such a divided country is fùcking hard to govern. Long term, the only possible resolution is in Brexit taking place in whatever form and everyone getting used to it.

I'm dubious about whether half the country would be utterly seething with resentment. Certainly there would be many voters and, crucially, many Tory MPs, who would feel this way. But I suspect an equal number would be rather indifferent, for a number of reasons, but mainly because - as we both acknowledge - Brexit was a protest vote as much as anything, driven by a desire to give the establishment a bloody nose rather than a desire for the tangible outcome and its consequences (unknown as many of them may be).

[Burney]

I'm dubious about whether half the country would be utterly seething with resentment. Certainly there would be many voters and, crucially, many Tory MPs, who would feel this way. But I suspect an equal number would be rather indifferent, for a number of reasons, but mainly because - as we both acknowledge - Brexit was a protest vote as much as anything, driven by a desire to give the establishment a bloody nose rather than a desire for the tangible outcome and its consequences (unknown as many of them may be).

Something can be two things at once. It was a protest vote in one sense, but it also was the expression of a long-held and deeply felt dislike of the EU that has existed in this country for decades. At its most basic level, that may simply be expressed as a profound dislike of being governed by foreigners, but it's still there. For many, that hatred has only become greater over the last year and will get worse during negotiations. So the idea that anti-EU sentiment will somehow dissipate over the coming years seems naive to me.

[World's End Stella]

Well it seems abundantly clear that lots and lots of Remain types voted Labour whilst either wilfully ignoring or simply being wholly ignorant of the party's clearly expressed stance on the EU. Young people in particular seem almost immune to the information that their beloved cuddly old uncle Jeremy has been avowedly anti-EU his entire political life. It just does not seem to compute.

You're missing the point, Burney. Many Remain people voted Labour because they didn't want a hard Brexit and the Tories having a strong majority seemed the most likely way for that to happen.

It wasn't about the Labour manifesto, it was about weakening the Tories so that they had to compromise.

BTW, I don't think anyone committed to a hard or soft or full Brexit. I don't think anyone ever has because no one has ever really attempted to define what it meant. Which is one of the reasons I didn't vote Leave. :shrug:

[Monty92]

You're missing the point, Burney. Many Remain people voted Labour because they didn't want a hard Brexit and the Tories having a strong majority seemed the most likely way for that to happen.

It wasn't about the Labour manifesto, it was about weakening the Tories so that they had to compromise.

BTW, I don't think anyone committed to a hard or soft or full Brexit. I don't think anyone ever has because no one has ever really attempted to define what it meant. Which is one of the reasons I didn't vote Leave. :shrug:

Hard Brexit means leaving the EU. Leaving the EU means leaving the single market, customs union and ending freedom of movement.

Soft Brexit means not leaving the EU by not doing any of the above. :shrug:

Labour campaigned on a manifesto that pledged to leave the single market, customs union and end freedom of movement. Therefore, if as you say, people voted Labour to avoid a hard Brexit, it seems a strange way of doing it. Unless, of course, they had a longer term and more calculated plan in mind.

[World's End Stella]

Hard Brexit means leaving the EU. Leaving the EU means leaving the single market, customs union and ending freedom of movement.

Soft Brexit means not leaving the EU by not doing any of the above. :shrug:

Labour campaigned on a manifesto that pledged to leave the single market, customs union and end freedom of movement. Therefore, if as you say, people voted Labour to avoid a hard Brexit, it seems a strange way of doing it. Unless, of course, they had a longer term and more calculated plan in mind.

You really think that Brexit negotiations are that binary? You don't think there might be an achievable middle ground between the two things you describe?

Think again. :hehe:

[Monty92]

You really think that Brexit negotiations are that binary? You don't think there might be an achievable middle ground between the two things you describe?

Think again. :hehe:

Yes, certainly when it comes to single market membership and freedom of movement, it is that binary.

I of course agree that a middle ground will be reached, but it won't involve remaining in the SM and keeping FoM. Or if it does, we wouldn't have left the EU.

[Peter]

membership of the single market and customs union from the Tories through semantics is absolutely fúcking hilarious.

All the middle class people I know who voted Labour did so because a) they wanted a soft (i.e. 'no') Brexit and b) they felt Labour's policies were more likely to reduce inequality.

And yet,

1) Labour campaigned on a hard brexit manifesto which they are now committed to supporting, unless they are playing a very dangerous long game which would ultimately lose them much of the working class support they managed to claw back at the election.
2) Labour opposed the means testing of the winter fuel allowance, meaning that wealthy pensioners continue receiving money they have no need for
3) Labour opposed the Tory's social care policy which would have placed the burden of care costs on the very same elderly home owners who Labour supporters have always maintained have had it too good for too long at the expense of the younger generation
2) Labour proposed an abolition of tuition fees that has been shown would overwhelmingly negatively impact the poor and benefit the middle class

When are these middle class Labour voters gonna realise they voted for a party whose core policies they inherently disagree with?

