The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[chrisp65]

So, from the last few pages of retrospective, I’ve learned that there were two main reasons for leaving the EU:

1 we couldn’t make progress as one nation could block attempts to change the system by others

2 we couldn’t stop the head long charge for domination by France and Germany

As clear an argument today, as it’s ever been.

 

[StefanAVFC]

One more point, people can celebrate leaving the EU all they like, but they also must acknowledge their bed fellows; Farage now, mission accomplished, has moved onto his next grift. Anti lockdown, anti vax. 

I think it's pretty naive to think that the leaders of the push to leave, did it for any greater good or for any reasons other than their own self-serving causes. 

[StefanAVFC]

(Sorry one more)

On this 'establishment wanting to overturn the glorious will of the people' nonsense

Remain wins, do Farage, backbenchers et al stop campaigning and bleating about leaving the EU? Yeah right. Will they be accused of the same charge as directed as remainers. Of course not  

People were, and remain, angry at losing their rights against their will, especially on the back of lies, false promises and propaganda. 

Edited January 3, 2021 by StefanAVFC

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

It is a paradox to me that those who often (and rightly) shout loudest about the need for political change push back hardest against it when the opportunity arises.

Change isn't good if it's the wrong change and it just allows for opportunities (against which 'push back' might well be the only option) for the consolidation of power and wealth in the hands of a few cronies.

It is a paradox to me that people who claim to care about 'taking back control', to object to shoddy deals done behind closed doors and to have issues with democratic deficits are lauding the 'change' that is occurring politically and beyond in this country. It's either a paradox or it shows these claims up as a sham.

Edited January 3, 2021 by snowychap
oppp

[ml1dch]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

It is a paradox to me that those who often (and rightly) shout loudest about the need for political change push back hardest against it when the opportunity arises.    

That's not really a paradox unless the change they are shouting about is an undefined, amorphous concept. While that is clearly the case for some, I'd like to think that plenty of people (you included) have a direction they are looking at. 

If the political change that I'm looking for (it isn't) is "the UK at the centre of a federal Europe" then pushing back against this particular form of change is probably a good idea. 

A less extreme example, as per Blandy's excellent post above, the larger issue is at a Westminster level. The "political change" we are currently seeing is concentrating more power and less accountability in Westminster. 

Why would someone who would prefer executive control to be curtailed rather than enhanced not push back on the current situation?

[Awol]

@Blandy, thanks, as you say there’s more than one reading of history. On that note, just to reinforce the point that politicos didn’t magic anti-EU membership feeling from thin air in 2015/16, the wiki page below shows solid support for leaving back in 2010, 11 & 12.  At that point being anti-EU membership was treated with similar credence in mainstream elite circles as the flat-earth society.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum

 

[StefanAVFC]

2 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Why would someone who would prefer executive control to be curtailed rather than enhanced not push back on the current situation?

Simple answer, boring and sad. Because their side won. But they will be the ones bleating loudest once their opposition gets into power and governs in exactly the same way. 

[StefanAVFC]

2 minutes ago, Awol said:

@Blandy, thanks, as you say there’s more than one reading of history. On that note, just to reinforce the point that politicos didn’t magic anti-EU membership feeling from thin air in 2015/16, the wiki page below shows solid support for leaving back in 2010, 11 & 12.  At that point being anti-EU membership was treated with similar credence in mainstream elite circles as the flat-earth society.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum

 

Curious that the polls for 2014, 2015 and 2016 are omitted from your post. 

Also do you have any data to support these polls? Where? Which pollster? How many people asked?

[blandy]

Tangential really, but anyway my kind of core thing I hope for in politicians (people doing a job) is competence. So if it was the case that we had a set of highly competent politicians running the Country, but being stifled in their ability by a sclerotic civil service, then you could just about see an argument for giving these talented individuals more freedom to employ their ability for the benefit of the nation. There is an obvious downside in changing the structure to allow that, in that the next lot may be useless and then you're worse off, but anyway...

The thing is we don't have a talented bunch of highly competent Ministers - we have a particularly untalented useless bunch, and while the civil service does need reform, the people doing the reforming are the useless Ministers, who are at the same time gifting themselves more power to visit their incompetence on us. We've got ideological numpties breaking things. It's really not good.

