Brexit

Nigel Farage was always a one trick pony. He was the vocal catalyst for longstanding misgivings in the major parties about Europe, but was defined by what he was against, not what he represented by way of alternatives. UKIP were a protest party for a disaffected Labour voting working class, and the far right, and their occasional glimpses of good sense should not be taken as representative of their ideology, which was the usual mixture of misplaced nostalgia and bigotry.

Earlier in the thread I noted that the problem with Brexit was not the fact of it, but that no one would be there to pick up the pieces. Events have shown how true that is. What we have are two centrist tendencies defined as Blairism that transcend party boundaries, and an increasingly marginalised socialist left and conservative right. In reality there's nothing between the con-lab middle in politics, ideology or social background, and far more in common between traditional conservatism and conservative socialism than they seem prepared to admit.

The logical thing to do would be to abandon party sentiment and allow the new liberal democratic (con-lab) and conservative (trad-social) parties to take shape, once again giving voters more than a notional choice. Until such a coalescence takes place UK politics will be marked by murky expediency adrift on the tide of events, with its cut throat opportunism, surrounded by fragmented siren voices on its inevitable destination.
 
What we have are two centrist tendencies defined as Blairism that transcend party boundaries, and an increasingly marginalised socialist left and conservative right. In reality there's nothing between the con-lab middle in politics, ideology or social background, and far more in common between traditional conservatism and conservative socialism than they seem prepared to admit.

The logical thing to do would be to abandon party sentiment and allow the new liberal democratic (con-lab) and conservative (trad-social) parties to take shape, once again giving voters more than a notional choice. Until such a coalescence takes place UK politics will be marked by murky expediency adrift on the tide of events, with its cut throat opportunism, surrounded by fragmented siren voices on its inevitable destination.
I listened to Peter Hitchens saying something very similar to this:
 
US reactions continued, curious as to their accuracy -> Greer on Brexit:

Outside the Hall of Mirrors

Absent from the entire Remain repertory, before as well as after the vote, was any sense that the question of continued EU membership for Britain involved substantive issues about which it was possible to have reasoned disagreement. It should have been obvious that telling people that their concerns don’t matter, and berating them with schoolyard insults when they demur, was not going to convince them to change their vote. That this was not obvious to the pro-EU camp, and shows little evidence of becoming any more obvious even in the wake of defeat, hints that the issues in question are things that the pro-EU camp is utterly unwilling to see discussed at all.

I suggest that this is exactly what’s going on, and a glance back across the last century or so of British political history may help point out the unspoken realities behind the shouting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red
Pat Condell (above) can sound a bit abrasive (!!), but in that video, I think he really tells it as it was. Why would any democracy really think it should subject itself to an undemocratic super structure that could basically behave as it saw fit without any democratic oversight?

We slid into that situation by stealth, and we got out of it by the skin of our teeth! I don't really understand how the undemocratic EU manages to get so many fans in places like the US and in the media - perhaps they could sell that expertise to other undemocratic regimes - China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia (well they already seem to know how to pull the wool over people's eyes).

We did it as much for Europe as for ourselves, because Europe was slipping into becoming a superstate with territorial ambitions. We know where that ended up before, even before the days of nuclear weapons - we don't want a repeat!

I wish all the naive young people that Pat Condell was talking about, would actually realise that the EU was (and maybe still is) trying a to negotiate a secret trade agreement with the US, known as TTIP, that would have let US corporations take over pretty much whatever they liked - and I wish they would go and ask the Greeks and the Ukrainians (particularly those from the East) what they think of the EU.

David
 
Also interesting, in Lisa's video, when she points out that most of the UK PMs, and the contenders in the last election, were Cardinal signs (Capricorn, Libra, Aries, Cancer)... and (c. 4-5 minutes) "Boris Johnson, he's Gemini, but his chart his not looking good for the leadership, but keep your eye on Theresa May because she's another Libra and she may be in there as a future leader". :)
Well done, Lisa! :)

Noting her success, Lisa has since produced these:



 
After another of my prolonged absences from this forum, I wandered in to catch up a little. I was interested to read through this thread having the benefit of hindsight. I have to say that I was, once again, struck by the fact that some of the people I consider to be my soul-mates in matters spiritual turn out to be my polar opposites when it comes to politics. For example, I could never grasp why anyone with an ounce of social concern would agree with anything Nigel Farage might say. Donald Trump is just beyond the pale.

I tend towards the centre in politics. I've always voted Liberal but held a soft spot for Labour. But I'm more inclined to have an opinion on issues rather than party dogma so I can find myself nodding in agreement with spokespeople from across the spectrum. I happen to think that Corbyn has some policies I agree with (Trident being one) but that he is a puppet of the far left. Many of the recent Labour members are probably Socialist Workers Party activists. Not that there's anything wrong with those socialists having representation but I doubt that the Labour voting public share the dogmatic views of the current party membership.

To the right there is a similar blending of ideologies with right-wing tories being indistinguishable from UKIP on many issues. Despite what UKIP supporters say, it is a Little England mentality that I see. Foreigners are always to blame for lack of housing, NHS problems, infrastructure failures and crime. I don't think I've ever heard Farage get through an interview without blaming foreigners for something (usually everything). There seems to be a rose-tinted view of an England of the past, where the sight of a dark skin or the sound of a European accent was a quaint novelty. Where the rights of minorities were yet to become a prominent issue. When PC was a term for the friendly but firm constable, not a caution against using derogatory terms to describe women, gays or people of a different race or class.