New hobby, Sir?

1) Labour campaigned in support of the referendum outcome but with the insistence that parliament alone would make the final decision. This is NOT a semantic distinction from May's position.
2) Labour opposed the means testing because the process costs more to run that it could ever hope to save by denying the fuel allowance to some individuals. This is classic Tory policy- it looks responsible, it looks like it saves money, but it achieves nothing.
3) The Tory's social care policy was a disaster from start to finish, something they even recognise themselves. Seeing it as an attack on wealthy pensioners completely misses the point.
4) Possibly true, depending on how it is implemented. If accompanied by a return to capped numbers then yes, it constitutes a middle class subsidy just like the good old days. The sensible policy would be to return to the lower tuition fee. I would say they got that one wrong but then it won a lot of votes from young people.

[Peter]

[QUOTE=Monty92;4166468]Hard Brexit means leaving the EU. Leaving the EU means leaving the single market, customs union and ending freedom of movement.

Soft Brexit means not leaving the EU by not doing any of the above. :shrug:



How can not leaving the EU be considered to be any kind of exit??

[World's End Stella]

[QUOTE=Monty92;4166468]
How can not leaving the EU be considered to be any kind of exit??

:hehe: Glad it wasn't just me that noticed that.

Monty really should stick to not understanding football. :-)

[Monty92]

[QUOTE=Peter;4166530]

:hehe: Glad it wasn't just me that noticed that.

Monty really should stick to not understanding football. :-)

You're both being silly. The scenario I was referring to was one in which we nominally left the EU but retained all of the substantive ties that come with being a member.

[World's End Stella]

[QUOTE=World's End Stella;4166723]

You're both being silly. The scenario I was referring to was one in which we nominally left the EU but retained all of the substantive ties that come with being a member.

No, you simply do not understand the difference between hard Brexit and soft Brexit. Mostly because you don't understand what soft Brexit is, I'm afraid.

[Peter]

[QUOTE=World's End Stella;4166723]

You're both being silly. The scenario I was referring to was one in which we nominally left the EU but retained all of the substantive ties that come with being a member.

So, leave and remain. That seems fair, pretty much everyone voted for at least half of that.

[Peter]

[QUOTE=Monty92;4166743]

No, you simply do not understand the difference between hard Brexit and soft Brexit. Mostly because you don't understand what soft Brexit is, I'm afraid.

Largely because it doesn't mean anything. Or more accurately, there is no real agreement as to what it means or how the term is used responsibly.

Brexit means Brexit is still the most sensible statement was have on the subject, which is quite terrifying

[World's End Stella]

[QUOTE=World's End Stella;4166746]

Largely because it doesn't mean anything. Or more accurately, there is no real agreement as to what it means or how the term is used responsibly.

Brexit means Brexit is still the most sensible statement was have on the subject, which is quite terrifying

And yet 17mil people voted for it. Astonishing.

[Ash]

You're both being silly. The scenario I was referring to was one in which we nominally left the EU but retained all of the substantive ties that come with being a member.

Could everyone kindly take care to edit out the erroneous quote tag to ensure accurate attribution! :shout:

[Monty92]

[QUOTE=Monty92;4166743]

No, you simply do not understand the difference between hard Brexit and soft Brexit. Mostly because you don't understand what soft Brexit is, I'm afraid.

Please do enlighten me then...

[Monty92]

New hobby, Sir?

1) Labour campaigned in support of the referendum outcome but with the insistence that parliament alone would make the final decision. This is NOT a semantic distinction from May's position.
2) Labour opposed the means testing because the process costs more to run that it could ever hope to save by denying the fuel allowance to some individuals. This is classic Tory policy- it looks responsible, it looks like it saves money, but it achieves nothing.
3) The Tory's social care policy was a disaster from start to finish, something they even recognise themselves. Seeing it as an attack on wealthy pensioners completely misses the point.
4) Possibly true, depending on how it is implemented. If accompanied by a return to capped numbers then yes, it constitutes a middle class subsidy just like the good old days. The sensible policy would be to return to the lower tuition fee. I would say they got that one wrong but then it won a lot of votes from young people.

1) I was referring to Labour's attempts to differentiate themselves from the Tories in terms of the kind of deal they want and how they would attain it. And you know that.
2) But they did not oppose it on this basis. They opposed it as it was "an attack on pensioners"
3) See above
4) Thank you

[Burney]

[QUOTE=Peter;4166748]

And yet 17mil people voted for it. Astonishing.

