UK Politics: Deal, or No Deal. To May and Beyond.

[The guy from the Vale]

Thank you for the correction!

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Honestly it was far more than your response even deserved 

Comparing a coincidence in clothing to potential overlapping ideologies is a very weak argument. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Speaking of foreign influence, isn't your royal family in part technically of German decent?

And us Americans have sent in our first infiltrator. Only a matter of time now until we take over the throne!!! 

[Werthead]

Quote

 

1.5 million of those were irish. Ireland was part of the UK

 

Ireland was a foreign country under military occupation whose population had been subjected to an act of genocide by the British government. It was not voluntarily part of the UK in the way that you could argue Scotland was.

Quote

 

That is clearly not what has happened with the UK where the population has remained relatively unchanged. 

 

The United Kingdom is a union of four constituent countries: England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, each with a distinct background, different culture, history and customs. So yes, it is a melting point of different backgrounds and it is inherent in the name (and noting that each of these accumulated from original different ethnic, national and religious groupings: England itself is the union of the remains of the Heptarchy and the union of Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Welsh and Scots, and the remnants of the Britons, later invaded by the Normans).

More to the point, the UK as it stands now is also the remnant of an empire consisting of hundreds of millions of people of a much vaster, more disparate array of backgrounds, cultures and ideals. When people talk about "Britain standing alone against Europe like in 1940" they forget that the British Empire at the time had a population of over a third of a billion people (constituting 25% of the human race) and an economic might which outstripped that of Germany (although it was not as centralised). The Empire and the Commonwealth is what allowed us to survive that conflict.

This basically confirms what was said earlier on. The arguments over Brexit are very much arguments over perceptions of reality (Britain is still a global power to be reckoned with, Britain has some sort of industry outside of financial services, Britain has been a white nation since the dawn of time, Britain cannot control immigration under EU law) which are at sharp odds with factual reality itself.

[williamjm]

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned in amongst all the arguments about migration, but the story of the Brexit contingency ferry firm with no ships seems to be getting weirder:

Now, new questions are being asked about the readiness of Seaborne Freight to handle the £13.8m contract after it turned out that terms and conditions on its website appeared to be intended for a food delivery firm.

“It is the responsibility of the customer to thoroughly check the supplied goods before agreeing to pay for any meal/order,” read part of the text on the company’s website.

Other signs that the website may have been cobbled together included a “portal login” section that was an image of username and password boxes rather than an actual means of logging in. A language settings option also appeared to be an image of a union flag rather than an interactive option.

I'm guessing from this that they probably convinced Chris Grayling to sign the contract by showing him they had some pictures of some ferries.

[ants]

15 hours ago, Heartofice said:

@ants the reason most of your posts are exactly what we should be trying to get away from are because they seem to come from a core belief you seem to have that anyone voting for Brexit is either racist, thick or ignorant. Your posts stink of it that attitude and its pretty unhelpful.

In numerous polls large percentages of Brexit voters have stated that they are prepared to take an economic hit in return for controlling immigration, showing that the economy is seemingly less important to people than community and culture. Yet every argument being made for immigration seems to be along economic lines - ie they raise GDP, they contribute more to the welfare state (disputed btw). But because these Brexit voters do not see these economic gains, because they aren't owning businesses and the high GDP growth has seemingly not benefitted them in the first place, those arguments fall on deaf ears.

That doesn't mean the economic arguments are wrong, although many of them are contestable, it is that its like talking a different language and so is mainly wasted breath.

Could you cite some of these polls?  Because I'm not aware of any that show people voting for Brexit are happy to do so in a trade off for lower pensions, less money to the NHS, less buying power, etc.  

[Heartofice]

5 hours ago, ants said:

Could you cite some of these polls?  Because I'm not aware of any that show people voting for Brexit are happy to do so in a trade off for lower pensions, less money to the NHS, less buying power, etc.  

