Brexit: give me a positive effect... IX

[TheDecameron]

Leavers voted emotionally and not rationally and remainders after the result did the same , since leave won by lying, NHS, Turkey joining the EU, cheating through funding, and probable interference from Russia, its difficult not to get emotionally upset about that and I am not sure how to overcome it since if you don’t get upset about lies and cheating they will continue.

Brexit is the greatest Russian foreign policy triumph of the past twenty years. Trump is more eye catching but the fruits haven’t quite come through yet ( Biden will repair Trump’s damage to NATO) in the same way that they have for Europe and particularly Britain.

“The Russian Ambassador at the time, Alexander Yakovenko, returned to Moscow last year to be awarded the Alexander Nevsky Order of Merit from Putin. He is reported to have told colleagues: “We have crushed the British to the ground. They are on their knees and will not rise for a very long time.”
https://bylinetimes.com/2020/07/21/...o-investigate-russian-interference-in-brexit/

 

[Seanm]

Brexit is the greatest Russian foreign policy triumph of the past twenty years. Trump is more eye catching but the fruits haven’t quite come through yet ( Biden will repair Trump’s damage to NATO) in the same way that they have for Europe and particularly Britain.

“The Russian Ambassador at the time, Alexander Yakovenko, returned to Moscow last year to be awarded the Alexander Nevsky Order of Merit from Putin. He is reported to have told colleagues: “We have crushed the British to the ground. They are on their knees and will not rise for a very long time.”
https://bylinetimes.com/2020/07/21/...o-investigate-russian-interference-in-brexit/

 

[TheDecameron]

In a spooky parallel-
“On 12 Dec 2019, Boris Johnson crushed Labour to the ground. They are on their knees and will not rise for a very long time”.

 

[Rob998]

The comment you made was true, but only told a small part of the story, to sell your idea. A bit like a used car salesman

 

[Brian]

You gave them that opportunity. It was a mistake.

Nobody forces these individuals to ignore a valid point, however uncomfortable that point may be. It kills discussion. I think there is a thread somewhere about cancel culture with a few examples of irony from hard remainers.

The comment you made was true, but only told a small part of the story, to sell your idea. A bit like a used car salesman focusing on misleading specs or by deliberately omitting certain important factors that may not result in a sale if divulged. Only in your case the omissions were so bloody obvious that many members then went on to point them out.

The point I made was just that character trait I mentioned and nothing else. I’m glad you at least agree it is a fair comparison. It most definitely is.

What you call the omissions were obvious, so in actual fact there was no need to mention them. Whataboutism is just another regular card used by hard remainers.

 

[stephen bennett]

My understanding of the rules for referendums is that an advisory referendum requires only a simple majority to carry the day. Whereas a referendum which is binding, particularly one that relates to something significant like treaty change, requires either a supermajority or a majority of the electorate in order to effect the change.

The circumstances of this referendum, given that it would lead to treaty change and significant outcomes, ought to have required a supermajority. However, the government said, in the enabling legislation for it, that it was advisory only, hence just a simple majority would suffice. The implication of an advisory referendum is that the government will take the outcome of the vote as an indication of the WOTP, but reserves to itself the actual decision.

In this case, though, the government then pulled a fast one by stating, after the enabling legislation passed but before the vote itself, that it would implement the outcome. This was a political statement, and in effect sidestepped the measures in the legislation designed to protect against misuse.

The government was not bound in law to implement the vote, but was bound by political considerations to do so. This was, by any standards, sharp practice and looked like a ruse to get round the requirements.

A different Government to the one that ran the referendum implemented the exit as well.

They were not bound by Cameron’s promises.

Funny how Governments are not bound by any promises they make apart from Brexit which is sacrosanct.

Stephen

 

[Seanm]

In a spooky parallel-
“On 12 Dec 2019, Boris Johnson crushed Labour to the ground. They are on their knees and will not rise for a very long time”.

A body blow for the dastardly Putin and his puppet Seumas Milne, surely.

 

[Nick_G]

Nobody forces these individuals to ignore a valid point, however uncomfortable that point may be. It kills discussion. I think there is a thread somewhere about cancel culture with a few examples of irony from hard remainers.


The point I made was just that character trait I mentioned and nothing else. I’m glad you at least agree it is a fair comparison. It most definitely is.

What you call the omissions were obvious, so in actual fact there was no need to mention them. Whataboutism is just another regular card used by hard remainers.

No Brian. "Hard remainer" is the term you use to describe a character trait. Comparing them to Trump supporters is going beyond describing a character trait, and I suspect you knew very well you'd get the reactions that you did. It's disingenuous.

 

[TheDecameron]

A body blow for the dastardly Putin and his puppet Seumas Milne, surely.