However you wish to pretend otherwise, what was voted for was remarkably simple. The vote unequivocally represented a rejection of this country's membership of and current relationship with the EU. It said clearly that a majority no longer wish to be part of the organisation and - insofar as possible with regard to a future trading relationship - no longer wish to pay for its upkeep or be subject to its laws and regulations.

Now are those things simple to achieve? No. But that is what was voted for.

[World's End Stella]

[QUOTE=World's End Stella;4166753]

However you wish to pretend otherwise, what was voted for was remarkably simple. The vote unequivocally represented a rejection of this country's membership of and current relationship with the EU. It said clearly that a majority no longer wish to be part of the organisation and - insofar as possible with regard to a future trading relationship - no longer wish to pay for its upkeep or be subject to its laws and regulations.

Now are those things simple to achieve? No. But that is what was voted for.

You've described what people didn't want, without describing what they did want.

And that bit is rather important.

[Sir C]

[QUOTE=Burney;4166762]

You've described what people didn't want, without describing what they did want.

And that bit is rather important.

That's a bit silly. If I had cancer and you asked me what I wanted, I'd say, 'To not have cancer'.

Would you then tell me I hadn't answered the important question, what would I like instead of cancer?

[Burney]

[QUOTE=Burney;4166762]

You've described what people didn't want, without describing what they did want.

And that bit is rather important.

What we didn't want was the question at issue, though. It was a binary choice in that sense. People are entitled in such a vote to reject the status quo without offering a detailed alternative. They voted to ditch the EU and try something else and it is the duty of any government to pursue future avenues only in the context of that rejection.

What people do want is always the same: peace, prosperity and a quiet life.

[Peter]

[QUOTE=Burney;4166762]

You've described what people didn't want, without describing what they did want.

And that bit is rather important.

Unfortunately, it isn't what they were asked. They were asked yes or no, they voted no. Some of us pointed out beforehand that it was a little silly to ask people to vote for something they weren't allowed to see but that is what we got.

While its dangerous to interpret too much from a yes or no vote I find it absurd that anyone could deny that freedom of movement was a key issue within the no vote.

[Peter]

[QUOTE=World's End Stella;4166763]

What we didn't want was the question at issue, though. It was a binary choice in that sense. People are entitled in such a vote to reject the status quo without offering a detailed alternative. They voted to ditch the EU and try something else and it is the duty of any government to pursue future avenues only in the context of that rejection.

What people do want is always the same: peace, prosperity and a quiet life.

Funny that the overwhelming majority of them never get it

[Sir C]

[QUOTE=Burney;4166767]

Funny that the overwhelming majority of them never get it

I can only surmise that you refer to Africa, p. Things are improving rapidly there as well. Fear not, capitalism is continuing to save the world.

[Peter]

1) I was referring to Labour's attempts to differentiate themselves from the Tories in terms of the kind of deal they want and how they would attain it. And you know that.
2) But they did not oppose it on this basis. They opposed it as it was "an attack on pensioners"
3) See above
4) Thank you

1) You said they campaigned on Hard Brexit. I just put you right and pointed out that there was more than just a semantic distinction. Neither side has a clear view of their own position.
2) Nope, they opposed it as 'uncosted and of extreme concern'. The concern being that the process would cost time and money and would inevitably delay payments to those who need it.
3) See my original response. Again, this was attacked for so many reasons. You are ascribing it to one specific in order to construst a narrative that enables you to laugh at the stupidity of others.

[Peter]

[QUOTE=Peter;4166770]

I can only surmise that you refer to Africa, p. Things are improving rapidly there as well. Fear not, capitalism is continuing to save the world.

As Metallica said, 'to secure peace is to prepare for war'.

No idea what that means but I think it says it all :D

[Burney]

[QUOTE=World's End Stella;4166763]

Unfortunately, it isn't what they were asked. They were asked yes or no, they voted no. Some of us pointed out beforehand that it was a little silly to ask people to vote for something they weren't allowed to see but that is what we got.

While its dangerous to interpret too much from a yes or no vote I find it absurd that anyone could deny that freedom of movement was a key issue within the no vote.

Anything other than a binary choice would have been meaningless, though. It was first necessary to establish democratically that we no longer wished to be in the EU and only from there could we work out what form that would take. To have hedged the vote about with various options would have been to dilute it to the point of worthlessness. Equally, the vote that took us in was binary and offered no nuance (to the point of dishonesty, in fact), so it was only fair that the vote to take us equally simple.