And so to Brexit. For me the messages were clear from one side and muddled from the other. Leave concentrated on two things (which boiled down to one): immigration and sovereignty. While I agree that there are reasonable concerns about immigration - and the Remain campaign singularly failed to address these concerns - there is also a sizeable section of our population who are openly xenophobic. You could see it in the vox-pop street interviews. It raised its ugly head immediately following the vote with foreigners being targeted with hateful abuse. I believe that is what won the vote for Leave. Farage knew exactly what he was doing with that awful poster showing the Syrian migrants. He didn't care that there would be howls of protest because he knew the message would get through to the targeted audience. I saw much worse on Facebook every day of the campaign - open hatred. I even had to unfriend my own brother who re-posted many anti-muslim slogans as well as pro-Farage messages.

So my vote was to remain. Perhaps for the wrong reasons and perhaps the UK will prosper on the outside. But my view was that we should be moving towards a world without nationalism and tribalism. The EU was not yet a living example of that but to retreat behind our further-entrenched borders was, in my view, less spiritually justifiable.

I have a feeling my good buddy David Bailey might be tempted to ban me after this. Sorry DB, but I just don't see it your way though I don't include you in the characterisation of UKIP supporters who also happen to be xenophobic. I don't believe that your only MP is either but I note with interest that he and Farage are certainly not good buddies.
 
The problem with liberalism is it has no mechanism for dealing with the illiberal. It is based on the principle that human beings are essentially kind, logical and work to common values, when nothing in history bears this out. What was interesting about Brexit is the way it united different political impulses. Some of those were knee jerk xenophobia, but others had philosophical weight, and were concerned with mistrust of supranationalism and the EUs expansionist tendencies.
 
I suspect the range of reasons for voting 'out' are complex and nuanced.

To disagree with everything a person says on principle doesn't sound very balanced to me. I can't think of anyone whose every utterance I disagree with. That doesn't mean I endorse everything they say either.

The simplistic characterisation by some of those who voted 'out' as being in some way racist or xenophobic is contemptible imo and simply derails rational discussion on the subject.
 
To tag everyone who voted out as xenophobic or racist would indeed be wrong. I hope I didn't give that impression. What I intended to get across was the impression I had that xenophobia played a part in the victory, though how big a part I could not be sure. I saw naked racism first hand and I have friends who were targeted so there is no point in denying that it happens. With such a small margin between the two sides of the vote, I was merely speculating on whether the extremist faction might have made the difference.

Additionally, I found the rhetoric of Farage offensive. That is my personal opinion of the man and his triumphalist "You're not laughing now" speech at the EU after the vote confirmed that opinion.
 
Ironically, I've had some quite pointed comments suggesting that people like me (Baby Boomers) were at fault for the leave result. While that may be true for my age group in general it was certainly not the case for me personally. I usually point out that the young might have got the result they wanted if they had been bothered to vote.
 
To tag everyone who voted out as xenophobic or racist would indeed be wrong. I hope I didn't give that impression. What I intended to get across was the impression I had that xenophobia played a part in the victory, though how big a part I could not be sure. I saw naked racism first hand and I have friends who were targeted so there is no point in denying that it happens. With such a small margin between the two sides of the vote, I was merely speculating on whether the extremist faction might have made the difference.

Additionally, I found the rhetoric of Farage offensive. That is my personal opinion of the man and his triumphalist "You're not laughing now" speech at the EU after the vote confirmed that opinion.

I completely agree.

I have no time for Farage and I voted despite his involvement not because of it.

That the result seems to have in some way encouraged some people to express racist messages and threaten people has at least revealed them. I think the authorities need to identify these people and bring them before the courts which I hope will punish them in a swift, public and exemplary fashion.
 
Ironically, I've had some quite pointed comments suggesting that people like me (Baby Boomers) were at fault for the leave result. While that may be true for my age group in general it was certainly not the case for me personally. I usually point out that the young might have got the result they wanted if they had been bothered to vote.
The main difference was between the have's and have not's. Those who were content with the status quo, middle class home owning people in employment, and the rest. The first category, including the political classes, have talked for years about the disadvantaged while doing nothing practical to help them, mainly because their wealth was based at least in part on EU membership. An open door policy on immigration may meet ideals of equality, but does little for your wage packet if you're in the food processing industry in the Fens, or a roofer competing with people who'll do the same job for half the price. The remain campaign have depicted Brexiteers as stupid, and no doubt some are. On the other hand if you have nothing, you have nothing to lose, and a sufficient number found themselves in that position to swing the vote.

There was also genuine concern about the limits of the European project. Turkey, a country I've visited and like very much, has seen its population grow from 27 million in 1963 when Turkish membership of the Common Market was first mooted, to over 90 million today. It's also a huge military power run by a president who believes democracy is a bus you ride to your destination and then leave. I don't know how the EU squares aspiration for Turkish membership with open borders, but I'm sure it will go ahead, making it Germany's principal competitor as European head. I think the EU is an idea that has run its course, and will succumb to the inevitable as nation states see the advantages of independence and the inflexibility and loss of autonomy of remaining.
 
Back
Top