Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Brexit – the Guilty Men?
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Brexit – the Guilty Men?
Scepticism (Euroscepticism, certainly) has a bad press these days. But being sceptical of received wisdom, of grand plans and theories, of the assumption that because matters have always been this way, this is how they should remain, is a good thing. At its best, it’s the courage to ask “Why?”and “Why not?” We could have done with more of it when Mrs May came out with her alliterative but empty “Brexit means Brexit” line last year. And it is possible to be a Eurosceptic – ie sceptical of how the EU behaves, its destination and whether it is adopting the right policies – while still thinking that, on balance, it makes more sense for Britain to remain part of it than not. But that kind of Euroscepticism has fallen out of fashion or, perhaps, been forced into silence by a much more toxic form which seems to see no good in the EU at all, which knows what it is against but not what it is for, which sees conspiracies and bad faith everywhere and which sounds increasingly strident and angry to anyone who is, well, sceptical of this. How did this come about?
Comments
She would have agreed with Osborne that it was a crazy idea.
The EU too also did not go far enough in attempting to reach out to Britain.
On undermining democracy (Delors), that was reinforced repeatedly when a nation voted down a treaty. A No vote would be repeated (or ignored) whereas any Yes was banked forever. It didn't do much to enhance trust in the EU.
The East Europeans were, for many people, especially those who had lost their jobs during the de-industrialisation of the Thatcher years, the last straw. The chance to vote against immigrants came and they took it.
A while ago (maybe a decade or more now) Channel 4 had an excellent programme breaking down migration by various nationalities (if memory serves, Portuguese and Somalians were likeliest to thieve, and Chinese/Indians likeliest to own their own businesses). It was quite interesting and useful as a reminder that speaking of migration as one big block is not the best way to address it. Looking at particular groups to improve integration, and promote and defend British culture (something sorely lacking from the political and media class, and sometimes with a blind eye turned to the worst offences by rancidly PC authorities as we saw in Rotherham) matter as much, perhaps more, than the numbers.
That would also have the happy consequence of diminishing the appeal of the far right (which is still nowhere near as big as a problem as Islamic terrorism, but is something that is increasing and something about which the media are far more willing to call a spade a spade, unlike the wibbling that happens often with religious terrorism).
ITV News has recently had the new director of the Young Vic advocating (if it doesn't happen anyway) ethnic quotas to increase 'diversity' in the theatre (he was happy to be responsible for an all-black play, which got the nodding approval of the programme without a shred of self-aware irony). Similarly, ITV News, yesterday, had the sympathetic new political idiot nodding along to the idea of kids with lower grades being allowed into Oxbridge if they weren't from private school.
That kind of bullshit helps fuel white nationalism. When you're openly advocating denying white people roles because of the colour of their skin (something the police have done in the past) or discriminating against people because they had the temerity to be born into a wealthy family, that's not going to encourage a campfire circle singing acoustic guitar songs, it's going to foster bitterness and resentment.
https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2017/oct/01/kwame-kwei-armah-young-vic-theatre-interview
While there are reasonable numbers of BME actors, sportsmen and musicians, the management and production teams are very much like me - middle aged white men. He is now the only Black director of a major UK theatre, and indeed he thinks the only one in Europe too. There is an issue that needs addressing in terms of social mobility in all these arenas.
His Black cast production is an attempt at getting a new more diverse audience. Certainly theatre audiences are currently from a fairly narrow demographic.
And the reason it failed is because it was both arrogant and unrealistic. It said that the UK may not like the direction of travel of the EC/EU but if we stay in we can change it to something we do like. This in spite of the fact that the direction of travel was in accord with the wishes of both the EU as an organisation and most of its members. It was arrogance in the extreme to think that they should change their aspirations to suit us. Nor was it realistic ever since the Single Currency was introduced. Monetary Union needed Political Union. which is why we are right to eave for both our sakes and the sake of the rest of the EU.
The only form of Euroscepticism that was ever realistic was that which recognised that the EU was never suited to the UK and the UK was never suited to the EU.
If he had had just an ounce of Euro-scepticism in his ample frame, he might well have been less inclined to give Europe a pass on everything - and in turn, then might have won over enough in the Conservative Party to make him leader. From which position, he could have been a cheerleader for even modest reforms in Brussels that would have prevented the need for a referendum - or if granted, ensured it was not won by the Leavers.
Survation's final EU referendum poll of course had Remain ahead anyway.
4. Gordon Brown
By abandoning the referendum he offered on the specious claim Lisbon wan't a rebranded constitution, and going to court to argue that he could ignore his manifesto commitment to a referendum, Brown demonstrated that the political class was determined to ignore the electorate on this issue.
This contempt for the voter probably pushed enough wavering voters to the leave camp to swing the result.
Mr. Tyndall explained this rather better than me.
Nothing's changed. *Exasperated look.* Nothing's changed.
In my day they let in a certain number of comp pupils with lower grades than would usually be asked for. What usually happened was that these people then dismally failed mods/prelims and were promptly slung out again. Harsh, but what else do you do?
Survation have had a good record in the last 2 general elections but they got the 2016 EU referendum completely wrong. ICM, Opinium and TNS were the only pollsters who had Leave ahead in their final polls and consequently the only pollsters really worth studying as to whether opinion has changed.
Similarly the latest hit musical "Hamilton" deliberately uses an ahistorical cast and rapping as a musical style to address contemporary themes in what is ostensibly a play about one of the US founding fathers.
I don't think there's a single person who has changed their mind on Brexit in over a year of arguing about it.
