3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Dec 15, 2018 22:38:53 GMT
Btw, is anyone else feeling deeply uncomfortable about the way some people keep going on about 'Russian money' pulling the strings? It seems to have become the socially acceptable, middle-class equivalent of early 20thc anti-semitic conspiracy theories.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Brexit
Dec 15, 2018 23:14:07 GMT
sf likes this
Post by lynette on Dec 15, 2018 23:14:07 GMT
I’ve just finished reading Ben McIntyre's book about the super spy Gordievsky and now I am willing to believe anything about Russian money. Read the book.
|
|
1,972 posts
|
Post by sf on Dec 15, 2018 23:40:07 GMT
Btw, is anyone else feeling deeply uncomfortable about the way some people keep going on about 'Russian money' pulling the strings? It seems to have become the socially acceptable, middle-class equivalent of early 20thc anti-semitic conspiracy theories.
I might, if I hadn't read the various Guardian/Observer articles setting out the connections between the Leave campaigns, the Trump campaigns, and Russian money. They're long, and getting through them is hard work, but they build a convincing case and it seems clear that there is a legitimate question over where a lot of the campaign money came from. There's certainly more than enough evidence out there to justify a British equivalent of the Mueller investigation; I find it (ahem) fascinating that the government and the opposition both seem reluctant to go down that road, but it does seem clear that at some point, once the dust has settled, there is going to have to be some kind of public inquiry.
|
|
999 posts
|
Brexit
Dec 15, 2018 23:46:51 GMT
via mobile
Post by Backdrifter on Dec 15, 2018 23:46:51 GMT
Piece in tomorrow's Sunday Times on how there is currently planning,apparently behind May's back, for a new referendum and revocation of A50.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Brexit
Dec 16, 2018 0:12:09 GMT
Post by crowblack on Dec 16, 2018 0:12:09 GMT
there is a legitimate question over where a lot of the campaign money came from. But there is with every election since the dawn of elections. There are some sections of the commentariat who seem, though, more comfortable with the idea of some vast, overarching conspiracy of sinister Russians pulling the strings of sheep-like blue collar dimwits rather than consider legitimate reasons closer to home. |
|
5,066 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Dec 16, 2018 0:36:36 GMT
No it’s not a horrible choice of phrasing and it is this very attitude that made Brexit happen, well done.
I'm truly lost as to what you are trying to say. How can people attacking the cause of Brexit be the cause of Brexit? Are people supposed to not bring it up and hope that bigotry can be confronted through osmosis?
I am not going to dignify any response that tris to paint me as a racist, because that is the simple default setting when they don’t get the answer they want and have their view challenged. Political correctness is a reason why people wanted out? As a person that happens to have voted remain, I can respect the result of the referendum and emphasise with peoples concerns for voting out and I don’t believe that everyone that voted out were racial driven. I think it is terrible that people who have well paid jobs and come across as snobbish and elitist and come out with non meaning platitudes and are calling for article 50 to be cancelled or another referendum, to suit their own confirmation bias. The reason why we have brexited was because the majority felt being a member of the EU as non-beneficial and when our own citizens are looked down at, because they voted out is a terrible thing. I have asked several times what Theresa May should do next, no one has replied to it. None of this is aimed at the poster who I quoted, the level was of response was acceptable for me to enter at, but I know nothing of osmosis? |
|
999 posts
|
Post by Backdrifter on Dec 16, 2018 0:45:28 GMT
there is a legitimate question over where a lot of the campaign money came from. But there is with every election since the dawn of elections. There are some sections of the commentariat who seem, though, more comfortable with the idea of some vast, overarching conspiracy of sinister Russians pulling the strings of sheep-like blue collar dimwits rather than consider legitimate reasons closer to home. I think that oversimplifies a complex picture involving the range of motivations of Leave voters, the picture that has emerged from some forensic journalism, and Putin's clear interest in destabilizing the EU. Something that bothers me, which you touched on, is the established notion that Remain = outraged middle-class elitists and Leave = marginalised working-class. So often I find myself wishing for better social and political debate and it won't happen as long as we cling to these entrenched ideas because they are often convenient, on both sides, for cheap point-scoring in discussions. EDIT - just before I posted, there's another post again with the same slant; if you're anti brexit you are in a well-paid job and come across as elitist, and people voted Leave because [insert handy single reason]. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Brexit
