UK Politics: The End of May

[Heartofice]

Just now, mormont said:

You seem to think this was a response that deflected the question, but it's actually very revealing. The answer is, quite clearly, 'more than I'm comfortable talking about'. If it weren't, you'd give a straight answer.

You can say what you like about the errors of those who accuse Brexiteers of racism. But if you keep ducking the issue when asked about it yourself, well, to coin a phrase:

I would note, in passing, something I've said before - that it's not necessary for someone to be consciously racist to actually be racist. Most Brexit party voters are not consciously racist.

Everyone is unconsciously racist so I’m  ot sure what you are getting at.

[Werthead]

8 hours ago, Heartofice said:

There is certainly a pretty coherent view of a how a post Brexit Britain would exist

And alas, after 44 years, no-one has yet been able to articulate it. No one at all. How tragic.

Quote

 

There might be a level of nostalgia involved by Brexit voters, but it is nostalgia for a time before Britain signed up to numerous European treaties to gradually chipped away at its own ability to govern itself, and moved democratic power ever further away from the individual British voter. 

 

What fantastical time was this? The 18th Century?

Have you ever actually studied British or European history? Ever?

Quote

 

I just find it ironic that so many in here keep trotting out the same ignorant tropes 3 years after the vote

 

So why do you continue doing so? You keep trotting out the same cliches about Brexit voters' "feelings" which have been reduced to dust by actual facts, figures and statistics, and hey presto, twenty-four hours later you do the exact same thing again, if your arguments weren't the worst case of cliched, Spitfires-over-the-white-cliffs-of-Dover drivel.

 

Quote

 

Clearly every area and community has its traditions and cultures that it cherishs and feels proud and that is pretty normal.

 

So "normal" that you are utterly flummoxed every time someone has asked you to articulate what they are, apparently.

Once again, what part of British culture has been damaged by the arrival of white, mostly Christian Eastern Europeans in a white, nominally Christian Western European country? I've been discussing this with my Lithuanian and Romanian housemates and they also await your, no doubt thorough and articulate, answer with bated breath.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

9 hours ago, Heartofice said:

There might be a level of nostalgia involved by Brexit voters, but it is nostalgia for a time before Britain signed up to numerous European treaties to gradually chipped away at its own ability to govern itself, and moved democratic power ever further away from the individual British voter. 

Here in America, many conservatives vote based on nostalgia. Nostalgia for the 1950's, when white Christen men had a 100% stranglehold on power, minorities were kept down with no rights and women were kept in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. They might not consciously be trying to act like racists and sexists, but the end result of their desires is racist and sexist. 

This is exactly what's happening in your country. Open your damn eyes. Saying you want to go back to a better time is just a kinder way of saying you want to go back to a time when "the others" had fewer rights and status with country having a paler shade of hue.

[Which Tyler]

Can't believe no-one's posted this yet: https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/brexit-party-tells-sikh-mep-to-go-home-1-6074057

Definitive proof that the name change from UKIP to the B(n)P left all the racists behind...

[polishgenius]

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Everyone is unconsciously racist so I’m  ot sure what you are getting at. 

I think he's getting at that when most people have it pointed out that they've said or done something subconsciously or unintentionally racist, or allied themselves with racists, they'll do what they can to cut it out or fix it, but you're stubbornly denying it's even a problem.

'But he did it so why can't I' is a child's answer anyway.

[BigFatCoward]

Donald says Boris would be a good PM, that's good enough for me. 

[Rippounet]

12 hours ago, Heartofice said:

So nobodies culture or traditions have any value?

I'm tempted to say the short answer to that question is: no.
The longer answer would be that anyone who feels that culture or tradition(s) should be defended should be the first to keep them alive and encourage others to do the same, without hating those who don't care or don't want to.
Things change, and they change fast. Just a few decades ago almost everyone would get married in churches but most of the weddings I've been to were civil affairs. Otoh most of my interactions with others today take place through technology that didn't exist a few decades ago.
Many of the people who hate those who come from different cultures are lost in the new realities of our modern societies. They seek to cling to the familiar, the traditional, forgetting that the traditional tends to fade anyway, and has no inherent merit in the first place.
Religious weddings are horrible. Seriously, sitting 2 hours for mass in latin? What value does that have? I'll take two hours of buddhist meditation any day. Same point, different means.

[Heartofice]

12 hours ago, Werthead said:

And alas, after 44 years, no-one has yet been able to articulate it. No one at all. How tragic.

Not sure why you continue to use this 44 year figure so often. You know full well that the EU that Britain joined many years ago bares little resemblance to the one we are leaving now, and will be massively different in the future. 

Anyway I’ll skip most of your post as it just you not really saying anything and just attempting humour and bad faith arguments.