[Peter]

[QUOTE=Peter;4166768]

Anything other than a binary choice would have been meaningless, though. It was first necessary to establish democratically that we no longer wished to be in the EU and only from there could we work out what form that would take. To have hedged the vote about with various options would have been to dilute it to the point of worthlessness. Equally, the vote that took us in was binary and offered no nuance (to the point of dishonesty, in fact), so it was only fair that the vote to take us equally simple.

Funnily enough, I thought the question was unfair on the leave campaign. Obviously you cant spell out a deal but issues like the single market and free movement are big enough to have been pulled out from the detail. I would argue they are almost implicit anyway.

The vote to go in was to join a completely different institution. It lost any legitimacy decades ago.

[Burney]

[QUOTE=Burney;4166784]

Funnily enough, I thought the question was unfair on the leave campaign. Obviously you cant spell out a deal but issues like the single market and free movement are big enough to have been pulled out from the detail. I would argue they are almost implicit anyway.

The vote to go in was to join a completely different institution. It lost any legitimacy decades ago.

What would be the point on voting for those things without first knowing whether people want to remain in the EU or not? Equally, us voting unilaterally to keep things that the EU isn't likely to grant is pretty meaningless.

Also, people are always going to say that - if they can - they'd prefer to be in the single market. At the same time, though, they will generally vote against free movement if it means high levels of immigration, without recognising the fact that those two wishes are incompatible.

[Peter]

[QUOTE=Peter;4166789]

What would be the point on voting for those things without first knowing whether people want to remain in the EU or not? Equally, us voting unilaterally to keep things that the EU isn't likely to grant is pretty meaningless.

Also, people are always going to say that - if they can - they'd prefer to be in the single market. At the same time, though, they will generally vote against free movement if it means high levels of immigration, without recognising the fact that those two wishes are incompatible.

Its just a case of explaining that, fundamentally, leaving the EU means leaving the single market and ending freedom of movement. It would have solved some of the silly discussions happening now.

[Monty92]

[QUOTE=Burney;4166796]

Its just a case of explaining that, fundamentally, leaving the EU means leaving the single market and ending freedom of movement. It would have solved some of the silly discussions happening now.

This was explained, endlessly.

[Ash]

Its just a case of explaining that, fundamentally, leaving the EU means leaving the single market and ending freedom of movement. It would have solved some of the silly discussions happening now.

It would have helped if the people that decided to call the referendum had formulated a plan to enact in the event of the outcome being Leave, and to have explained that plan. As it was it never occurred to them that they could lose.

A soft (fake) Brexit where we remain in the single market, keep freedom of movement, retain the large net contribution but are politically excluded wouldn't be much of a brexit, imo. More of a vassalisation, perhaps.

[Burney]

[QUOTE=Burney;4166796]

Its just a case of explaining that, fundamentally, leaving the EU means leaving the single market and ending freedom of movement. It would have solved some of the silly discussions happening now.

Well I would argue that those things were said repeatedly by both sides during the campaign, but OK. Let's say you did that. By the same token, would it not have been necessary to include similar in the Remain vote? Making clear, for instance, by voting Remain, are you signing up for 'Ever Closer Union', the increasing movement of sovereignty away from Westminster and the future possibility of an EU military? After all, what's sauce for the goose...

[Peter]

[QUOTE=Peter;4166797]

Well I would argue that those things were said repeatedly by both sides during the campaign, but OK. Let's say you did that. By the same token, would it not have been necessary to include similar in the Remain vote? Making clear, for instance, by voting Remain, are you signing up for 'Ever Closer Union', the increasing movement of sovereignty away from Westminster and the future possibility of an EU military? After all, what's sauce for the goose...

Well the terms of remaining were far clearer than leaving but I take your point. I do think it would have been better to be slightly clearer about the leaving options before the vote, if not in the actual question. The problem was there was no organisation to speak for it, just a loose collection of political oddities and opportunists.

[Monty92]

[QUOTE=Burney;4166801]

Well the terms of remaining were far clearer than leaving but I take your point. I do think it would have been better to be slightly clearer about the leaving options before the vote, if not in the actual question. The problem was there was no organisation to speak for it, just a loose collection of political oddities and opportunists.

There was an organisation to speak for it - they are called the Remain side and comprised the entire UK and much of the global political establishment. Everyone knew what it meant for FOM and everyone knew what it meant for single market membership because everyone on both sides made this explicitly clear. The difference was that the Remain side pitched these consequences as incentives to stay (Project Fear) whereas the leave side did the opposite.