A few leavers are pessimistic about the current government's *ability* to carry out Brexit but that doesn't mean they think it's inherently bad thing or would change their mind in a second referendum, although a small number might. Points to a posible 52/48 outcome for remain in a second referendum, which would be disastrous for democracy and split the country even further down the middle.
Quite a few remainers are of the opinion "I don't like this, I disagree with it all, but the vote must be respected, we must get on with the job and get out with a minimum amount of harm." A few more are of the opinion "The boil must be lanced before Britain can be cured of its Euroscepticism". Points to an increased majority for leave.
Of course PB is not a representative sample of the population at large (who may be very resentful at being asked to vote again and may vote in a "stuff the lot of you" fashion), but I find it _very_ telling how nobody on here has changed their mind since last year.
But my focus was on a slightly different point: why this particular argument has become so toxic and bitter, in a way which few others are.
http://www.tcd.ie/Trinity_Access/
They add another year to the course, but aiui results at graduation are broadly similar.
(It's also quite brilliant.)
Responsible is a better word.
The PM that called the referendum, personally negotiated with the EU and led the campaign should share a smidgen of responsibility.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/apr/20/oxford-college-lady-margaret-hall-scheme-recruit-disadvantaged-students
I tend to think that if you have been to an "A" class school, you are more likely to have achieved your full potential than if you went to poor school. I don't therefore think there is anything particular outrageous about Oxbridge giving lower offers to kids they think have more room to grow.
(edited to add: good afternoon, everybody)
But you raise a very good point - how many people voted remain but have either, as you say, come to the realisation that the UK and rEU are heading in clearly different directions or who have had their worst fears about the EU confirmed by their intransigence to admit the need for reform and their stubbornness in their treatment of Britain since then?
Given the available anecdata I would be betting heavily on an increased 'leave' vote in a hypothetical second referendum - unless of course the youth vote turned out in force. They certainly flexed their muscles in 2017.
The title was a nod to a famous book by Michael Foot. See my comment above.
However, also happening at the same time was the push to EMU, which was a second aspect of the same dynamic, so it's not easy (or, for that matter, necessary) to split them apart. The important fact was their effect.
But you're right to point out that upper middle class types tend to nor practice what they preach to others or issues such as racial equality. Or for that matter sexual equality.
Some civil servants were reportedly preparing for a “Chilcot-style” inquiry into no deal preparations in the event that it happens and there is significant disruption.
My hunch would be that if a second referendum happened, the dynamics would be much more like Cameron might have been hoping for when he first came up with the In/Out gambit: all the mainstream against a mixture of extremists and clapped-out has-beens. All the hope and optimism would be missing from a second Leave campaign, and it would quickly sink in the polls.
And certainly better than the Heath era politicians and bureaucrats who thought that Britain would be able to dominate the then EEC after admission.
kyf_100
As we have seen today there are a few like HYUFD and I am sure there is some churn, but the mood music of PB certainly does not indicate a sea change in opinion.
The question interests me because I voted to leave, but have lost faith in the government's ability to deliver a remotely successful Brexit. However, I would still vote 'leave' a second time because-
a) remaining now would surely imply ever closer union rather than the status quo which I remain firmly against,
b) border control outweighs financial concerns for me in a way it didn't prior to the Manchester and London terror attacks this year and
c) democracy is too important to the fabric of our society to have 52% of the population lose faith in it.
More pertinently it’s an effective example of reaching a conclusion then primarily looking for evidence which supports that conclusion. It’s just weak scholarship in that respect. It fits the US tenure and academic model though.
Corbyn would likely sit on the fence again, resulting in a pretty half-hearted effort from Labour.
The static headline figure may well cover a degree of churn in both directions.
I certainly wouldn't be expecting a second Leave campaign to run on hope and optimism. I would expect it to run on anger. "We told them once, how many times do they have to be told? Our political class think they are above us... everything we told you about the EU making people vote again and again until we give the right answer was true, so vote leave again to give the finger to them all" and so on.
I think it would get very, very ugly a second time around and that is another reason I'm not in favour of a second referendum. Whether such a negative campaign would win or not is a matter for debate. But if you think the pot is stirred now...
His attempts as Chancellor to get Sterling to shadow the Mark led to first strong growth turning into an economic boom and then that boom turning into the inevitable inflation, higher interest rates, the ERM and recession.
All bad enough but it was the ERM exit and the project fear ** which preceeded it that began Britain's uncoupling from the EU.
** We were told by Major, Heseltine, Clarke etc that if Britain left the ERM interst rates and inflation would soar, there would be no more foreign investment, the car factories would shut down, the City would relocate to Frankfurt and sterling would become as worthless as the Ukranian Coupon. Needless to say the opposite happened.
A campaign now would have to be for leave with no deal. Very few Tories could stand on that platform
I agree to some extent with what you (and @Richard_Tyndall) say about reform from within. But Britain got quite a lot out of the EU and some better negotiation - itself a huge topic - would still have given an option other than full withdrawal.
It was, though, a genuinely hard decision for me.
What I will say is that I have despaired of how the outcome has been handled. A complete and embarrassing shambles.
Or if that's too much trouble have a guess at whether an ultra party loyalist was supporting or opposing Cameron's side.
I was much amused by your saying “Few people will listen to arguments, however reasonable, from the sort of person you wouldn’t want to sit next to on a long bus journey with no stops” because I recall doing just that with one of those “bastards” – Peter Lilley. This was in 1964 and we were students on a student-organised Study Tour of the South of France. It lasted the best part of a week. This was one of the turning points of my life, because he, a student of physics, nearly always got the better of an argument with me on economics. I had rather leftish views and had just begun to study economics. In retrospect I can say that my political outlook was shifted 180 degrees as a result of that experience.