UK Conservative Party Wins! Shows What's To Come For U.S.

[Trausti]

There were several issues involved here. To a certain extent, this was the "second referendum" that the remoaners wanted, and Brexit thumped remain. That the more socialist faction backed Brussels while the more conservative faction backed the UK was to a certain extent an interesting alignment.

From my side of the pond, I understand that some traditional Labour voters were rightly angry that their vote for Brexit had not been honored. It is obviously insulting when Bilby's "experts" say that the stupid working class need another referendum, and another after that, if necessary, until they vote the way the "experts" tell them to.

 

[bilby]

There were several issues involved here. To a certain extent, this was the "second referendum" that the remoaners wanted, and Brexit thumped remain. That the more socialist faction backed Brussels while the more conservative faction backed the UK was to a certain extent an interesting alignment.

From my side of the pond, I understand that some traditional Labour voters were rightly angry that their vote for Brexit had not been honored. It is obviously insulting when Bilby's "experts" say that the stupid working class need another referendum, and another after that, if necessary, until they vote they way the "experts" tell them to.

The people need a first referendum. The plebiscite in 2016 was not a referendum, and contained absolutely no detail of what 'leave' implied.

And they're just experts, they're not my experts. Experts have expertise; They are your experts as much as mine - even if you are too stupid and arrogant to listen to them.

 

[Metaphor]

The people need a first referendum. The plebiscite in 2016 was not a referendum, and contained absolutely no detail of what 'leave' implied.

I'm reminded of the Australian same-sex marriage plebiscite. Obviously, it contained absolutely no detail of what same-sex marriage implied, and, no matter what the vote, Parliament ought to have made the decision for us. And if the collective will of Parliament was against same-sex marriage, then Parliament should have made the decision to ignore the will of the voting public. Right?

 

[Metaphor]

I trust the opinins of people who know him over those expressed by his ideological enemies in both politics and the press.

What does knowing him have to do with it? I'm serious: most people don't know politicians personally, but they still form favourable opinions or unfavourable ones, do they not?

Trump wouldn't be somehow more popular with the people who currently hate him if he had a calmer, more diplomatic temperament, would he?

 

[Metaphor]

And as nobody's being asked to elect me to anything, it cannot possibly have influenced any election results at all.

He said arrogance like yours, not your particular arrogance.

 

[Metaphor]

Considerably more votes were cast for 'remain' candidates nationally than for 'leave' candidates.

The previous assembly of the House of Commons had 480/650 remain voters.

I suspect many of those are now out, and the ones who voted 'remain' but pledged to honour the 2016 plebiscite were more likely to 'remain' in the House than the ones still promising to deny the will of the people.

 

[bilby]

The people need a first referendum. The plebiscite in 2016 was not a referendum, and contained absolutely no detail of what 'leave' implied.

I'm reminded of the Australian same-sex marriage plebiscite. Obviously, it contained absolutely no detail of what same-sex marriage implied, and, no matter what the vote, Parliament ought to have made the decision for us. And if the collective will of Parliament was against same-sex marriage, then Parliament should have made the decision to ignore the will of the voting public. Right?

I wasn't aware that same sex marriage required the renegotiation of hundreds of trade agreements; the re-establishment and re-certification of hundreds of regulatory abd safety bodies; the breaking of the Good Friday Agreement; And decisions on whether or not it included freedom of movement, trade, visa regulations, customs and excise arrangements, the continuing rights of residency, employment, and retirement for both foreign citizens in one country, and nationals of another in 27 others.

I don't recall discussion of no-deal, FTA, Norwegian, or Norwegian-Plus options.

In fact, it really couldn't have been any simpler - the proposal was essentially to return to an already established law that had been hurriedly changed to exclude same sex marriages when it was seen as likely that these could be permitted under the original wording of the law.

The proposal of the SSM ballot was to modify a few words in one exising legislative Act.

Brexit is so complex that more than two years after a government ministry was established to try to work out all of the necessary steps to implement it, under a variety of different proposals (all different, all 'leave' to some leave voters, none 'leave' to all leave voters); We STILL don't know exactly what it will entail - only that the half dozen possibilities that have been debated by the commons have all been rejected.

The two are completely different in every respect other than that both entailed a public vote.

 

[bilby]

And as nobody's being asked to elect me to anything, it cannot possibly have influenced any election results at all.

He said arrogance like yours, not your particular arrogance.