[Peter]

[QUOTE=Peter;4166823]

There was an organisation to speak for it - they are called the Remain side and comprised the entire UK and much of the global political establishment. Everyone knew what it meant for FOM and everyone knew what it meant for single market membership because everyone on both sides made this explicitly clear. The difference was that the Remain side pitched these consequences as incentives to stay (Project Fear) whereas the leave side did the opposite.

Firstly, I thought it was obvious that I was saying there was no organisation to speak for the leave side. Exemplified by the fact that they walked away from the reference to NHS spending the morning after the vote and everybody claimed it was everybody else's idea to say it.

Secondly, no, everybody did NOT know what the consequences were. Most of the people voting have no idea what free movement means or what the single market is. As obvious as it may seem to you there are millions of people who barely know what the EU is, and the belief that it is widely understood by all pitches your ignorance alongside theirs, only with far less excuse.

[Monty92]

[QUOTE=Monty92;4166833]

Firstly, I thought it was obvious that I was saying there was no organisation to speak for the leave side. Exemplified by the fact that they walked away from the reference to NHS spending the morning after the vote and everybody claimed it was everybody else's idea to say it.

Secondly, no, everybody did NOT know what the consequences were. Most of the people voting have no idea what free movement means or what the single market is. As obvious as it may seem to you there are millions of people who barely know what the EU is, and the belief that it is widely understood by all pitches your ignorance alongside theirs, only with far less excuse.

But this information was made available to them in perfectly accessible ways and by both sides. That they chose to vote in ignorance was their own choice.

[Ash]

Secondly, no, everybody did NOT know what the consequences were. Most of the people voting have no idea what free movement means or what the single market is. As obvious as it may seem to you there are millions of people who barely know what the EU is, and the belief that it is widely understood by all pitches your ignorance alongside theirs, only with far less excuse.

That cuts both ways, too.

[Sir C]

[QUOTE=Peter;4166847]

But this information was made available to them in perfectly accessible ways and by both sides. That they chose to vote in ignorance was their own choice.

The majority of the electorate is as thick as mince :shrug: 40% of the fúckers just voted for Corbyn, for fúck's sake. You couldn't educate them in less than 3 or 4 generations.

[Ash]

The majority of the electorate is as thick as mince :shrug: 40% of the fúckers just voted for Corbyn, for fúck's sake. You couldn't educate them in less than 3 or 4 generations.

Thanks for that :thumbup:

[Peter]

[QUOTE=Peter;4166847]

But this information was made available to them in perfectly accessible ways and by both sides. That they chose to vote in ignorance was their own choice.

Giving information doesn't help people understand something that is totally alien to them. Everybody is entitled to vote however they wish. The original point wasn't about overcoming ignorance, it was about asking a clearer question to avoid the sort of nonsense we are hearing now about what people voted for.

[Sir C]

Thanks for that :thumbup:

I know you're not thick, a. Indeed, you know that I know that you're not thick :shrug:

Have you listened to the average conversation on a train or bus recently? Ever taken a cab? The lumpen proletariat are, without doubt, as cows in a field, lowing only for their X Factor and cheap booze.

[Peter]

That cuts both ways, too.

Of course it does. I know someone who voted Remain because he was sick of immigration. I know someone who voted leave because he wanted closer ties with Europe.

The biggest mistake you can make in politics is to believe that the massed ranks of the stupid are lined up on one side. The second biggest is to ask people why they voted a certain way. Trust me, you don't want to know unless you are writing a stand up routine.

[Ash]

But this information was made available to them in perfectly accessible ways and by both sides. That they chose tovote in ignorance was their own choice.

Much is made of 'voting in ignorance'. Very often by those who didn't get the result they wanted, but more generally by those who dislike democracy generally, and would rather things were run exclusively by people like themselves and for their own interests.

[Ash]

Of course it does. I know someone who voted Remain because he was sick of immigration. I know someone who voted leave because he wanted closer ties with Europe.

The biggest mistake you can make in politics is to believe that the massed ranks of the stupid are lined up on one side. The second biggest is to ask people why they voted a certain way. Trust me, you don't want to know unless you are writing a stand up routine.

It all evens out in the end.

Like refereeing decisions. Maybe.

[Ash]

Have you listened to the average conversation on a train or bus recently?.

Yes. Usually overly-loud middle class types braying about their next travelling expedition and extolling the virtue of cheap labour for the building works on their property portfolios.

[Peter]

It all evens out in the end.

Like refereeing decisions. Maybe.

Democracy is the process of giving people a choice between two or more things that they don't understand. It works as long as they are equally ignorant of both sides of the debate.

My point regarding leave was that I felt it had been deliberately constructed to scare people into voting for the thing they knew (remain) rather than the thing that sat in the dark (leave). In the end it didn't matter, although leave may have won a bigger victory with a clearer choice- who knows.

