Brexit.

[screenexile]

The 2 key selling points of Brexit were

1. 350m for the NHS
2 Control migration

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/feb/10/brexit-will-cause-vanishingly-small-fall-in-net-migration-report

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rh6qqsmxNs

Nope.

That's what the press decided to run with in an attempt to distill a multi-layered, trillion part picture into something that people could understand, then latch on to / turn against.

What people actually voted for was whether the UK would be better off as a single entity, or as part of a union of countries. There wasn't a magic line running through the country whereby those who voted "leave" had an inability to see a bigger picture at play.

While many of the "stay" diehards have managed to convince themselves that the vote was about racism, and that anyone who voted to leave is neanderthal racist with a negative IQ: that brush stroke argument says more about their own paranoid beliefs than it does about the voters in question.

Some of what you're saying may be true wobbler but actually 3 of the main arguments for the leave side were immigration, the NHS and the fact that we would still be part of the single market.

What we now know is all three of those central arguments for Brexit were incorrect and given that there were only 1.3m votes to decide the vote it's fair to say that were there to be a vote in the morning wee would be staying in the EU.

If my granny had balls she'd be my granda though and it matters very little at this stage as we're out and that's fine but let's not wash over the fact that the leave campaign's 'promises' and central themes were a complete lie from the beginning and there can be no doubt that a number of people were sold a pup!!!

[thewobbler]

Honestly I find it extraordinary that you would believe that the super rich and the underclass came together to trigger Brexit.

There's around 5% unemployment in the UK. Feel free to add in another 5% for those who don't want to work but are forced to in order to maintain benefits.

There's also around 18% of the UK population who are aged over 65. So that's what, maybe 25% of everyone entitled to vote.

That gets you to 35% of people, who perhaps one and all were brainwashed to voted for Brexit. They are all, after all, complete idiots who do what the Sun tell them to.

But that still leaves 65% of the voting population, which means that some 17 out of each 65 must be of the super rich, high earning, variety?

When circa 3-4% of the voting population make over £100k pa, this would be most strange.

----

Face facts folks. Not everyone at the top of the payscale voted leave, nor did each of their counterparts at the bottom.

The "middle" played a sizeable role in how the votes was cast. The well-educated, squeezed middle played a sizeable, meaty, chunky role.

[armaghniac]

The "middle" played a sizeable role in how the votes was cast. The well-educated, squeezed middle played a sizeable, meaty, chunky role.

They played a role, but a majority of this group did not support Brexit.

Brexit is relatively complex matter, since the union has many benefits as well as some trade-offs for those benefits. The media managed to simplify discussion to the downsides of the EU without doing so for the upsides and managed to engender an anti expert campaign against those who proposed a more complex view.

Had such a referendum been run in the ROI the referendum commission would have ensured a more balanced presentation of information at least.

[thewobbler]

Most opinions on Brexit must be based on supposition, as the final deal is not yet known. So anything I am going on to say is making the assumption that Mrs Thatch....er May means it when she says no customs union, the common travel area is something that can get around the movement of people.
No matter what way you look at it no customs union will mean the death knell for an all island economy and be especially hard on the Agri food sector which both jurisdictions see as a key industry. For instance about a third of NI's milk is processed in the ROI and turned into Irish Cheese to be exported to the EU (UK and beyond), after without a custom's union there will be a tariff making this milk more expensive and uncompetitive, aside from that EU rules as they stand would preclude any product made with this milk from being sold within the EU. NI's pork plants rely on ROI pigs to make them competitive, the lamb and beef sector rely on processors in the ROI to process a significant amount of their product. In short there is a lot of transfer of agri food products between both jurisdictions at various points of the process. It is hard to see how this is not a negative to both parties. On the retail side visitors from the ROI to NI will have the same constraints on goods that exist between Non EU and EU at present, including tariffs and bans on importing certain products and food stuffs. That is before we look at the special arrangement that allows Trump to give May one whenever he likes. That will see an influx of GM foods, hormone soaked beef and bleached chicken which even if banned from this island will still be a threat given that part of the Island is in the UK. So if this is scaremongering so be it but it is scenarios such as this that the DUP are saying bring it on too with out thought or plan. May does not give a stuff about Ireland north or south.