Dec 16, 2018 1:17:51 GMT
Post by crowblack on Dec 16, 2018 1:17:51 GMT
I think that oversimplifies a complex picture involving the range of motivations of Leave voters, the picture that has emerged from some forensic journalism, and Putin's clear interest in destabilizing the EU. I think you took my sentence in the opposite way to the way it was meant - 'sheep-like dimwits' is the way many commentators patronisingly portray voters. |
|
999 posts
|
Post by Backdrifter on Dec 16, 2018 1:35:02 GMT
I think that oversimplifies a complex picture involving the range of motivations of Leave voters, the picture that has emerged from some forensic journalism, and Putin's clear interest in destabilizing the EU. I think you took my sentence in the opposite way to the way it was meant - 'sheep-like dimwits' is the way many commentators patronisingly portray voters. No that's fine, I completely understood that wasn't your own view and you were conveying a common angle taken by others. |
|
1,972 posts
|
Post by sf on Dec 16, 2018 2:28:26 GMT
there is a legitimate question over where a lot of the campaign money came from. But there is with every election since the dawn of elections. There are some sections of the commentariat who seem, though, more comfortable with the idea of some vast, overarching conspiracy of sinister Russians pulling the strings of sheep-like blue collar dimwits rather than consider legitimate reasons closer to home.
The difference is that in this instance there is evidence to back up the conspiracy theory, and "sheep-like blue collar dimwits" is your (unpleasantly judgmental) phrase, not mine. I live in a place where the electorate voted Leave by a margin very considerably larger than the national result, and I certainly wouldn't describe my neighbours as "sheep-like blue collar dimwits". I do believe people were sold a plausible set of lies, but I think people voted the way they did - however they voted - out of a sincere wish to make the country better. And I think a lot of people were very, very wrong about the best way to do that, but the reasons for that extend far beyond targeted Facebook ads or whatever. It's very easy for journalists and Eurosceptic politicians to get away with bleating absolute twaddle about unelected bureaucrats/a dictatorship in Brussels/not being able to make our own laws, because ALL OF US haven't been paying enough attention to the EU, and because there's a huge gaping black hole in the school curriculum where there ought to be a comprehensive Civics course teaching students how their systems of government work (and in case you think I'm just picking on overstretched state schools - no, I went to a private grammar school myself, and there wasn't any teaching about the EU or how it works there either. Whatever I know, I picked up on my own). Far too many people are more or less completely disengaged from politics, and for far too long the loudest voices in the conversation about the EU in this country have been shameless liars. These are all things we'll need to address, and probably address soon, but they are entirely separate issues from whether or not foreign money was illegally funnelled into one or more of the Leave campaigns.
We already know Vote Leave broke the law - the Electoral Commission has made a ruling and imposed a fine. We already know about the tangled web of links between the Leave campaigns, Cambridge Analytica, and various figures behind the Trump campaign, and we know, more or less, that some of the money behind the Trump campaign can be traced back into Russia, and that some of the people with their fingers on that money also had their fingers in the Leave campaign, or were connected in some way to people who did. As I said, there are a series of articles painting a very clear picture, and they're from the Guardian and the Observer, not some obscure conspiracy journal or a sensationalist tabloid.
And I don't know about you, but I think if wealthy individuals or a foreign power have been interfering in my country's democracy, or have conspired to try and influence the result of a vote - any vote - then we need to know about it, and we need to know exactly how they did it, which means we ALSO need to study the intersections between social media and politics. These are uncharted waters, and dismissing this stuff as conspiracy theories in the face of all the available evidence is both foolhardy and dangerous.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Dec 16, 2018 8:53:05 GMT
Ignorance is not the same as stupidity, but in practice it has the same result: bad decisions.