[Peter]

Yes. Usually overly-loud middle class types braying about their next travelling expedition and extolling the virtue of cheap labour for the building works on their property portfolios.

Nicely put :)

[Monty92]

Much is made of 'voting in ignorance'. Very often by those who didn't get the result they wanted, but more generally by those who dislike democracy generally, and would rather things were run exclusively by people like themselves and for their own interests.

I think you're taking a rather uncontroversial belief - that most people are thick - and using it to push your line about the elite industrial complex. While your position on elitism is entirely valid, I think you need to be careful not to venture into straw man territory.

After all, both Charlie and I are far from Remainers.

[Ash]

I think you're taking a rather uncontroversial belief - that most people are thick - and using it to push your line about the elite industrial complex. While your position on elitism is entirely valid, I think you need to be careful not to venture into straw man territory.

After all, both Charlie and I are far from Remainers.

Hardly a straw man in the context of this discussion. A pillar of the EU as I see it is to restrict the role of the demos in politics, leaving it to the 'experts' (the elite).

I can't speak for your reasons for voting Leave but if I disliked the proles and their ability to vote as you do I probably would have voted Remain :shrug:.

[World's End Stella]

Democracy is the process of giving people a choice between two or more things that they don't understand. It works as long as they are equally ignorant of both sides of the debate.

My point regarding leave was that I felt it had been deliberately constructed to scare people into voting for the thing they knew (remain) rather than the thing that sat in the dark (leave). In the end it didn't matter, although leave may have won a bigger victory with a clearer choice- who knows.

Possibly. But I still think an awful lot of Leave voters assumed that a hard Brexit would never happened. Had the referendum made it clear that they were voting to have no access to the common market, no longer be part of the customs union, no longer have a financial passport and that that would be the case from the first day of Brexit with no guarantee of any free trade agreement at that time, I think the vote might have been different.

[Peter]

Possibly. But I still think an awful lot of Leave voters assumed that a hard Brexit would never happened. Had the referendum made it clear that they were voting to have no access to the common market, no longer be part of the customs union, no longer have a financial passport and that that would be the case from the first day of Brexit with no guarantee of any free trade agreement at that time, I think the vote might have been different.

And we will never know. The only thing I know for sure is that if we don't withdraw from free movement there will be millions of people livid. And I would totally get their outrage, whilst not sharing it.

[Ash]

Possibly. But I still think an awful lot of Leave voters assumed that a hard Brexit would never happened. Had the referendum made it clear that they were voting to have no access to the common market, no longer be part of the customs union, no longer have a financial passport and that that would be the case from the first day of Brexit with no guarantee of any free trade agreement at that time, I think the vote might have been different.

And perhaps had it been made more clear to Remain voters that they were voting to transfer more and more powers over time from an accountable Parliament to an unnaccountable Commission, that Britain would never have control over its borders and immigration levels, and that the EU would continue to expand into more countries at ever greater expense and with an ever expanding bureaucracy, and that their vote would be worth less and less ... the vote might have been different again.

[Peter]

And perhaps had it been made more clear to Remain voters that they were voting to transfer more and more powers over time from an accountable Parliament to an unnaccountable Commission, that Britain would never have control over its borders and immigration levels, and that the EU would continue to expand into more countries at ever greater expense and with an ever expanding bureaucracy, and that their vote would be worth less and less ... the vote might have been different again.

The democratic deficit argument was quite hard to swallow when an unelected Westminster PM and cabinet was planning to negotiate Brexit without consulting parliament in any meaningful way. A freak election result may make us look rather more accountable but I am still prompted to ask why so many people seem to find Westminster democratically acceptable yet reserve nothing but rage for Brussels.

Not really including you in that, before you ask. :)

[Burney]

Possibly. But I still think an awful lot of Leave voters assumed that a hard Brexit would never happened. Had the referendum made it clear that they were voting to have no access to the common market, no longer be part of the customs union, no longer have a financial passport and that that would be the case from the first day of Brexit with no guarantee of any free trade agreement at that time, I think the vote might have been different.

You remember last year, right? You remember how Project Fear kept saying all of those things over and over and over again? And you remember how the British public STILL voted to Leave?

[Sir C]

Possibly. But I still think an awful lot of Leave voters assumed that a hard Brexit would never happened. Had the referendum made it clear that they were voting to have no access to the common market, no longer be part of the customs union, no longer have a financial passport and that that would be the case from the first day of Brexit with no guarantee of any free trade agreement at that time, I think the vote might have been different.