Other people's arrogance is not my problem.

 

[bilby]

I trust the opinins of people who know him over those expressed by his ideological enemies in both politics and the press.

What does knowing him have to do with it? I'm serious: most people don't know politicians personally, but they still form favourable opinions or unfavourable ones, do they not?

Of course they do. But an uninformed opinion isn't worth shit.

Trump wouldn't be somehow more popular with the people who currently hate him if he had a calmer, more diplomatic temperament, would he?

I would have said that he almost certainly would. He would probably also be less popular with many of those who currently adore him.

 

[Metaphor]

I wasn't aware that same sex marriage required the renegotiation of hundreds of trade agreements; the re-establishment and re-certification of hundreds of regulatory abd safety bodies; the breaking of the Good Friday Agreement; And decisions on whether or not it included freedom of movement, trade, visa regulations, customs and excise arrangements, the continuing rights of residency, employment, and retirement for both foreign citizens in one country, and nationals of another in 27 others.

I don't recall discussion of no-deal, FTA, Norwegian, or Norwegian-Plus options.

...

Brexit is so complex that more than two years after a government ministry was established to try to work out all of the necessary steps to implement it, under a variety of different proposals (all different, all 'leave' to some leave voters, none 'leave' to all leave voters); We STILL don't know exactly what it will entail - only that the half dozen possibilities that have been debated by the commons have all been rejected.

So, if Scotland had voted to leave the UK in 2014, which would surely entail similar complexity of Britain leaving the EU, would it be fair to say 'the public are fucking idiots and didn't know what they were voting for', and would you also endorse a 'new' plebiscite for the Scottish people to approve the final leave model?

Also: does it not bother you that, if Brexit were to fail, that that is effectively saying "when you join the EU, that is a one way ticket. You will never be allowed to leave."?

In fact, it really couldn't have been any simpler - the proposal was essentially to return to an already established law that had been hurriedly changed to exclude same sex marriages when it was seen as likely that these could be permitted under the original wording of the law.

The proposal of the SSM ballot was to modify a few words in one exising legislative Act.

The Marriage Act did not permit same-sex marriage before or after Howard's amendment. Marriage had already been defined in Australian common law as between one man and one woman.

 

[bilby]

I wasn't aware that same sex marriage required the renegotiation of hundreds of trade agreements; the re-establishment and re-certification of hundreds of regulatory abd safety bodies; the breaking of the Good Friday Agreement; And decisions on whether or not it included freedom of movement, trade, visa regulations, customs and excise arrangements, the continuing rights of residency, employment, and retirement for both foreign citizens in one country, and nationals of another in 27 others.

I don't recall discussion of no-deal, FTA, Norwegian, or Norwegian-Plus options.

...

Brexit is so complex that more than two years after a government ministry was established to try to work out all of the necessary steps to implement it, under a variety of different proposals (all different, all 'leave' to some leave voters, none 'leave' to all leave voters); We STILL don't know exactly what it will entail - only that the half dozen possibilities that have been debated by the commons have all been rejected.

So, if Scotland had voted to leave the UK in 2014, which would surely entail similar complexity of Britain leaving the EU, would it be fair to say 'the public are fucking idiots and didn't know what they were voting for',

Only if they insisted that it was done quickly, simply, and without final approval of the detailed withdrawal Act via a full blown legally binding referendum.

and would you also endorse a 'new' plebiscite for the Scottish people to approve the final leave model?

I believe that all far reaching changes (ie irreversible, or difficult to reverse within a few parliamentary terms) should entail a referendum based on a fully detailed parliamentary Act that sets out all of the changes, any options or amendments, and a 'victory condition ', ideally entailing a supermajority of votes.

Also: does it not bother you that, if Brexit were to fail, that that is effectively saying "when you join the EU, that is a one way ticket. You will never be allowed to leave."?

It isn't, so it doesn't.

Member states shouldn't be allowed to leave, or make any far reaching changes, on the basis of a crude non-binding simple majority opinion poll.

In fact, it really couldn't have been any simpler - the proposal was essentially to return to an already established law that had been hurriedly changed to exclude same sex marriages when it was seen as likely that these could be permitted under the original wording of the law.

The proposal of the SSM ballot was to modify a few words in one exising legislative Act.

The Marriage Act did not permit same-sex marriage before or after Howard's amendment. Marriage had already been defined in Australian common law as between one man and one woman.