Ill skip to the bit at the end because it’s worth clarifying. 

Culture and traditions are fluid, that is correct. They change over time. It’s not a coincidence that curry has become a national dish. But at the same time that doesn’t mean that there is no such thing as a national identity, set of values, history and tradition that most people are proud of. For a lot of Brits it might a lot of things, maybe it’s fish and chips, maybe it’s a Sunday roast, curry, maybe it’s an obsession with talking about the weather, politeness, saying sorry, maybe it’s a football team, maybe it’s a sense of location, family history, their accent, the way they dress, what they do on the weekend. I don’t know, it could be a lot of things. We know one of the most common factors amongst Brexit voters was that they valued their sense of place , their national identity and traditions and we know those things are less valued amongst remain voters.

Lots of Brits are not comfortable with the amount of change happening in the country, and there has been a large change. Over ten years the foreign born population of the UK almost doubled. We do have problems with integrating new people and we have plenty of ghettos where communities simply do not mix .That’s not healthy.

So yeah, immigration and integration is a form of cultural exchange, with both sides taking bits from each other. You at least need to give the sense that is happening but that is difficult if things happen too quickly, if whole areas change within a few years. You make the issue worse by telling Brits that their culture has no value, that their national identity that they base a lot of their sense of community and worth on means nothing.

I don’t believe this is about racism, when polled most people are fine with immigration, they tend to accept immigrants. But there are a lot of people for whom there is a limit to how quickly that change can happen.

So getting back to what this is all about. The question is really ‘why are people having to vote for the Brexit party’ . The lazy answer is that they must be racist or there is some underground conspiracy or secret money. But the truth is that the main parties and media didn’t listen to people when they said they were uncomfortable with the rapid change, that they valued stability and tradition. So they went with the parties who listened. It seems a lot of people are still not listening and find it easier to mis characterise people 

 

[maarsen]

12 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Not sure why you continue to use this 44 year figure so often. You know full well that the EU that Britain joined many years ago bares little resemblance to the one we are leaving now, and will be massively different in the future. 

Anyway I’ll skip most of your post as it just you not really saying anything and just attempting humour and bad faith arguments.

Ill skip to the bit at the end because it’s worth clarifying. 

Culture and traditions are fluid, that is correct. They change over time. It’s not a coincidence that curry has become a national dish. But at the same time that doesn’t mean that there is no such thing as a national identity, set of values, history and tradition that most people are proud of. For a lot of Brits it might a lot of things, maybe it’s fish and chips, maybe it’s a Sunday roast, curry, maybe it’s an obsession with talking about the weather, politeness, saying sorry, maybe it’s a football team, maybe it’s a sense of location, family history, their accent, the way they dress, what they do on the weekend. I don’t know, it could be a lot of things. We know one of the most common factors amongst Brexit voters was that they valued their sense of place , their national identity and traditions and we know those things are less valued amongst remain voters.

Lots of Brits are not comfortable with the amount of change happening in the country, and there has been a large change. Over ten years the foreign born population of the UK almost doubled. We do have problems with integrating new people and we have plenty of ghettos where communities simply do not mix .That’s not healthy.

So yeah, immigration and integration is a form of cultural exchange, with both sides taking bits from each other. You at least need to give the sense that is happening but that is difficult if things happen too quickly, if whole areas change within a few years. You make the issue worse by telling Brits that their culture has no value, that their national identity that they base a lot of their sense of community and worth on means nothing.

I don’t believe this is about racism, when polled most people are fine with immigration, they tend to accept immigrants. But there are a lot of people for whom there is a limit to how quickly that change can happen.

So getting back to what this is all about. The question is really ‘why are people having to vote for the Brexit party’ . The lazy answer is that they must be racist or there is some underground conspiracy or secret money. But the truth is that the main parties and media didn’t listen to people when they said they were uncomfortable with the rapid change, that they valued stability and tradition. So they went with the parties who listened. It seems a lot of people are still not listening and find it easier to mis characterise people 

 

And then they vote for the party that lies loudly and strongly that only they can stop the tide of change? Change is gonna come and no amount of wishful thinking will stop or reverse it. 

[Heartofice]

5 minutes ago, maarsen said:

And then they vote for the party that lies loudly and strongly that only they can stop the tide of change? Change is gonna come and no amount of wishful thinking will stop or reverse it. 

So basically what you are saying is that large scale mass immigration is inevitable and people should put up and shut up?

 

If so, good luck with that strategy, its been tried and it doesn't work.

[maarsen]

1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

So basically what you are saying is that large scale mass immigration is inevitable and people should put up and shut up?

Show me a time in history that did not have mass migrations of people. Where do you think the Celts came from? 

