IdleRich
IdleRich
Oh so that was also a joke now? Ok fine.I don't understand why only one of us is able to make genocidal jokes but let's put that to one side for a moment.
Oh so that was also a joke now? Ok fine.I don't understand why only one of us is able to make genocidal jokes but let's put that to one side for a moment.
I too am angry with mps. I think they were inflexible and made errors.
But you said originally that FBPE or whatever they are called are responsible. I thought that was more of a general public remainer group (could be wrong - enlighten me) and I took your argument to be "The people who lost the referendum should have just shut up and accepted what had happened- and now they are rightly being punished with a hard Brexit" which is very different from what you have now pivoted to.
The issue for me is, if this happens, which of these two things do we do (we can only do one of them)?
a. The "I told you so" route.
b. The solidarity with people at the sharp end route.
Twitter celebrity Terry Christian has chosen (a) and thinks that people who voted for Brexit shoud be made redundant first.
I should say the priority is to make sure that anger is directed at the people actually responsible for this whole mess - something you've seemed oddly reluctant to do - and not at immigrants (EU or otherwise) and ethnic minorities, who are already suffering a rising tide of hate crimes - something else you haven't addressed in this thread, that I've seen.
And to be honest, if I lost my job because of Brexit (unlikely, thankfully, given the area I work in), then yeah, I would be pretty fucking hacked off at the people who'd brought it on, even if some of them had lost their jobs too. Wouldn't you?
. I picture these types as the ones who wear the EU berets to marches. I don't mean your ordinary remain voter, but people who put remain at the centre of their political ideology and will not move beyond it.
Terrible people no doubt... but did they have any real influence? This argument is normally made - as far as I can see - by Leavers who can see that the party in power has made a right fucking mess of negotiating Brexit with the EU, negotiating it with themselves, voting it through parliament (even with a majority), and ultimately delivering anything like what was promised anywhere near on time.
Surely we can all agree that, whatever Remainers have done, Tories have made a spectacular cock-up of Brexit as well?
Yes I think the priority is to direct anger at parliament and the EU and not people who voted for Brexit, or immigrants, or ethnic minorities.
It is not possible to do that if at the same time you are also saying that people who voted for Brexit are brainwashed chavs. Is my entire point on this thread.
If you now want for us both to get our "this is what I have personally done to fight against hatecrimes and racism" dicks out, we can do that as well.
It's not "parliament" as a whole that's at fault though, despite your insistence on making out that pro-Remain MPs are equally to blame. It's specifically the Tory party and UKIP/BXP. Of course for any challenge to this hegemony to be effective then Labour will need a credible leader, so we'll just have to wait and see on that front.
"Brainwashed chavs" is your phrase, not mine. I've already supplied a link showing that Brexit support peaks with the lower middle class, not the working class. And I'd never used the word "brainwashed" because that's the vocabulary of people who think Jews did 9/11 and vaccines are bad for you, but I maintain that most people who voted for it (and still support it now) are misinformed. This is no blind prejudice, it's come from years of trying to debate Leavers online and, occasionally, IRL. I've never yet heard an argument for it that can't be pretty easily dismissed as based on false premises.
So no, I'm not backing down from that position just because it antagonises your romantic notion of the salt-of-the-earth wisdom.
TBC, I'm not accusing you, personally, of tolerating hate crimes. But xenophobia and racism is an unavoidable element of this whole issue and you appear to have tiptoed around it every time I've brought it up.
But you don't think they wanted better terms, more trade deals negotiated etc etc in fact just to do it more quickly?
I agree power is the main goal but surely even Tories would prefer to have met their secondary goals more competently? I mean there is a reason Johnson is pretending Brexit is finished and trying to ban the word - and it's not cos he's proud of his flawless hard negotiating and nimble political footwork is it?
I don't always agree with Eden (or with Craner) but it's so self evident that they are unambiguously right here that I am surprised the argument is ongoing. I've never seen any debate on this forum so humiliatingly one sided
There has always been a strong resentment against the EU which has been growing ever since people twigged, however intuitively, that "Europe" had turned into a political project rather than simply an economic bloc. Maastricht, Lisbon, Labour discarding the 7 year transition period after A8...this has been gestating for a long time, way before the Tory lies and the Russian agents.
A lot of people where ignorant about the details of this development while it was happening because it was incredibly opaque and in large part obscured...in particular, by successive governments who knew that what they were doing -- or signing up to at summits nobody paid attention to or understood the purpose of anyway -- would not be popular with a lot of people who voted for them in domestic elections. It was never a purely economic argument. If it was, then the EEC would never have become the EU.
One thing we forget or ignore in this country, obsessed as we are with our racism, stupidity and self-hatred, is that the steady progression to greater political integration is also very unpopular in other EU countries, including one of the supposedly greatest beneficiaries, France. Any chance any population gets to vote for this, it is usually against, always for lots of reasons, but all related in some way to the evidence and implications of greater political union.
However inarticulate, this is what people are reacting against and it is as ignorant to dismiss them for it. I voted Remain, but I really agree with Eden on this point.
Reasons for rejection
According to a poll [1] by Maurice de Hond, 30% of the Constitution's opponents used the referendum as an opportunity to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with the government, instead of confining their deliberations to the contents of the treaty that was put before them. At the time of the referendum, the Netherlands' centre-right coalition government, led by Jan Peter Balkenende, was suffering a period of unpopularity as it tried to push through cuts in public spending, and there was widespread disillusion with the country's political elite.
Some matters relating to the European Union that motivated the "No" vote were also not strictly connected to the provisions of the Constitution. The debate over the accession of Turkey to the European Union, as well as countries of Eastern Europe, led to fears of an increase in immigration, or an outsourcing of jobs to new member states. Furthermore, the Netherlands had not held a referendum on the euro, and amidst concern that its adoption had led to an increase in the cost of living (combined with Dutch citizens' status as the largest net per capita contributors to the EU), around 30% of the voters took the opportunity to "take revenge" on the political establishment for seeking to advance European integration in a manner that did not engage the public to the extent that it could have done.
A larger group of voters, however, voted "No" for reasons that were connected to the Constitution itself. 48% thought the new Constitution was worse than the existing treaties, and 44% cited the declining influence of the Netherlands in the EU, with the treaty as an important motivation. Linked to this was a fear of being dominated by the powerhouses of the European Union (particularly the United Kingdom, France and Germany). The perception of an aggressive and ruthless style on the part of the "Yes" campaign also put off many. The Minister of Justice, Piet Hein Donner, warned that a rejection would raise the chances of war and stated that "the C in CDA [for 'Christian'] implies that you vote in favour of the constitution." The Minister for Economic Affairs, Laurens Jan Brinkhorst, said that "the lights would go off" in the case of a rejection and that the Netherlands would become "the Switzerland of Europe." The People's Party for Freedom and Democracy withdrew a controversial television broadcast, in which rejection was connected with the Holocaust, the genocide in Srebrenica and the terrorist attacks on March 11, 2004 in Madrid. This seriously damaged the "Yes" campaign.