It remains the case that the legisative changes amounted to a few words of a single Act.

 

[Metaphor]

Member states shouldn't be allowed to leave, or make any far reaching changes, on the basis of a crude non-binding simple majority opinion poll.

It is surely the case that whether a member state should be allowed to leave should be up to that member state.

 

[ruby sparks]

The Conservative vote was up a couple of percent. The Labour vote was down about ten percent (and even more in their traditional heartlands in the former mining and industrial towns of the North) - largely reflecting a return to 'normal' Labour voter turnout levels after the extraordinary turnout in 2017. The Tory Party also had extraordinary turnout in 2017, but were able to sustain that in 2019.

There wasn't much of a swing away from the left, and towards the right; There was just a fragmentation and decline of the left wing vote, while the right wing remained unified and turnout high.

The Conservatives got a bit less than 44% of the vote. Adding on the other right wing parties (the two unionist parties, UKIP and Brexit Party) gets you 48% of the voters opting for the 'right', and 52% for the 'left' - although much of the Brexit Party vote, particularly up North, came from 'never Tory' rusted-on Labour voters who are strong Brexit supporters but who would never consider themselves right wing; And arguably the Liberal Democratic Party is more centre than left by British standards, though they would be considered practically commies in the US).

Fewer than half of votes cast were for right wing candidates, and only 46% were cast for candidates who supported Brexit, vs 52% of votes cast for candidates who supported a "second referendum" on the issue.

Indeed. It took 866,000 votes to get one Green Party MP elected. Only 32,000 or thereabouts for a Conservative Candidate.

France and Britain are the only two countries in Western Europe that don't use some form of proportional representation. We even have it here in NI for local elections.

First past the post skews government representation and disenfranchises a lot of voters.

 

[ruby sparks]

Member states shouldn't be allowed to leave, or make any far reaching changes, on the basis of a crude non-binding simple majority opinion poll.

It's been largely forgotten now, but literally a few days before the Brexit referendum result, Nigel Farage argued that if the vote were close, it should be run again. That was when he apparently thought it was going to go against Brexit.

I didn't hear him repeating that afterwards.

The truth is it was a very close vote indeed, after a lot of misinformation during the campaign, and without anyone knowing what type of Brexit it would be or what the consequences would be. Northern Ireland hardly even got one mention during the campaign, and it has turned out to be one of the biggest issues.

Imo, Brexit is essentially English Nationalism. Margaret Thatcher shifted a lot of Labour voters to Conservative voters by selling them their council houses (once you are a homeowner, your politics tend to slide more to the right out of vested economic interest, especially in the housing market). Now the Conservatives have pulled off a similar trick by getting Labour voters to vote Conservative by appealing to their patriotism and making it a supposed priority vested interest. The phrase 'Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel' may apply.

 

[ruby sparks]

Nigel Farage wants second referendum if Remain campaign scrapes narrow win
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7985017

"Nigel Farage warns today he would fight for a second referendum on Britain in Europe if the remain campaign won by a narrow margin next month."

There could be unstoppable demand for a re-run of the EU referendum if Remain wins by a narrow margin on 23 June, UKIP leader Nigel Farage has said.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681

Even on the day of the result, he was saying this, because all the polls, including exit polls, suggested Remain was going to win by a small margin (4 points, so not even as small a margin as the actual result). He soon shut up. Suddenly, the country had clearly decided, and so, conveniently, a second referendum would now be a betrayal of the principles of democracy. It was an interesting and sudden 180-degree u-turn on his part.

 

[ruby sparks]

Yes, in times of economic strife conservatives typically vote for populist candidates. Historically this doesn't tend to turn out well.

Seconded. Furthermore, non-conservatives will drift towards voting more conservatively. Imo it's no coincidence that the background to both Trump and Brexit was severe economic problems. The left is rarely the cause of such problems. Usually it's the laissez-faire policies of the right contributing to boom and bust economics. What happens is that the right then blame other causes and tell everyone that they can fix the problem that they caused in the first place by dealing with things that weren't the cause and going back to more of the same causal policies as before.

 

[jonatha]

To a certain extent, this was the "second referendum" that the remoaners wanted, and Brexit thumped remain.

Which is why the anti-Brexit parties (Labour, the Liberal Democrats, and the SNP) received more votes than the pro-Brexit ones (Conservatives and the Brexit party)....

 

[ruby sparks]

To a certain extent, this was the "second referendum" that the remoaners wanted, and Brexit thumped remain.