The problem with all this is that you are making wildly pessimistic suppositions ("death knell for all island economy"), that the UK is going to pull down a gate and not let anything in or out, and that the EU is going to put up similar gates at the other side... just in case those slippery b**tard brits get a head start.

Sorry to tell you, but this is plainly f**king bonkers.

Some things will change.  Some for the better, some for the worse. Some pipelines will close, and some opportunities will appear in their place. Take a walk down any street in your town and remember what companies and businesses used to be there, and it will help you realise that this is a fact of life, and very little to do with Brexit. Have a look at the Fortune 500 in 2007, 1997, 1987, 1977, 1967, and you'll see this affects every walk of life from small retailer to international conglomerate.

[thewobbler]

The "middle" played a sizeable role in how the votes was cast. The well-educated, squeezed middle played a sizeable, meaty, chunky role.

They played a role, but a majority of this group did not support Brexit.

Brexit is relatively complex matter, since the union has many benefits as well as some trade-offs for those benefits. The media managed to simplify discussion to the downsides of the EU without doing so for the upsides and managed to engender an anti expert campaign against those who proposed a more complex view.

Had such a referendum been run in the ROI the referendum commission would have ensured a more balanced presentation of information at least.

But again, by defending the squeezed middle and highlighting the role of the media, the undertones of what you're saying is that a much larger proportion of people who voted for Brexit (than against it) only did so because they are either a) stupid, b) brainwashed, or c) brainwashed and stupid.

Which is an appalling superiority complex.

---

Re propaganda.

Look at the fall of communism in Europe and China. In places where the media was savagely controlled by government, there is no doubt that the people of those countries were spoon fed a daily dose on the outstanding results of communism throughout their entire lives. 

Yet when communism fell, it fell hard. There weren't many holding back to review the pamphlets.

What I get from this is that while newspapers have influence, most people will actually look at their own situation when casting a vote. If it's good, okay, or even "least worst", they'll vote to maintain the status quo.  If not, they'll look for alternatives. That, in my unqualified opinion, is why Brexit happened. I believe it had little or nothing to do with racism or the NHS; they were just the stories used to fill column inches that people no longer read. A succession of UK governments have seen life become a little tougher and less fair for its citizens. This was the response.

[NAG1]

The "middle" played a sizeable role in how the votes was cast. The well-educated, squeezed middle played a sizeable, meaty, chunky role.

They played a role, but a majority of this group did not support Brexit.

Brexit is relatively complex matter, since the union has many benefits as well as some trade-offs for those benefits. The media managed to simplify discussion to the downsides of the EU without doing so for the upsides and managed to engender an anti expert campaign against those who proposed a more complex view.

Had such a referendum been run in the ROI the referendum commission would have ensured a more balanced presentation of information at least.

But again, by defending the squeezed middle and highlighting the role of the media, the undertones of what you're saying is that a much larger proportion of people who voted for Brexit (than against it) only did so because they are either a) stupid, b) brainwashed, or c) brainwashed and stupid.

Which is an appalling superiority complex.

---

Re propaganda.

Look at the fall of communism in Europe and China. In places where the media was savagely controlled by government, there is no doubt that the people of those countries were spoon fed a daily dose on the outstanding results of communism throughout their entire lives. 

Yet when communism fell, it fell hard. There weren't many holding back to review the pamphlets.

What I get from this is that while newspapers have influence, most people will actually look at their own situation when casting a vote. If it's good, okay, or even "least worst", they'll vote to maintain the status quo.  If not, they'll look for alternatives. That, in my unqualified opinion, is why Brexit happened. I believe it had little or nothing to do with racism or the NHS; they were just the stories used to fill column inches that people no longer read. A succession of UK governments have seen life become a little tougher and less fair for its citizens. This was the response.

Not whenever you are right 

[armaghniac]

But again, by defending the squeezed middle and highlighting the role of the media, the undertones of what you're saying is that a much larger proportion of people who voted for Brexit (than against it) only did so because they are either a) stupid, b) brainwashed, or c) brainwashed and stupid.

Disagreeing with someone is one thing, but I expect them to be able to coherently rationalise their own point of view.