Have we not done the Labour autopsy thread already? The Labour -coulda shoulda been -Brexit, the one their own voters turned their backs on and instead voted for Boris Johnson’s party in their droves only a year ago? Surely it’s time to move on, embrace the fruits of Brexit.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

The comment I made is entirely accurate, it was not a mistake, the characteristic I highlighted is common to hard remainers and Trump supporters. Such behaviour is anti democratic and unacceptable.

The opportunity some members have seized upon, and it is predictable who those members are, is to allow some to feign offence, indignation and to infer I made false equivalence as a means of avoiding acknowledging the reality of their position. I said what I said, no more and no less and it is accurate. I did not say remain supporters have killed anyone, though I expected a hard remainer to dive straight in with that one. Not much I could do to stop it as these people are very prone to ‘whataboutism’ rather than admit to anything.

The comment you made was true, but only told a small part of the story, to sell your idea. A bit like a used car salesman focusing on misleading specs or by deliberately omitting certain important factors that may not result in a sale if divulged. Only in your case the omissions were so bloody obvious that many members then went on to point them out.

The point I made was just that character trait I mentioned and nothing else. I’m glad you at least agree it is a fair comparison. It most definitely is.

What you call the omissions were obvious, so in actual fact there was no need to mention them. Whataboutism is just another regular card used by hard remainers.

No Brian. "Hard remainer" is the term you use to describe a character trait. Comparing them to Trump supporters is going beyond describing a character trait, and I suspect you knew very well you'd get the reactions that you did. It's disingenuous.

"I said what I said, no more and no less..."

"The point I made was just that character trait I mentioned and nothing else..."

And yet, you immediately then agree that what Nick G describes as omissions (and I might call implicit slurs) are 'obvious'. Therefore, we were intended to extend the comparison into the much more insulting and offensive associations we made. That was what you think, and what you implied, and you acknowledge that. So much for your disingenuous 'all the inferences and offence are in your heads' stuff. And Drood's suggestion that this was your mistake is itself mistaken. You didn't 'give us that opportunity', you served it up and expected us to respond to it. It's what you do. You're a provocateur and a troll. You wrap it in lofty 'I'm considerably more honest and full of integrity than yow', but that's not what you're full of, as far as I can see.

 

[Seanm]

Have we not done the Labour autopsy thread already? The Labour -coulda shoulda been -Brexit, the one their own voters turned their backs on and instead voted for Boris Johnson’s party in their droves only a year ago? Surely it’s time to move on, embrace the fruits of Brexit.

Ah come on Hugh, it's not me that keeps bringing up Labour and their crushing defeat is it, it's you, and in a very "One World Cup and two world wars!" kind of way, if I may say. Millions of words written on that defeat by now. Much less on Remain's mis-steps. I'm chiefly here to troll of course, but I do find it remarkable that people are still defending the "Rematch!" strategy and blaming everything on a foreign pantomime villain. I mean, in hindsight, where did that get us.

 

[Tony L]

I'm chiefly here to troll of course, but I do find it remarkable that people are still defending the "Rematch!" strategy and blaming everything on a foreign pantomime villain. I mean, in hindsight, where did that get us.

I maintain we are where we are because we did not have credible political opposition to an obviously right-wing nationalist project. I point the finger firmly at Labour, a party that has been on the wrong side of history for most of my voting life. Labour losing Brexit by not even bothering to make the counter arguments is far more significant to my mind than an institutionally racist and class-warrior Tory party winning by just doing what they do on a day to day basis.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Ah come on Hugh, it's not me that keeps bringing up Labour and their crushing defeat is it, it's you, and in a very "One World Cup and two world wars!" kind of way, if I may say. Millions of words written on that defeat by now. Much less on Remain's mis-steps. I'm chiefly here to troll of course, but I do find it remarkable that people are still defending the "Rematch!" strategy and blaming everything on a foreign pantomime villain. I mean, in hindsight, where did that get us.

Hindsight, of course, is great. The strategy didn't work, but at the time it felt like the right thing to do. So I defend my support for the strategy, at the time, based on what I knew or believed. (FTAOD I'm referring to the confirmatory referendum 'People's Vote' strategy).

And let's not forget Labour and it's 5-D chess manoeuvrings. Only somebody such as yourself could make sense of that, to many of us it was impenetrable political doublethink, so at least some of the blame for not turning away from the strategy has to lie with those, like you, who failed to explain why it was not a good strategy.

Did your party even know, then, that it wasn't a good strategy, or is that just more hindsight?