This 'no access to the common market' tosh. Explain to me how China and Japan happily access the common market, but we wouldn't be able to? I think what you might mean is 'access to the common market with the imposition of some small rates of duty, which we can negotiate.'

As for the customs union, we import goods from all around the world and have a perfectly functioning customs apparatus in order to do so. As does every other nation on earth. What's the big drama?

[Peter]

You remember last year, right? You remember how Project Fear kept saying all of those things over and over and over again? And you remember how the British public STILL voted to Leave?

They also said we could end up in another war ;)

[Burney]

The democratic deficit argument was quite hard to swallow when an unelected Westminster PM and cabinet was planning to negotiate Brexit without consulting parliament in any meaningful way. A freak election result may make us look rather more accountable but I am still prompted to ask why so many people seem to find Westminster democratically acceptable yet reserve nothing but rage for Brussels.

Not really including you in that, before you ask. :)

The argument that 'There are problems with our democracy, so we have no right to complain about the structurally anti-democratic nature of the EU' always seemed an odd one to me. Jorge used to trot it out rather a lot.

There may be democratic deficits in Westminster, but they are things we can vote to change should we so desire. The democratic deficits in Brussels, however, are far greater and not subject to our democratic scrutiny in any way, shape of form.

Besides, if anything, I would say that this country at the moment is suffering from a surfeit of democracy rather than a deficit.

[Peter]

This 'no access to the common market' tosh. Explain to me how China and Japan happily access the common market, but we wouldn't be able to? I think what you might mean is 'access to the common market with the imposition of some small rates of duty, which we can negotiate.'

As for the customs union, we import goods from all around the world and have a perfectly functioning customs apparatus in order to do so. As does every other nation on earth. What's the big drama?

Well..... it sounds like a pain in the arse doesn't it. I just want a quiet life

[Sir C]

Well..... it sounds like a pain in the arse doesn't it. I just want a quiet life

Why is it a pain in the arse for you? Are you an importer or exporter?

[Burney]

They also said we could end up in another war ;)

Now that I'm well up for. I'm now old enough not to get called up and only have a daughter, so I'm very happy to wave the lads off to go and give various frogs, wops, dagoes, spics and krauts a damn good thrashing.

Disappointingly, I found I ran out of insulting epithets for our European brethren rather quickly there. :-(

[Ash]

The democratic deficit argument was quite hard to swallow when an unelected Westminster PM and cabinet was planning to negotiate Brexit without consulting parliament in any meaningful way. A freak election result may make us look rather more accountable but I am still prompted to ask why so many people seem to find Westminster democratically acceptable yet reserve nothing but rage for Brussels.

Not really including you in that, before you ask. :)

We don't vote for PMs, we vote for MPs. I have no problem with continuity PMs like May and Brown leading their parties without winning a GE. Do Parliament get consulted in any meaningful way when EU bills become UK law?

However flawed UK democracy might be it is at least more democratic than the EU. Magna Carta was a long way from universal suffrage but it was still an improvement on absolute monarchy.

[Sir C]

Now that I'm well up for. I'm now old enough not to get called up and only have a daughter, so I'm very happy to wave the lads off to go and give various frogs, wops, dagoes, spics and krauts a damn good thrashing.

Disappointingly, I found I ran out of insulting epithets for our European brethren rather quickly there. :-(

Bogtrotters to the west, bogwogs to the east. Also 'Belgian' is surely an insulting term on its own?

[Peter]

The argument that 'There are problems with our democracy, so we have no right to complain about the structurally anti-democratic nature of the EU' always seemed an odd one to me. Jorge used to trot it out rather a lot.

There may be democratic deficits in Westminster, but they are things we can vote to change should we so desire. The democratic deficits in Brussels, however, are far greater and not subject to our democratic scrutiny in any way, shape of form.

Besides, if anything, I would say that this country at the moment is suffering from a surfeit of democracy rather than a deficit.

It is a tough sell, I agree. My question was to those who are happy with one and not the other, not some contorted moral question about the right to throw ideological stones.

I wouldn't say those in Brussels were far greater, but then I don't have a problem with either. Democracy is not the be all and end all to me- I think my point is that it isn't for a lot of other people until the undemocratic institution in question speaks with a French accent.

[Burney]

Bogtrotters to the west, bogwogs to the east. Also 'Belgian' is surely an insulting term on its own?

Oh, I don't count the Irish and I bear no animus against the Dutch, really. I do think it's odd that we haven't come up with something more cutting for the Belgians, though. I suppose their sheer insignificance has protected them.

[Peter]

We don't vote for PMs, we vote for MPs. I have no problem with continuity PMs like May and Brown leading their parties without winning a GE. Do Parliament get consulted in any meaningful way when EU bills become UK law?