What I get from this is that while newspapers have influence, most people will actually look at their own situation when casting a vote. If it's good, okay, or even "least worst", they'll vote to maintain the status quo.  If not, they'll look for alternatives. That, in my unqualified opinion, is why Brexit happened. I believe it had little or nothing to do with racism or the NHS; they were just the stories used to fill column inches that people no longer read. A succession of UK governments have seen life become a little tougher and less fair for its citizens. This was the response.

Once again, as per my point above, I expect them to able to articulate how this response will actually improve things. I don't buy this "less roll the dice and see what happens" because many thousands of other people will have their lives adversely affected by the change (and I don't mean me).

[No wides]

But again, by defending the squeezed middle and highlighting the role of the media, the undertones of what you're saying is that a much larger proportion of people who voted for Brexit (than against it) only did so because they are either a) stupid, b) brainwashed, or c) brainwashed and stupid.

Disagreeing with someone is one thing, but I expect them to be able to coherently rationalise their own point of view.

What I get from this is that while newspapers have influence, most people will actually look at their own situation when casting a vote. If it's good, okay, or even "least worst", they'll vote to maintain the status quo.  If not, they'll look for alternatives. That, in my unqualified opinion, is why Brexit happened. I believe it had little or nothing to do with racism or the NHS; they were just the stories used to fill column inches that people no longer read. A succession of UK governments have seen life become a little tougher and less fair for its citizens. This was the response.

Once again, as per my point above, I expect them to able to articulate how this response will actually improve things. I don't buy this "less roll the dice and see what happens" because many thousands of other people will have their lives adversely affected by the change (and I don't mean me).

Because you in your ivory tower didn't buy it are seriously saying you speak for the masses.  Many people saw brexit as a new start, and thought anything was better than the status quo.

[seafoid]

But again, by defending the squeezed middle and highlighting the role of the media, the undertones of what you're saying is that a much larger proportion of people who voted for Brexit (than against it) only did so because they are either a) stupid, b) brainwashed, or c) brainwashed and stupid.

Disagreeing with someone is one thing, but I expect them to be able to coherently rationalise their own point of view.

What I get from this is that while newspapers have influence, most people will actually look at their own situation when casting a vote. If it's good, okay, or even "least worst", they'll vote to maintain the status quo.  If not, they'll look for alternatives. That, in my unqualified opinion, is why Brexit happened. I believe it had little or nothing to do with racism or the NHS; they were just the stories used to fill column inches that people no longer read. A succession of UK governments have seen life become a little tougher and less fair for its citizens. This was the response.

Once again, as per my point above, I expect them to able to articulate how this response will actually improve things. I don't buy this "less roll the dice and see what happens" because many thousands of other people will have their lives adversely affected by the change (and I don't mean me).

Because you in your ivory tower didn't buy it are seriously saying you speak for the masses.  Many people saw brexit as a new start, and thought anything was better than the status quo.

Why did they think Brexit was a new start ?

[thewobbler]

But again, by defending the squeezed middle and highlighting the role of the media, the undertones of what you're saying is that a much larger proportion of people who voted for Brexit (than against it) only did so because they are either a) stupid, b) brainwashed, or c) brainwashed and stupid.

Disagreeing with someone is one thing, but I expect them to be able to coherently rationalise their own point of view.

What I get from this is that while newspapers have influence, most people will actually look at their own situation when casting a vote. If it's good, okay, or even "least worst", they'll vote to maintain the status quo.  If not, they'll look for alternatives. That, in my unqualified opinion, is why Brexit happened. I believe it had little or nothing to do with racism or the NHS; they were just the stories used to fill column inches that people no longer read. A succession of UK governments have seen life become a little tougher and less fair for its citizens. This was the response.

Once again, as per my point above, I expect them to able to articulate how this response will actually improve things. I don't buy this "less roll the dice and see what happens" because many thousands of other people will have their lives adversely affected by the change (and I don't mean me).

Because you in your ivory tower didn't buy it are seriously saying you speak for the masses.  Many people saw brexit as a new start, and thought anything was better than the status quo.

Why did they think Brexit was a new start ?

Sure why vote for anything, ever?