Most people in this country are very ignorant about how our own political system really works, let alone how it operates internationally as part of the EU, and how the EU works. (And the same goes for NATO - it’s not just an anti-EU thing.) Ignorant people accept the most outrageous lies at face value - particularly when they pander to their prejudices - because they simply don’t know enough to recognise the falsehoods.
The combination of ignorance and motivated people spending lots of money on a targeted propaganda campaign is deadly for any democracy.
And there is no political will in this country for fixing the root causes of the problem - no-one is calling for civics to be added to the national curriculum. The politicians don’t want an educated eloctirate who can tell when they are being lied to, for obvious reasons.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Brexit
Dec 16, 2018 9:30:10 GMT
Post by crowblack on Dec 16, 2018 9:30:10 GMT
"sheep-like blue collar dimwits" is your (unpleasantly judgmental) phrase, not mine. I live in a place where the electorate voted Leave by a margin very considerably larger than the national result, and I certainly wouldn't describe my neighbours as "sheep-like blue collar dimwits". ARGHHHHHHHH! ARGH ARGH ARGH! REREAD MY POST. AND MY CLARIFICATION BECAUSE I'M AWARE IN CYBERSPACE THINGS ARE OFTEN READ TOO QUICKLY. I DID NOT SAY THAT - I SAID THE TOTAL OPPOSITE! Can I say YET AGAIN the whole reason for my post was that I am totally p-d off by some middle-class media commentators PORTRAYING a large section of the electorate as sheep-like blue collar dimwits! "Oh, they've seen some words on the side of a bus, they want blue passports, they're all a bunch of racists, that's why they voted". And now, added to that, that it's all an overarching Russian conspiracy and nothing to do with devil-take-the-hindmost political systems. Many in my family are blue-collar, many voted Leave. I'm a Labour Party member, I've sat on polling stations at elections, and I have never seen my local polling station busier than for the referendum and the election afterwards where Corbyn's brand of socialist Labour did far better than Southern media commentators expected. I'll post more later but I'm having breakfast. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2018 10:19:26 GMT
I'm truly lost as to what you are trying to say. How can people attacking the cause of Brexit be the cause of Brexit? Are people supposed to not bring it up and hope that bigotry can be confronted through osmosis?
I am not going to dignify any response that tris to paint me as a racist, because that is the simple default setting when they don’t get the answer they want and have their view challenged. Political correctness is a reason why people wanted out? As a person that happens to have voted remain, I can respect the result of the referendum and emphasise with peoples concerns for voting out and I don’t believe that everyone that voted out were racial driven. I think it is terrible that people who have well paid jobs and come across as snobbish and elitist and come out with non meaning platitudes and are calling for article 50 to be cancelled or another referendum, to suit their own confirmation bias. The reason why we have brexited was because the majority felt being a member of the EU as non-beneficial and when our own citizens are looked down at, because they voted out is a terrible thing. I have asked several times what Theresa May should do next, no one has replied to it. None of this is aimed at the poster who I quoted, the level was of response was acceptable for me to enter at, but I know nothing of osmosis? Osmosis, as your position seemed to be, on first reading, that we should ignore the racist element of the leave vote. Hoping that that we can highlight the issue by not mentioning it is just not a useful position to take. From a working class background myself I know first hand what that element of the leave vote are like, and a significant but small proportion are unreconstructed racists and bigots. There is no question of this (and as mentioned above, ignorance of the facts about immigrants and immigration is at the heart of that, so there is an element of truth that the more educated are less so). Pandering to it is the worst thing to do, however; we shouldn’t be agreeing with it, we should be destroying that argument and marginalising it. That small percentage of voters are only one element of the leave vote but they also made the difference. History teaches us that bigotry emboldened leads to a very dangerous place for any nation. It isn’t an attack on the leave vote, just on that element of it, and it cannot be ignored. My fears now are primarily for the working class; I will be okay where I am now in my life* but the weaker and less wealthy, those reliant on the state will be destroyed