Climate change will, and has, driven migrations for centuries. The Romans could not stop it and neither will anyone else. Change is inevitable so stop whining. I live in a country, Canada, defined and created by mass migrations. If anything it makes a stronger more resilient country.

[Heartofice]

11 minutes ago, maarsen said:

Show me a time in history that did not have mass migrations of people. Where do you think the Celts came from? 

I'm not sure you want to start using examples from history to back up your argument. Saxons coming over and wiping out the native born population, or the romans and normans subjugating the natives isn't something you want to be using as a positive example of immigration.

[Ser Reptitious]

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

But the truth is that the main parties and media didn’t listen to people when they said they were uncomfortable with the rapid change, that they valued stability and tradition. So they went with the parties who listened. It seems a lot of people are still not listening and find it easier to mis characterise people 

 

See, here's the thing: what has really been the driver of rapid change over the past two decades - rapid technologies advances (combined with the dying of certain traditional industries) or the new Polish neighbours next door? 

What kind of change have the Poles (and the Romanians, etc.) caused? You say that too many of them arrived too quickly. Okay, but how have they actually changed British society, beyond simply being there? For starters, they are white and Christians, so its not like they will impact British society in those areas. Are they refusing to learn English? Are they creating Polish ghettos, where non-Poles are not welcome? Are they forcing their food and customs onto the British?

On the other hand, I think we can all agree that over the past two decades there have been rapid technological advances (internet, social media, phones, to name a few obvious ones) that have deeply disrupted the 'old way of doing things'. The globalization of trade has also resulted in the closing down of many industries that were the life blood of communities in places like Wales and northern England. It's understandable that these places feel "left behind". 

But the sad and harsh reality is that the rapid technological advances and the globalization of trade cannot really be undone. Yet that is understandably not a message these people want to hear. And since immigrants from the Eastern EU started arriving in that same time period, it isn't too difficult for snake oil salesmen like Farage to convince them that these immigrants are the cause of their problems, rather than just a convenient scapegoat, by conflating their presence with the economic hardships suffered by these areas. But anyone actually taking an objective view of the situation should quickly realize that kicking out the EU immigrants (or at least greatly reducting their numbers) will have little to no impact on the economic fortunes of these areas.

Thus, while many of these "left behind" people may indeed perhaps not be motivated (consciously, at least) by racism, if they are willing to give racist-seeming solutions a try in a desperate (and obviously doomed) effort to turn back the clock on their economic fortunes, they have to accept the accompanying stigma and responsibility that comes from following a pied piper with a racist agenda. 

[DanteGabriel]

I'd say the increasing accumulation of wealth at the top and the shrinking margins for the middle class probably have a lot to do with people's anxiety as well, but the oligarchs' ability to convincing the stupid and uninformed to blame immigrants and other marginalized communities is the wellspring of right wing political power and the reason for the populist surge around the world.

[Heartofice]

Most polling suggests the people are less concerned about economics than you think. In fact people would be happy to take an economic hit to be able to control immigration 

[Maltaran]

35 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Most polling suggests the people are less concerned about economics than you think. In fact people would be happy to take an economic hit to be able to control immigration 

Unfortunately the economic hit cannot only be confined to those people 

[Liffguard]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Most polling suggests the people are less concerned about economics than you think. In fact people would be happy to take an economic hit to be able to control immigration 

Not the first time I've read this. I'd be curious to read the wording in the polls that suggested this. My suspicion is that if you ask them in abstract terms then they'll say they're willing to take an economic hit in order to reduce immigration (e.g. reduce GDP growth by 1%, or something like that). But they might not be so enthusiastic if you ask if they would personally give up their jobs and accept a significantly harder time in finding another one, with lower wages even if they are successful.

[BigFatCoward]

1 hour ago, Maltaran said:

Unfortunately the economic hit cannot only be confined to those people 

I'd love to see that challenged, 'our company is less successful and we have to lay some people off, you were mouthy as fuck on Facebook about being pro Brexit, see you later'. 

[mormont]

20 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Everyone is unconsciously racist so I’m  ot sure what you are getting at.

To varying degrees. And some of those people recognise and address their unconscious biases: while a lot of damage is done by those who furiously deny them, and insist that their unconscious racial biases are objective facts about the world.

If you were to reflect more and argue less, you might even detect that happening quite close to home.

[DanteGabriel]

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Most polling suggests the people are less concerned about economics than you think. In fact people would be happy to take an economic hit to be able to control immigration 

So I guess Brexit really was about vague and poorly defined sentiments about "tradition" and "culture" that definitely aren't adjacent to racism and xenophobia. Here's a phrase you might want to try out to defend your ideological bent in the future: "Heritage, not hate!"

But if I generously accept your so far unsupported assertion that economic concerns are not a big deal, why did Boris et al feel compelled to lie so often about what the UK pays in to the EU then?