However flawed UK democracy might be it is at least more democratic than the EU. Magna Carta was a long way from universal suffrage but it was still an improvement on absolute monarchy.

We don't conform to most modern (18th century onwards) interpretations of democracy. No separation of church and state, unelected Head of State, mangled unelected executive that is drawn directly from the legislature, unelected second chamber with significant, historical legal functions, no codified constitution, antiquated voting system....

On the plus side we get to directly elect the people who organise the binmen and street lighting, and we now have a Mayor of Birmingham…. ;)

[Burney]

It is a tough sell, I agree. My question was to those who are happy with one and not the other, not some contorted moral question about the right to throw ideological stones.

I wouldn't say those in Brussels were far greater, but then I don't have a problem with either. Democracy is not the be all and end all to me- I think my point is that it isn't for a lot of other people until the undemocratic institution in question speaks with a French accent.

Of course. But it speaking with a French accent is a fundamental problem. We've never really signed up to this idea of destroying the nation state and breaking down national identities. To an Englishman, it is still 'them' (all foreigners) and 'us' (the English with the unfortunate celts allowed to join in if they behave). That is not a criticism. It is an attitude of mind that has served us well for rather a long time, in fact.

Ultimately, it boils down to this, p: You can't trust foreigners. They're not as good as Englishmen. That's just a fact.

[Burney]

We don't conform to most modern (18th century onwards) interpretations of democracy. No separation of church and state, unelected Head of State, mangled unelected executive that is drawn directly from the legislature, unelected second chamber with significant, historical legal functions, no codified constitution, antiquated voting system....

On the plus side we get to directly elect the people who organise the binmen and street lighting, and we now have a Mayor of Birmingham…. ;)

No, because our democratic structures pre-date those concepts of democracy. What's more, they've proved fairly robust by virtue of their adaptability. Ultimately, that's the thing about the UK system: whatever it's theoretical flaws, it actually works remarkably well.

[Peter]

Of course. But it speaking with a French accent is a fundamental problem. We've never really signed up to this idea of destroying the nation state and breaking down national identities. To an Englishman, it is still 'them' (all foreigners) and 'us' (the English with the unfortunate celts allowed to join in if they behave). That is not a criticism. It is an attitude of mind that has served us well for rather a long time, in fact.

Ultimately, it boils down to this, p: You can't trust foreigners. They're not as good as Englishmen. That's just a fact.

Which is a far more honest and accurate description of the common view than some old horse**** about democracy. Not that I am suggesting that honesty and accuracy should play any part in our political process.

[Peter]

No, because our democratic structures pre-date those concepts of democracy. What's more, they've proved fairly robust by virtue of their adaptability. Ultimately, that's the thing about the UK system: whatever it's theoretical flaws, it actually works remarkably well.

Democracy is not about things working well, it is about the people getting what they deserve.

British democracy is about pragmatism, patronage and tradition. Of course it works well. Certainly for those in it.....

[Ash]

We don't conform to most modern (18th century onwards) interpretations of democracy. No separation of church and state, unelected Head of State, mangled unelected executive that is drawn directly from the legislature, unelected second chamber with significant, historical legal functions, no codified constitution, antiquated voting system....

On the plus side we get to directly elect the people who organise the binmen and street lighting, and we now have a Mayor of Birmingham…. ;)

Oh, I'm all for waving the monarchy off into the sunset and abolishing the house of Lords, but Queenie doesn't actually do anything really political. We're hardly a theocracy, at least not untill the Alans take over, and binmen are terribly important, don't you think? The only thing most of us really expect from our Local Authority to do well is take the damn rubbish away.

[Peter]

Oh, I'm all for waving the monarchy off into the sunset and abolishing the house of Lords, but Queenie doesn't actually do anything really political. We're hardly a theocracy, at least not untill the Alans take over, and binmen are terribly important, don't you think? The only thing most of us really expect from our Local Authority to do well is take the damn rubbish away.

I'm just saying..... we are quick to say that ours works in practice but that Brussels doesn't work in theory.

I care little for either. Governments don't actually make decisions anyway. We would be better off voting for the CEO of Lloyds or Google.

[World's End Stella]

You remember last year, right? You remember how Project Fear kept saying all of those things over and over and over again? And you remember how the British public STILL voted to Leave?

I don't think they did give that message, it was just a general doom n gloom pitch about how terrible things might become. But I think rather a lot of people listened to that message and didn't really believe it, they thought that ultimately a reasonable exit would be negotiated.

Had the terms of the referendum been clearly defined as hard Brexit we would have avoided that ambiguity and not had as much uncertainty as we do now.