by any type of leave. A hard Brexit will be even worse. To keep some semblance of social cohesion we cannot leave now and like this. Those who suffer will not primarily be the well off; as is always is always the case in such a crisis, those without the means and position will be the ones hurt the most. * I have, however, had to work hard to do that, and at some cost. The effect on my job, being one of the first to see the coming dangerous shift in its customer base, could have destroyed the latter part of my career. Other areas of society are yet to understand the effects and repercussions of such a profound shift in our economy. EDIT: On what May should so, she’s doing what she probably could do now but she’s so limited by her own red lines and positioning that she can do very little. It’s like the end of a Chess game where she can only move within a few squares of the board but can see the inevitable defeat in the next few moves. What she should do is allow a free commons vote on each possibility - deal, no deal, revoke, referendum. |
|
2,761 posts
|
Post by n1david on Dec 16, 2018 10:49:18 GMT
I have asked several times what Theresa May should do next, no one has replied to it. I think the problem is that no-one really knows, experienced political commentators who have been journalists for decades have no idea what to do next, I don't think it's surprising that a bunch of people on a theatre board don't know the answer. Her basic problem is that she stated a number of red lines in her Lancaster House speech, which some people at the time said were premature and internally inconsistent. In her efforts to meet those red lines she has come up with a deal that satisfies no-one, in her own party, on the Opposition benches, and in the country at large. But she is so personally identified with the plan that to change it significantly would be perceived as a huge U-turn, and would damage her credibility even further. So the short answer is, if you wanted to fix Brexit, "you wouldn't start from here". So what happens now? If she brings her plan back to the Commons, it will get defeated very heavily. But she won't step down. If that's all that happens, we'll end up with No Deal at the end of March. But I think enough MPs want to stop that (although some support it), but how would they do that? A vote of no confidence would result in an election, but we're short of time so we'd have to ask the EU27 to delay Article 50. Could Cabinet Ministers or Tory MPs turn her head for a second referendum? Could we negotiate Norway or something similar? All these things are possible. None of them are likely. And the clock keeps ticking. |
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Dec 16, 2018 12:18:19 GMT
I think I agree with the Cardinal: free vote in Commons for her deal. Then other options. This would prob lead to General Election. Corbyn might win but his stand is very muddy so depends on how May presents her options. Meanwhile she has to tell EU to hang on a mo while we sort it out 😂 I think that means asking for a double espresso.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Brexit
Dec 16, 2018 12:34:24 GMT
Post by crowblack on Dec 16, 2018 12:34:24 GMT
articles painting a very clear picture, and they're from the Guardian and the Observer, not some obscure conspiracy journal or a sensationalist tabloid. Given the Guardian/Observer's love affair with Julian Assange, Tea Party Supporter Glenn Greenwald, Tea Party donor Edward Snowden etc. I don't really regard them as the most level-headed of news teams. There is no political level playing field, and rich men don't even make a secret of swaying votes - "it was the Sun wot won it". But I don't think it's right to point at Twitter bots or targeted Facebook ads as the driving force behind Brexit or the Gilets Jaunes etc.. Btw, as it happens I collect 18thc political pamphlets (Desmoulins, Marat, 'Pere Duschene' etc.), I'm fascinated by the role of the printing press in social and religious change. Twitter etc. are another version of it. Everyone is now a reporter. I have been on demos and been exasperated seeing how they were reported in the media. I've been at the site of a terrorist attack overseas decades ago and was struck by the way it was reported there and here - we were staying with newspaper people that day (Twitter means that sort of sanitisation is no longer possible - but these events are designed to be spectacularly gruesome, emotive and create divisions: the uncensored version is exactly what the terrorists want ). I know of the role of agents provocateurs (I've seen myself a couple of young men at a demo whose behaviour and conversation when I tried talking to them was very odd - that evening their window-smashing actions provided the news images). But I live in a Northern working class area and the impression I got is that people voted based on their daily lived experience, not what they saw written on a bus or Facebook. |
