UK Politics

I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of people when they have a camera stuck in their face have very little to say that's coherent. I don't really know what people thought/think; I'm guessing they certainly didn't anticipate this shitstorm though i.e. how difficult the "negotiation" would turn out. I don't recall any of this being discussed pre-vote.
 
The beauty of the "Leave" campaign was that they used microtargeting campaigns to make "Leave" mean whatever the viewer wanted it to mean. If you supported a Hard Brexit they spammed your Facebook with ads suggesting that would occur. If you wanted a softer Brexit, they hit you with ads that suggested that the UK would have a strong negotiated had. As a result, people picked Leave believing their preferred option would be what was sought by the government.
 
I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of people when they have a camera stuck in their face have very little to say that's coherent. I don't really know what people thought/think; I'm guessing they certainly didn't anticipate this shitstorm though i.e. how difficult the "negotiation" would turn out. I don't recall any of this being discussed pre-vote.
The majority of Leave voters does not mind what was discussed. Leave means Leave.
 
But the real advantage of the Leave campaign was that people had their prejudices long before a referendum was ever on the cards, so they needed no persuading. I honestly don't think late in the day campaigning or marketing did much at all, the bias existed since at least the Maastricht Treaty, and was indulged by the more reactionary press to win cheap brownie points with customers. The EU became a figurehead scapegoat for all kinds of other issues, absolutely none of which are actually being addressed.
 
But the real advantage of the Leave campaign was that people had their prejudices long before a referendum was ever on the cards, so they needed no persuading. I honestly don't think late in the day campaigning or marketing did much at all, the bias existed since at least the Maastricht Treaty, and was indulged by the more reactionary press to win cheap brownie points with customers. The EU became a figurehead scapegoat for all kinds of other issues, absolutely none of which are actually being addressed.
Yep. A biased group scapegoated the EU, Wingman. Without a master plan, let alone a realistic idea about it.
 
Yep. A biased group scapegoated the EU, Wingman. Without a master plan, let alone a realistic idea about it.
More than just a group. A heck of a lot of people who are peed off with the general state of affairs. Isn't that what's going on across most of the Western world at the moment?
 
Yes, but @Forostar has a wife, kids and a band. I assume sometimes he has to prioritize those over watching politicians on Youtube :D

On topic: Now that Parliament is voting down one option after the other, is there any option left that has not been subjected to a parliamentary vote yet? Hard Brexit, no thanks. May's deal, no thanks, new referendum, no thanks ...

For you Brits on here - do you have an impression of what kind of Brexit the Leave voters (or the majority of them) wanted? Was it believed that a reasonable deal could be made before exiting, or was the idea already back in 2016 a full Ctrl-Alt-Delete of the relations to the rest of Europe, i.e. what is now labeled as a hard Brexit?

What the last few months have shown, is that a simple remain/leave referendum was a bad idea, since the manner of leaving was not clear. Paul Simon should write a new song, titled "50 ways to leave the EU" ... because with 50 options, there should at least be one that would satisfy the pro-Brexit camp enough that they could gather around it.

I think they're going to get no deal.

And then post-Brexit they will have to open negotiations again and all the options they turned down now will be the ones on the table.
 
I think you can be safely pro-EU and believe it is the best option for Britain. I am certainly in that camp.

I also happen to believe in European federalism, because otherwise Europe will begin to not matter in the long run, which is a fate the continent should avoid if possible. But I accept that type of dream is going to take a long, long time.
 
I think they're going to get no deal.
Who will cough up the extra £39 billion that the UK should have paid? Ireland? Greece? Or will Germany have to save Europe's ass again. And if that happens...

1920px-Alternative-fuer-Deutschland-Logo-2013.svg.png

European federalism
Ew.
 
The collective of the European Union is fine as it is, but perhaps with the ties a bit looser and more power for national parliaments. I don't want a European super-state.
That's fine, but if you don't eventually move towards one, Europe will start to fall behind on global power scales. Already is, really.
 
I think the differences between the member states - on many aspects of society - are so large that if the idea of a United States of Europe starts to gain momentum, there will be a queue at the door, of states wanting out.

To be honest, I don't think all 50 states forming the USA would've joined the union if it were formed today. Again, many differences both in economical interests and in culture. There are of course many things unifying these 50 states too, but I assume most of these have to do with common history of soon 250 years as a nation.
 
And I guess the Czech Republic and Poland would be reluctant to be more closely tied to Germany than they've been since 1938/39 ...
 
Indeed. I'm not sure many in Ireland would be comfortable in being so closely unified to the UK and handing over their sovereignty so soon after an 800 year struggle to gain it.

Giving up neutrality would probably be an even bigger deal.
 
Back
Top