The British Politics Thread

[StephenZA]

Do we know why people voted to leave? Any decent polls on that?

I would have to go back and find it.. but research directly after the vote indicated that there was 2 broad main concerns with EU. First was immigration (obviously) but more to do with pressure on NHS and housing, 'racism' did not factor as highly as some think but most people felt there was just to many. 2nd big issue was the role the EU courts where taking in the sovereignty of the UK as well as a feeling that the country was being dictated to by Brussels.

But effectively leaving those to core principals in place to keep trade just makes Brexit an even bigger joke.

 

[fredfertang]

The media was aggressively refuting that claim everywhere. Doubt that would have been a major reason in people's minds..

The claim itself can't be refuted - they emblazoned it on a bus - I appreciate the exact motivation of the leave voters is unclear but tbh if I had thought that claim was true I'd have voted leave - 'twould have been a no brainer

 

[fredfertang]

Does anyone understand the DUP? It sounds as if they want three things -- an open border with the Republic, no special status different from the rest of the UK, and Brexit. I know we aren't allowed to make Irish jokes any longer, but seriously, how can that possibly add up?

They're in a very strong bargaining position

 

[GIMH]

Because they believed the promise of an extra £355 million per week, yes I kid you not, each and every week, to spend on the NHS

As a leave voter I can confirm this is not even remotely why for me, nor my friends and family who voted leave.

 

[Pothas]

Some people did though. Not that I know more than one or two people that voted leave, metropolitan elite obviously.

 

[GIMH]

Some people did though. Not that I know more than one or two people that voted leave, metropolitan elite obviously.

Well yeah, but Fred's post made out that was the sole reason why.

I actually think both remain and leave campaigns were fairly insignificant in making people's minds up.

 

[fredfertang]

Whether the £350 million was the decisive factor for individual leave voters is not really the point - what still pisses me off is that it was a barefaced lie, and not the only one, but because Government ministers were associated with the leave campaign it was just taken as read, because people don't expect ministers to lie

I'm also still pissed off that because Cameron and the remain campaign didn't really believe they could lose they couldn't be arsed to nail the lies properly

.... and just for completeness I'm still far from happy with Jezza for showing so little interest in the whole bloody thing and behaving like a toddler who couldn't have the new toy he wanted

I do understand that there is a sound argument to be made for leaving - I don't agree with it myself, but I can respect GIMH's choice and anyone else that made a reasoned decision

The problem is there are so many people out there who don't and can't understand the economics behind the issues (which let's face it are and should essentially be economic) and voted leave simply because they swallowed the lies and the rhetoric

Which is the whole reason we should never have referenda on anything. The electorate should be voting for people they trust to make the correct decisions and leave them to make them, not making the bloody decisions themselves because without wishing to be condescending there are many many people out there who struggle to handle these concepts when they are carefully and dispassionately explained - when they get what they were given last June they have no chance

 

[GIMH]

Some decent points there Fred, I would apply the bulk of your points about the economics of it all to the Labour campaign just gone, mind.

 

[fredfertang]

Some decent points there Fred, I would apply the bulk of your points about the economics of it all to the Labour campaign just gone, mind.

Quite rightly too - I don't want a Labour government, well not one with anything close to an overall majority anyway - what I really want to see is an end to this ludicrous two party system and stop/go nonsense that has blighted our politics for ever

What I'm hoping for is May to go, and that I suspect will be a matter of days, Bojo or whoever calling another election and a progressive alliance making sure that the SNP, Lib Dems, Labour and the Greens don't fight each other - that way the Tories and Labour will both have about 250 seats and the others 150 and the whole bloody lot of them will finally have no option but to move towards each other's position

 

[GIMH]

Fair enough

 

[Tom Halsey]

Which is the whole reason we should never have referenda on anything. The electorate should be voting for people they trust to make the correct decisions and leave them to make them, not making the bloody decisions themselves because without wishing to be condescending there are many many people out there who struggle to handle these concepts when they are carefully and dispassionately explained - when they get what they were given last June they have no chance

Nail on head.

 

[silentstriker]

So I'm reading some stuff about how the Good Friday agreement might be jeopardized if DUP joins with the conservatives? Is that something that may actually happen?

 

[Furball]

Unlikely but it violates the unwritten rule that the British Government doesn't take sides in Northern Ireland.

 

[fredfertang]

Unlikely but it violates the unwritten rule that the British Government doesn't take sides in Northern Ireland.