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2017/08/01/britain-nation-brexit-extremists

[Heartofice]

8 hours ago, Werthead said:

The United Kingdom is a union of four constituent countries: England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, each with a distinct background, different culture, history and customs. So yes, it is a melting point of different backgrounds and it is inherent in the name (and noting that each of these accumulated from original different ethnic, national and religious groupings: England itself is the union of the remains of the Heptarchy and the union of Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Welsh and Scots, and the remnants of the Britons, later invaded by the Normans).

Seriously? If your definition of a 'melting pot' is going to include bringing together of different tribes then you are playing with the loosest possible interpretation of 'melting pot'. By your own definition there isn't a country on the planet that isn't in some ways a melting pot.. rendering the term utterly meaningless.

Except of course the term was coined to describe the way that the US came about, as a nation of immigrants, with wildly different cultures coming together in one place. What you are describing is very far from that, and I think you know it.

Why I think it's important to nail this down is that 'melting pot' is really a propaganda term used by Remain voters to create a false sense of history of the UK. It is used to tell Leave voters that they themselves are really just immigrants, that they have no more right to their sense of location than anyone. The problem is that this is a lie worthy of being put onto the side of a bus, but people are happy to parrot it out straight faced. Britain is absolutely not a 'nation of immigrants' or a 'melting pot'. The numbers of people from other cultures were absolutely tiny coming into this country for almost 2000 years, even the Anglo Saxons people like to refer to were more than likely coming in much smaller numbers than suggested, same with the Normans ( but again I think that trying to use actual bloody invasion to sell immigration is a dumb strategy) 

Either way the situation is a you have a bunch of liberal city dwellers who have very little attachment to place, telling people who greatly value their sense of community, shared values and nationhood, that they have no real right to those things, or that they have no value. It's basically saying 'be more like us.. we are global', but that misses the point. 

A far stronger strategy would be to show how many immigrants have managed to assimilate into British society, demonstrate that those who are newly arrived are willing to take on elements of British culture and will fit in. 

[ants]

15 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2017/08/01/britain-nation-brexit-extremists

Interesting.  Thankyou for posting.  It certainly supports your view that a good majority of leave voters are happy to take a hit to the economy to leave.  Frankly, if that is the case I'm not sure there is an argument that will get them to switch votes, although it does still leave 40% who appear to of the belief (somehow) that Brexit won't hurt the economy (since presumably if they did they wouldn't have voted Leave).  

 

I think what is telling though, is that when it's about losing their job (i.e. damage to them personally) support amongst leave voters for Brexit drops below 50%.  So when its just "the economy" that suffers, 60% still would vote Leave, but when its actually them, its 39%.  I think this may indicate that actually, lots of people don't realise how they individually will be affected, and don't think they will.  In any second referendum (if one occurs) this has to be a focus of Remain.  Of course, this is also why the Torries have fought so vehemently against detailed projections and analysis of the impact of Brexit being done.  If it caused (say) a 5% cut in NHS funding and pensions, that would likely sink it. 

[Heartofice]

11 minutes ago, ants said:

Interesting.  Thankyou for posting.  It certainly supports your view that a good majority of leave voters are happy to take a hit to the economy to leave.  Frankly, if that is the case I'm not sure there is an argument that will get them to switch votes, although it does still leave 40% who appear to of the belief (somehow) that Brexit won't hurt the economy (since presumably if they did they wouldn't have voted Leave).  

 

I think what is telling though, is that when it's about losing their job (i.e. damage to them personally) support amongst leave voters for Brexit drops below 50%.  So when its just "the economy" that suffers, 60% still would vote Leave, but when its actually them, its 39%.  I think this may indicate that actually, lots of people don't realise how they individually will be affected, and don't think they will.  In any second referendum (if one occurs) this has to be a focus of Remain.  Of course, this is also why the Torries have fought so vehemently against detailed projections and analysis of the impact of Brexit being done.  If it caused (say) a 5% cut in NHS funding and pensions, that would likely sink it. 

I also pretty sceptical of anyone suggesting leave voters will switch votes in a second ref if they see economic downsides to leaving. A second ref does nothing but confirm the fears of Leave voters that their votes really don't count and that the 'establishment' is doing everything it can to prevent democracy. 