[haveaharp]

The Tories have a great record of looking after the interests of the ordinary working man on the street and the regions of the UK outside the London commuter belt. Just wait and see

[seafoid]

Honestly I find it extraordinary that you would believe that the super rich and the underclass came together to trigger Brexit.

There's around 5% unemployment in the UK. Feel free to add in another 5% for those who don't want to work but are forced to in order to maintain benefits.

There's also around 18% of the UK population who are aged over 65. So that's what, maybe 25% of everyone entitled to vote.

That gets you to 35% of people, who perhaps one and all were brainwashed to voted for Brexit. They are all, after all, complete idiots who do what the Sun tell them to.

But that still leaves 65% of the voting population, which means that some 17 out of each 65 must be of the super rich, high earning, variety?

When circa 3-4% of the voting population make over £100k pa, this would be most strange.

----

Face facts folks. Not everyone at the top of the payscale voted leave, nor did each of their counterparts at the bottom.

The "middle" played a sizeable role in how the votes was cast. The well-educated, squeezed middle played a sizeable, meaty, chunky role.

Wobbler turnout was much higher for oldies so you need to rework your model. 18m people live in deindustrialised areas which had a high leave vote. Working poor may be 20% of population.

[Applesisapples]

Most opinions on Brexit must be based on supposition, as the final deal is not yet known. So anything I am going on to say is making the assumption that Mrs Thatch....er May means it when she says no customs union, the common travel area is something that can get around the movement of people.
No matter what way you look at it no customs union will mean the death knell for an all island economy and be especially hard on the Agri food sector which both jurisdictions see as a key industry. For instance about a third of NI's milk is processed in the ROI and turned into Irish Cheese to be exported to the EU (UK and beyond), after without a custom's union there will be a tariff making this milk more expensive and uncompetitive, aside from that EU rules as they stand would preclude any product made with this milk from being sold within the EU. NI's pork plants rely on ROI pigs to make them competitive, the lamb and beef sector rely on processors in the ROI to process a significant amount of their product. In short there is a lot of transfer of agri food products between both jurisdictions at various points of the process. It is hard to see how this is not a negative to both parties. On the retail side visitors from the ROI to NI will have the same constraints on goods that exist between Non EU and EU at present, including tariffs and bans on importing certain products and food stuffs. That is before we look at the special arrangement that allows Trump to give May one whenever he likes. That will see an influx of GM foods, hormone soaked beef and bleached chicken which even if banned from this island will still be a threat given that part of the Island is in the UK. So if this is scaremongering so be it but it is scenarios such as this that the DUP are saying bring it on too with out thought or plan. May does not give a stuff about Ireland north or south.

The problem with all this is that you are making wildly pessimistic suppositions ("death knell for all island economy"), that the UK is going to pull down a gate and not let anything in or out, and that the EU is going to put up similar gates at the other side... just in case those slippery b**tard brits get a head start.

Sorry to tell you, but this is plainly f**king bonkers.

Some things will change.  Some for the better, some for the worse. Some pipelines will close, and some opportunities will appear in their place. Take a walk down any street in your town and remember what companies and businesses used to be there, and it will help you realise that this is a fact of life, and very little to do with Brexit. Have a look at the Fortune 500 in 2007, 1997, 1987, 1977, 1967, and you'll see this affects every walk of life from small retailer to international conglomerate.

Sorry but the EU will not allow non EU raw materials be used in the production of Products branded EU/Irish. I did sy that I am basing this on May's current position and any deal with Trump will be on his terms.

[seafoid]

The big problem with Brexit is that it was not planned. Nothing was prepared. Nobody examined the implications. It is worse than a box kick.

[Owenmoresider]

The "middle" played a sizeable role in how the votes was cast. The well-educated, squeezed middle played a sizeable, meaty, chunky role.

They played a role, but a majority of this group did not support Brexit.

Brexit is relatively complex matter, since the union has many benefits as well as some trade-offs for those benefits. The media managed to simplify discussion to the downsides of the EU without doing so for the upsides and managed to engender an anti expert campaign against those who proposed a more complex view.

Had such a referendum been run in the ROI the referendum commission would have ensured a more balanced presentation of information at least.

The last referendum we had here would leave that open to question.