Which is why the anti-Brexit parties (Labour, the Liberal Democrats, and the SNP) received more votes than the pro-Brexit ones (Conservatives and the Brexit party)....

Indeed. Because it wasn't a referendum. It was a general election, with a 1st past the post (in each constituency) way of deciding. Quite different from a referendum. The overall share of the vote is arguably a better yardstick of what result a referendum would result in, because the votes of everyone get lumped and added together.

That said, if I were a remainer (and I am) I would not be thinking that a 2nd referendum would reverse the 1st one. Overall, it seems too close to call for that. One large factor is that Patriotic English nationalism has been successfully appealed to, and it could well lead to another leave vote if there was another referendum anytime soon.

However, it's almost irrelevant, as a 2nd referendum seems very very unlikely now. As a remainer, I am trying to be optimistic. I'm pretty sure Brexit is going to cause more problems, for at least 5 years, and my feeling is it was unnecessary, overall a bad move, and proposed and decided for dubious reasons, but the stability that might come from finally going through with it might be a good thing.

And if it turns out to have been a bad move, then Britain can probably ask to get back in in the future.

I'm crossing my fingers and hoping I'm wrong and that it is a good thing. The truth is I really don't know. I doubt anyone does.

But I myself am staying with one foot in the EU. Because I'm Northern Irish and can get an Irish passport. Family applications going in literally tomorrow.

Many people in the UK with Irish roots might be doing the same. I don't think the Irish government is going to start selling passports to wealthy non-EU people who want in, as Malta has apparently been doing (for a lot of Russians, apparently, at €25,000 a passport) but they are probably going to see yet another upturn in applications.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's not arrogance, it's observation. And as nobody's being asked to elect me to anything, it cannot possibly have influenced any election results at all. What's causing your smug feelings of joy is pride in the achievements of others who you have chosen to identify as your tribe - but just as though your favourite football team had won an important game, your feeling that it was an achievement of yours, or a failing of those who are fans of the other team, are stupid and misplaced. You weren't on the pitch. You have won nothing.

The reality remains that the result of the election will cause a great deal of unnecessary and in some cases deadly hardship for a large number of British people. I am being very charitable in attributing your joy at this to your being too fucking stupid to understand it.

Yes, you are so smart. Everyone else is stupid. Keep it up, and enjoy Conservative governments for years to come.

As I said, I am not standing for election anywhere, so my pointing out the fact that the majority of voters are fucking stupid really doesn't influence the outcome of any elections. I think you are vastly overestimating my personal influence - apparently in an attempt to avoid considering the fact that I am right, and that you too are doomed to be governed by people who do what is popular, instead of what is best.

I am well aware that Conservative governments will continue until things get so bad that even the morons can't be persuaded that it's all the fault of minorities and immigrants and foreigners and the previous Labour administration, and that things can get very bad indeed before that point, despite the fact that the policies that are fucking them over have been driven by Conservative governments for decades.

But nonetheless I decline your invitation to join you in your cosy isolation from reality. Facts exist. Opinions are of little value, and uneducated opinions of far less. Popularity is a very poor guide to truth. And democracy without education is a force for evil.

Not only what is popular, but "what is popular because of frequently spoken lies". The conservatives have been pushing false narratives as to the nature of Brexit for years, and when they get called on it they just pull the ad and say "oops, our bad" in the tiniest font possible before pushing a completely different but equally preposterous lie. Ad Infinitum. For over a decade, give or take.

I'd say the voters aren't stupid so much as systematically lied to by the Murdoch propeganda cartel.

The fact that the labor party failed to be honest, open, and take a direct narrative opposing Brexit with clear messaging is one of the biggest reasons that they failed.

 

[ruby sparks]

The fact that the labor party failed to be honest, open, and take a direct narrative opposing Brexit with clear messaging is one of the biggest reasons that they failed.

It was difficult for them to do that, when so many of their constituencies had majority leave voters. The Lib Dems tried that approach, and it didn't work for them.

Also, 71% of manual workers voted leave. The leave vote was stronger the further down the income scale you went.

Labour also wasn't particularly pro-EU, as a party, even before the referendum. Overall, I think they might be generally described as in favour of a soft Brexit, which in many ways is arguably what the referendum result was a mandate for, given that the electorate was literally split almost evenly in two (albeit a very slight majority for Leave) and still is.