The time for convincing people about the benefits of the EU is over. We missed the boat by 2 years. 

[Nevarfeather]

4 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I also pretty sceptical of anyone suggesting leave voters will switch votes in a second ref if they see economic downsides to leaving. A second ref does nothing but confirm the fears of Leave voters that their votes really don't count and that the 'establishment' is doing everything it can to prevent democracy. 

I live in a Leave voting town, support for leave is dropping like the mercury is at the moment, a referendum will see this town voting remain i'd bet my hat on it.  How can a new vote on May's deal be perverting democracy? Democracy is a process and we voted on taking a journey last time - this vote would be on the destination. A new vote. A continuation of democracy. 

 sincerely hope people are give a vote, to deny us a vote would be unforgivable. Especially to those in Scotland and Northern Ireland and Gibraltar who have been ignored for 2 and a half years. 

[Heartofice]

6 minutes ago, Nevarfeather said:

I live in a Leave voting town, support for leave is dropping like the mercury is at the moment, a referendum will see this town voting remain i'd bet my hat on it.  How can a new vote on May's deal be perverting democracy? Democracy is a process and we voted on taking a journey last time - this vote would be on the destination. A new vote. A continuation of democracy. 

 sincerely hope people are give a vote, to deny us a vote would be unforgivable. Especially to those in Scotland and Northern Ireland and Gibraltar who have been ignored for 2 and a half years. 

The problem is there have been tons of polls asking whether people will change their vote, some polls come back suggesting a big remain swing, and some polls come back suggesting nobody is changing their mind. At this point I just don't think we know what would happen.

However, I think were there to be a second referendum it would be very easy to awaken the Leave voters to vote Leave again. A second vote when the first vote has yet to even be implemented is very easy to be seen as a betrayal of democracy and another attempt to keep voting until people vote correctly.

[Ser Reptitious]

5 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I also pretty sceptical of anyone suggesting leave voters will switch votes in a second ref if they see economic downsides to leaving. A second ref does nothing but confirm the fears of Leave voters that their votes really don't count and that the 'establishment' is doing everything it can to prevent democracy. 

The time for convincing people about the benefits of the EU is over. We missed the boat by 2 years. 

 

Why? If Leave voters won't change their mind, as you indicate, then a second referendum will simply confirm the result of the first, thus making it more iron-clad. What are you worried about?

[Pebble thats Stubby]

5 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I also pretty sceptical of anyone suggesting leave voters will switch votes in a second ref if they see economic downsides to leaving. A second ref does nothing but confirm the fears of Leave voters that their votes really don't count and that the 'establishment' is doing everything it can to prevent democracy. 

The time for convincing people about the benefits of the EU is over. We missed the boat by 2 years. 

And what about the strong belief among remain voters that the Referendum vote was stolen by Vote leave breaking the election rules with Spending and being funded by Russia?  If we can't have free and fair Votes then Democracy is already dead.

 

I am not saying that every or even most leave voters were influenced by the illegal Russian interference, the vote was so close a very small minority 2%  was enough.  A 2nd referendum will at least acknowledge what happened and may allow for real democracy to actually happen.

[Heartofice]

6 minutes ago, Ser Reptitious said:

 

Why? If Leave voters won't change their mind, as you indicate, then a second referendum will simply confirm the result of the first, thus making it more iron-clad. What are you worried about?

Who said I am worried? I would probably vote remain in the current climate. 
 

4 minutes ago, Pebble said:

And what about the strong belief among remain voters that the Referendum vote was stolen by Vote leave breaking the election rules with Spending and being funded by Russia?  If we can't have free and fair Votes then Democracy is already dead.

Is this a strong belief? I would hope most people are beyond believing in conspiracy. I haven't seen any evidence that Russian interference had any quantifiable effect on voting. Anti EU sentiment has been a mainstay of British thinking for decades.