I thought that was actually written in to the Good Friday agreement?

Or I may have been reading the wrong newspaper

 

[GIMH]

I presume it being 'Confidence & Supply' rather than an actual coalition makes a difference to the small print?

 

[fredfertang]

I presume it being 'Confidence & Supply' rather than an actual coalition makes a difference to the small print?

I'm hoping uppercut will give us chapter and verse

 

[Uppercut]

My sources tell me it only violates the spirit of the agreement rather than the letter. I don't think confidence+supply would undermine the process in and of itself, but it's precarious. The DUP might try to push through highly partisan Unionist legislation, which might turn Sinn Fein against the GFA. We need the Tories to resist it despite having no political incentive to.

 

[StephenZA]

Which is the whole reason we should never have referenda on anything. The electorate should be voting for people they trust to make the correct decisions and leave them to make them, not making the bloody decisions themselves because without wishing to be condescending there are many many people out there who struggle to handle these concepts when they are carefully and dispassionately explained - when they get what they were given last June they have no chance

I am very much in favour of this line of thinking, and not just on Brexit including many other ideas and opinions portrayed in the general populace. But it has its inherent problems as well, and is a basic problem with democracy as a whole.... everybody has an equal vote but not everybody has your same opinions, experiences and understanding. So which experts/leaders get listened to, the one who knows his stuff the best or the most charismatic, or the one who has the ear of the people in power?

In the end it is up to individuals to educate themselves on the 'truths' and make the decision with thought. The fact that the general populace does not do this is not the fault of the referendum or the system, it is the fault of the people for not really trying but hoping to be spoonfed. So we can condescendingly say that people should get no choice on certain matters (taking democratic choice away) or you can give people the choice and try educate people enough not to make rash uninformed decisions. A side issue is should the system try to debunk myths and falsehoods and should there possibly be repercussion for people who portray fiction as truths? Which currently is not done under the idea of 'free speach' .

I live in a country where due to lack of education and understanding a despot rules in a pseudo-democracy, who uses falsehoods and lies to keep the majority population in check, but should those people due to the lack of understanding and education not be given the vote? I have heard that argument to many times not to know where it leads. Democracy is ultimately the best of some very bad options to try give everybody a say. Cause in reality what the majority believe is not necessarily true, but you have to show that to them not stop them from making what is considered poor decisions.

 

[vogue]

My sources tell me it only violates the spirit of the agreement rather than the letter. I don't think confidence+supply would undermine the process in and of itself, but it's precarious. The DUP might try to push through highly partisan Unionist legislation, which might turn Sinn Fein against the GFA. We need the Tories to resist it despite having no political incentive to.

This is what I understand from what I have read. And I couldn't agree more as regards the Tories resisting it. It's very precarious as you say.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I am very much in favour of this line of thinking, and not just on Brexit including many other ideas and opinions portrayed in the general populace. But it has its inherent problems as well, and is a basic problem with democracy as a whole.... everybody has an equal vote but not everybody has your same opinions, experiences and understanding. So which experts/leaders get listened to, the one who knows his stuff the best or the most charismatic, or the one who has the ear of the people in power?

In the end it is up to individuals to educate themselves on the 'truths' and make the decision with thought. The fact that the general populace does not do this is not the fault of the referendum or the system, it is the fault of the people for not really trying but hoping to be spoonfed. So we can condescendingly say that people should get no choice on certain matters (taking democratic choice away) or you can give people the choice and try educate people enough not to make rash uninformed decisions. A side issue is should the system try to debunk myths and falsehoods and should there possibly be repercussion for people who portray fiction as truths? Which currently is not done under the idea of 'free speach' .

I live in a country where due to lack of education and understanding a despot rules in a pseudo-democracy, who uses falsehoods and lies to keep the majority population in check, but should those people due to the lack of understanding and education not be given the vote? I have heard that argument to many times not to know where it leads. Democracy is ultimately the best of some very bad options to try give everybody a say. Cause in reality what the majority believe is not necessarily true, but you have to show that to them not stop them from making what is considered poor decisions.

I completely agree that democracy is the best of the options but don't really see that as an argument in favour of needless referendums, because we already have democratically elected politicians making the decisions. And frankly I would trust a politician, whatever their colour of politics, to make a more reasoned judgement on decisions than 95% of the electorate for a wide variety of reasons.