|
999 posts
|
Brexit
Dec 16, 2018 13:02:24 GMT
via mobile
sf likes this
Post by Backdrifter on Dec 16, 2018 13:02:24 GMT
articles painting a very clear picture, and they're from the Guardian and the Observer, not some obscure conspiracy journal or a sensationalist tabloid. Given the Guardian/Observer's love affair with Julian Assange, Tea Party Supporter Glenn Greenwald, Tea Party donor Edward Snowden etc. I don't really regard them as the most level-headed of news teams. the impression I got is that people voted based on their daily lived experience, not what they saw written on a bus or Facebook. I'm not exactly a Guardian/Observer fan either but the detail and obvious in-depth research that has gone into the pieces in question can't be dismissed. And while many people of course voted on the basis you mentioned, you can't just dismiss the notion that there were various drivers for Leave voters; as I said earlier, it doesn't help the debate to characterize them as a homogeneous population with one consistent motivation. Whatever you might think about those newspapers, it's clear from the investigation that attempts were made to influence the vote. It's reassuring to take the view that surely, no one was affected by it, but how sure can we be? |
|
3,040 posts
|
Brexit
Dec 16, 2018 13:23:45 GMT
Post by crowblack on Dec 16, 2018 13:23:45 GMT
surely, no one was affected by it I don't think no-one was affected (if so, friends in advertising wouldn't be so rich) but it seems to have been seized on as an 'aha!' by a section of the commentariat who don't personally socialise with a wide section of society (e.g. blue collar workers). Btw, lifelong Guardian reader but I think it often does foolish things and mainly read it for the arts coverage now. My 2p's worth, a second referendum with the firm promise of a third in 6 years time if the grievances of those who feel 'left behind' have not been addressed by those in power. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Brexit
Dec 16, 2018 14:02:01 GMT
Post by crowblack on Dec 16, 2018 14:02:01 GMT
Btw, my comment was after seeing some of Carole Cadwalladr's tweets about playwright James Graham. She has now deleted them.
|
|
|
|
Brexit
Dec 16, 2018 14:05:58 GMT
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2018 14:05:58 GMT
I think I agree with the Cardinal: free vote in Commons for her deal. Then other options. This would prob lead to General Election. Corbyn might win but his stand is very muddy so depends on how May presents her options. Meanwhile she has to tell EU to hang on a mo while we sort it out 😂 I think that means asking for a double espresso. On current polling an election will lead to another hung parliament. There's always the chance that a number of people stand on a pure remain or leave platform and get elected (although a snap election won't allow any time for that sort of organisation) but the country is so hopelessly divided I'm not sure that another election is going to do anything other than buy time.
|
|
2,761 posts
|
Post by n1david on Dec 16, 2018 14:09:16 GMT
My 2p's worth, a second referendum with the firm promise of a third in 6 years time if the grievances of those who feel 'left behind' have not been addressed by those in power. My challenge with this is that the EU is very largely *not* the reason why 'left behind' people feel left behind. It's been set up as a useful patsy by people with other agendas. I really do understand why people are disgruntled with politicians and they feel the system isn't working for them. But leaving the EU - in itself - is not going to improve their lot. In fact, in some areas, leaving the EU will lead to a reduction in grant aid from the EU which - like Cornish farmers and Scottish fishermen - they are now desperately lobbying the UK government to make up the difference. I agree it's not as simplistic as "people voted because of a lie on a bus" but it was a fairly consistent message from Brexit campaigners that "your life will get better if we leave the EU" and it's just not that simple, and in fact the opposite may be true for many people, at least in the short term. |
|
5,066 posts
|
Brexit
Dec 16, 2018 14:16:45 GMT
Post by Phantom of London on Dec 16, 2018 14:16:45 GMT