 

[Seanm]

Hindsight, of course, is great. The strategy didn't work, but at the time it felt like the right thing to do. So I defend my support for the strategy, at the time, based on what I knew or believed. (FTAOD I'm referring to the confirmatory referendum 'People's Vote' strategy).

And let's not forget Labour and it's 5-D chess manoeuvrings. Only somebody such as yourself could make sense of that, to many of us it was impenetrable political doublethink, so at least some of the blame for not turning away from the strategy has to lie with those, like you, who failed to explain why it was not a good strategy.

Did your party even know, then, that it wasn't a good strategy, or is that just more hindsight?

Well I was wrong, wasn't I: I thought that a 2nd vote was probably the way to go. I convinced myself that the more people saw of Brexit of the less they'd like it, and that working class supporters would peel away from the Tory golf club types. Duh. Of course people saw a 2nd vote as an attempt to steal a win from them; of course they took it as proof that Labour wasn't listening to them. It was very hard for me to admit all this because it meant that the likes of Stephen Kinnock were right all along, but I sucked it up.

The only thing I was right about was that Putin and Cambridge Analytica had f-all to do with any of it!

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Well I was wrong, wasn't I: I thought that a 2nd vote was probably the way to go. I convinced myself that the more people saw of Brexit of the less they'd like it, and that working class supporters would peel away from the Tory golf club types. Duh. Of course people saw a 2nd vote as an attempt to steal a win from them; of course they took it as proof that Labour wasn't listening to them. It was very hard for me to admit all this because it meant that the likes of Stephen Kinnock were right all along, but I sucked it up.

I'm rather unconvinced about the 'of course's in there. If it'd been clear at the time, people would have taken heed. It's the magic of hindsight. So, while I know you're mostly trolling (and I don't approve, there's enough of that without the more thoughtful members joining in), I think that what it mostly shows is that politics is the art of the unpredictable. It's not easy to predict what will resonate, with whom. Better minds than us all thought the 2nd vote was both democratic, and the best way through the lake of shit we were in, so I refuse to beat myself up about the fact that I agreed with them. And I'm not going to let anybody else, even you, use it against me either.

 

[eternumviti]

...It's disingenuous.

Christ, I wondered what that noise was, I though it was another one of those sonic booms, but was just the clattering of pots and kettles falling off the rack!

 

[Nick_G]

Well I was wrong, wasn't I: I thought that a 2nd vote was probably the way to go. I convinced myself that the more people saw of Brexit of the less they'd like it, and that working class supporters would peel away from the Tory golf club types. Duh. Of course people saw a 2nd vote as an attempt to steal a win from them; of course they took it as proof that Labour wasn't listening to them. It was very hard for me to admit all this because it meant that the likes of Stephen Kinnock were right all along, but I sucked it up.

The only thing I was right about was that Putin and Cambridge Analytica had f-all to do with any of it!

Regarding, Putin, how do you know Sean? The report said that the government “had not seen or sought evidence of successful interference in UK democratic processes,” so if they hadn't looked for the evidence, it's not surprising that nothing turned up.

 

[Nick_G]

Christ, I wondered what that noise was, I though it was another one of those sonic booms, but was just the clattering of pots and kettles falling off the rack!

No it was just the scream of cognitive dissonance inside your head.

 

[kabayiri]

Remain lost the Brexit vote because they could not offer a compelling vision for the 17.4m.
What's complicated about that?

It really doesn't matter that the kids in your circle can study in Utrecht inside the EU, not to someone who thinks they have lost income and work due EU migration (in one of the many forgotten parts of the country).

A strategy of 4 years of slagging them off is not going to win them back.

 

[Seanm]

I'm rather unconvinced about the 'of course's in there. If it'd been clear at the time, people would have taken heed. It's the magic of hindsight. So, while I know you're mostly trolling (and I don't approve, there's enough of that without the more thoughtful members joining in), I think that what it mostly shows is that politics is the art of the unpredictable. It's not easy to predict what will resonate, with whom. Better minds than us all thought the 2nd vote was both democratic, and the best way through the lake of shit we were in, so I refuse to beat myself up about the fact that I agreed with them. And I'm not going to let anybody else, even you, use it against me either.

It was clear to those in close contact with non-urban working class constituencies, including (God help us) some of the worst dunderheads in the PLP. It was much less clear to the Labour membership, which skews urban and middle class. It really was a perspectival trick. Very clear to many of my friends, for instance, who were tearing their hair out. I was like, "Nah! People are starting to see through Johnson!" Pure wishful thinking. It was also possible to arrive at the right conclusion from first principles, namely: don't fck with referendums. That's close to being a natural law. I sort of knew this but persuaded myself it could be suspended. Again, wilful self-delusion.

None of has to beat ourselves up about any of this, but there's definitely a learning opportunity here.