 

[Pebble thats Stubby]

As I said they did not need to have much of an influence to change the results.  Just a swing of 2%  I doubt we will ever know how much any interference actually had - how do you tell when someone vote was influence by legitimate means or otherwise?   The only way you will know for certain is to have a parallel world where one obeyed the rules.

2% is such a tiny proportion of voters that it is easy to believe it was enough to swing the vote.

also even if the Arron Banks did not get the money he donated from Russia (the investigation is still ongoing) vote leave still broken election spending rules with the amount spent and has already been fined for this.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44856992 

Is it really a conspiracy to believe something proven by fact?  Leave spent more than the 7m allowed.

 

Then you also have all the Russain bot farms out there.  Maybe you don't believe in these either?

 

 

[Heartofice]

27 minutes ago, Pebble said:

As I said they did not need to have much of an influence to change the results.  Just a swing of 2%  I doubt we will ever know how much any interference actually had - how do you tell when someone vote was influence by legitimate means or otherwise?   The only way you will know for certain is to have a parallel world where one obeyed the rules.

2% is such a tiny proportion of voters that it is easy to believe it was enough to swing the vote.

also even if the Arron Banks did not get the money he donated from Russia (the investigation is still ongoing) vote leave still broken election spending rules with the amount spent and has already been fined for this.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44856992 

Is it really a conspiracy to believe something proven by fact?  Leave spent more than the 7m allowed.

 

Then you also have all the Russain bot farms out there.  Maybe you don't believe in these either?

 

 

I find most of these discussions to be not very worthwhile. Sniping at which side over spent more or used dubious tactics is pretty unhelpful.

For instance is the £9.3 million spent on the government leaflet urging everyone to vote remain that was sent to 27 million people not going to count as unfair advantage? 

I haven't seen anything either by the Electoral commission to suggest the result should be invalidated so honestly I think this path of thinking is a bit of a dead end and simply wishful thinking on the part of some people.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I find most of these discussions to be not very worthwhile. Sniping at which side over spent more or used dubious tactics is pretty unhelpful.

For instance is the £9.3 million spent on the government leaflet urging everyone to vote remain that was sent to 27 million people not going to count as unfair advantage? 

I haven't seen anything either by the Electoral commission to suggest the result should be invalidated so honestly I think this path of thinking is a bit of a dead end and simply wishful thinking on the part of some people.

The government leaflet did not count because it was before the Election time period.  Also Vote leave were asked to provide what they wanted included in that leaflet and refused to send anything.  Probably because it would be fact checked.

However why are my concerns that the result was stolen by leave not as valid as those Leavers thinking a 2nd ref would steel the result from them?

You are probably right that this is a dead end, but that does not mean my concerns are not justified. Or are only the concerns of those worried about immigration valid?  Nice of you to dismiss mine out of hand while preaching we should listen, engage and try to understand immigration phobics.

 

Also why is it I am not surprised dispute your continued claimed support of Remain that anything put forward by remain sided people as "Not worthwhile"  "unhelpful"  or "misses the point"  You appear to be about as much in favour of Remain as Jeremy Corbyn was during the 1st ref. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Strong Leave supporters aren’t going to change their minds, because in all likelihood they got what they wanted. OTOH, the people who voted Leave because they wanted to thumb their nose at the government and/or didn’t understand the issue could very well change their minds. And I think this is the most telling part:  

 

 

[mormont]

Here's why we're all screwed:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/04/most-tory-members-would-choose-no-deal-over-may-brexit-plan

Quote

 

In a three-way referendum, with the options of leaving without a deal, staying in the EU or leaving with May’s deal, 57% preferred leaving without a deal. Only 23% of members said they would vote for May’s deal in a three-way referendum.

The findings were released on Friday by the ESRC-funded party members project, run from Queen Mary University of London and Sussex University.

Just 29% of Tory members would vote for May’s deal, compared with 64% who would vote to leave without a deal, if there was a two-option referendum.

 

The fact is that the only people any politician in the Tory party really cares about are these people, because these people will decide who gets to lead the party. Yet if they get their way, we're all screwed.