"sheep-like blue collar dimwits" is your (unpleasantly judgmental) phrase, not mine. I live in a place where the electorate voted Leave by a margin very considerably larger than the national result, and I certainly wouldn't describe my neighbours as "sheep-like blue collar dimwits". ARGHHHHHHHH! ARGH ARGH ARGH! REREAD MY POST. AND MY CLARIFICATION BECAUSE I'M AWARE IN CYBERSPACE THINGS ARE OFTEN READ TOO QUICKLY. I DID NOT SAY THAT - I SAID THE TOTAL OPPOSITE! Can I say YET AGAIN the whole reason for my post was that I am totally p-d off by some middle-class media commentators PORTRAYING a large section of the electorate as sheep-like blue collar dimwits! "Oh, they've seen some words on the side of a bus, they want blue passports, they're all a bunch of racists, that's why they voted". And now, added to that, that it's all an overarching Russian conspiracy and nothing to do with devil-take-the-hindmost political systems. Many in my family are blue-collar, many voted Leave. I'm a Labour Party member, I've sat on polling stations at elections, and I have never seen my local polling station busier than for the referendum and the election afterwards where Corbyn's brand of socialist Labour did far better than Southern media commentators expected. I'll post more later but I'm having breakfast. The information is out there for people to engage in, if they chose to. However when people vote it is an emotional response to how they’re feeling at the time, change in their living standards, what they can and cannot afford, if they feel threatened, if they can access the treatment that they paid into, they make a global judgement on all these factors and this decides how to they vote, however people don’t do politics forensically and rely on better people to provide this information. Look at human rights, I would love to rock up at a Tory party conference and say that I work as a human rights lawyer and watch them go into melt down. The press always cited human rights to people who received controversially like a peodos right to family life, they never highlighted where it was given out justly, for an example a couples right to remain together in a care home, who have been married 60 years. Even Theresa May the one good thing she did was use human rights to stop a lad accused of hacking with autism being deported to the USA. But human rights have never been cited positively, even though the concept was suggested by a British bloke who happens to be Winston Churchill. The media coverage in this country is a lot better here, than elsewhere, where say in America you access the media to suit your confirmation bias, Fox if you are a right winger or CNN if you are liberal, don’t get me started on radio station there. We only have printed journalism that does this which is in decline and ‘fake news’. |
|
999 posts
|
Post by Backdrifter on Dec 16, 2018 14:26:20 GMT
My 2p's worth, a second referendum with the firm promise of a third in 6 years time if the grievances of those who feel 'left behind' have not been addressed by those in power. it was a fairly consistent message from Brexit campaigners that "your life will get better if we leave the EU" and it's just not that simple, and in fact the opposite may be true for many people, at least in the short term. Chief among them Farage who has recently said "I never said Brexit would bring propserity" when he repeatedly did during the referendum campaign, in various media including his own actual face. This is the man so many Leavers hold up as a hero, while he openly lies about his own words promising prosperity and therefore showing that this "man of the people" has total disrespect for those people. Who then still support him. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Brexit
Dec 16, 2018 14:37:27 GMT
Post by crowblack on Dec 16, 2018 14:37:27 GMT
the EU is very largely *not* the reason why 'left behind' people feel left behind. I think a lot of the issues around free movement could have been resolved if there had been a level playing field to absorb the impact: instead (and this seems to have been forgotten!) with the EU enlargement in 2004 the other big European countries slammed their their doors against East European workers, preventing free movement, so the impact fell disproportionately on the blue collar workers of those countries who actually were welcoming, like Britain. This is why those commentators who depict Britain as a uniquely paranoid island of racists really get my goat - they completely forget the Continental European campaigns against the 'Polish plumber' of the early 2000s - or that these countries have ID cards, which to us feel Orwellian. |
|
2,761 posts
|
Post by n1david on Dec 16, 2018 14:47:06 GMT
the impact fell disproportionately on the blue collar workers of those countries who actually were welcoming, like Britain. You're right, and in retrospect it was an error for the Blair government not to impose limits on migrants from the new countries in line with other western EU countries. However, if the coalition government had not systematically cut funding of public services and local councils, the impact would not have been as significant. Yes, there was an influx of people. However, if you reduce the capacity for public services at the same time - which is a largely invisible cut - then the migrants are going to be blamed for clogging up local schools and NHS facilities. |
|