[Awol]

Just now, StefanAVFC said:

Curious that the polls for 2014, 2015 and 2016 are omitted from your post. 

Also do you have any data to support these polls? Where? Which pollster? How many people asked?

Not curious at all, just demonstrating the early assertions about no popular support for leaving before the Tories got onboard aren’t factually correct. They were followers, not leaders.

If you want to dissect the individual polling from the wiki page, be my guest. 

[Awol]

Show me a non-ideological politician and I’ll show you a manager. If they don’t believe in ideas they’re in the wrong job. 

[StefanAVFC]

3 minutes ago, Awol said:

Not curious at all, just demonstrating the early assertions about no popular support for leaving before the Tories got onboard aren’t factually correct. They were followers, not leaders.

If you want to dissect the individual polling from the wiki page, be my guest. 

I'm not the one making claims we were a eurosceptic nation before the ref. We were an immigration wary nation for sure, but eurosceptic? I dont see it. 

[blandy]

6 minutes ago, Awol said:

@Blandy, thanks, as you say there’s more than one reading of history. On that note, just to reinforce the point that politicos didn’t magic anti-EU membership feeling from thin air in 2015/16, the wiki page below shows solid support for leaving back in 2010, 11 & 12.  At that point being anti-EU membership was treated with similar credence in mainstream elite circles as the flat-earth society.

Yeah, sure. It goes back further than that - it was after Farage took over as UKIP leader that the anti EU stuff started building, I think. I need to go and do some jobs, so haven't time to research, but I'd guess it started rising at the end of Blair/Brown 's time as PMs? Once new Labour fell out of favour really. We had the tories not really being popular, and there was the gap which Farage started to exploit, and this grew from then on. UKIP was not able to get anyone elected to Parliament on the back of it (another reason why FPTP is bad - "minority" parties don't get the representation they deserve - people who vote for them have wasted votes).

[snowychap]

12 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

The "political change" we are currently seeing is concentrating more power and less accountability in Westminster.

I think it's significant that this appears to be largely okay with a lot of Brexit supporters.

[StefanAVFC]

2 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I think it's significant that this appears to be largely okay with a lot of Brexit supporters.

Until someone they don't like is in power and it's a huge issue again. 

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, Awol said:

Show me a non-ideological politician and I’ll show you a manager. If they don’t believe in ideas they’re in the wrong job. 

The difficulty with that is the collision between ideology and reality - it's where the two meet. IN once sense you're right that ideology is "believing in something" - the point I'm trying to make is that (in politics) the job is to consider all the details and create an outcome. What we have with this lot is that compromise is not an option - they are ideological about one thing to the exclusion of everything else. Where you have a situation in which different issues meet they need to be rounded and considered in their thinking, and they are demonstrably not. Zealots, basically.

[Awol]

7 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

I'm not the one making claims we were a eurosceptic nation before the ref. We were an immigration wary nation for sure, but eurosceptic? I dont see it. 

“Show me the evidence!”

.....

”Not that evidence, dammit!” 

Lol. 

[ml1dch]

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

UKIP was not able to get anyone elected to Parliament on the back of it (another reason why FPTP is bad - "minority" parties don't get the representation they deserve - people who vote for them have wasted votes).

Minor point of order - one person.

That absolute moron Douglas Carswell was elected as a UKIP candidate in a 2014 by-election that he triggered, and then held the seat in 2015.

[StefanAVFC]

2 minutes ago, Awol said:

“Show me the evidence!”

.....

”Not that evidence, dammit!” 

Lol. 

Not quite. 

You presented evidence, I asked for clarification and you told me to look for it myself. That's not how it works. Burden of proof is on you. 

[StefanAVFC]

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

They are ideological about one thing to the exclusion of everything else. Where you have a situation in which different issues meet they need to be rounded and considered in their thinking, and they are demonstrably not. Zealots, basically.

Exactly. In this case it was leaving the EU at all costs. 

The 52-48 split, the only logical and fair approach would have been a soft Norway style approach but as immigration as a wider (not just EU) issue was weaponized to the extent it was, it was always sold as a betrayal or not leaving the EU by the zealots you referenced above, cheered on by the propaganda-pushing mainstream print media. 

Edited January 3, 2021 by StefanAVFC