9 ms·

Reality Check: Have Leave campaigners changed their minds?

41 points by ifdefdebug 10y ago

ciconia 10y ago
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." - Frank Zappa
- x5n1 10y ago
  Stupidity is supposedly infinite, because intelligence is a very small needle in the search space of good decision making and understanding, the rest of that space is made of stupidity.
- vixen99 10y ago
  And what is the relevance of your point with regard to the link in question?
  - ciconia 10y ago
    I think it's more or less self-evident, but to put it explicitly, in the current political ambience, results of referenda and elections are determined more by people's susceptibility to scare mongering than rational thinking. Is this relevant enough?
ZenoArrow 10y ago
I'm starting to think that the book Manufacturing Consent should be part of our school curriculum. I'd suggest seeing through media spin is a very useful life skill. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
- lordnacho 10y ago
  Doesn't everyone practice this, every day? It's not exactly news that the media are powerful and biased.
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    > "Doesn't everyone practice this, every day?" Haha, hell no! Many people absorb what the media says with barely any questioning. Take this article for example, why is there no suggestion of Remain voters switching to Leave? Perhaps it's because the media coverage has been so one sided there's very little chance many people who voted to Remain would have need to question their convictions.
    - scholia 10y ago
      > Perhaps it's because the media coverage has been so one sided All the most one-side media coverage was on the Leave side, wasn't it? The Sun, The Daily Mail and The Daily Express in particular -- the main mass-circulation tabloids -- were full of pro-Leave lies. These are also papers that, not coincidentally, hate the BBC for being independent and excellent value for money.
      - ZenoArrow 10y ago
        There have been lies and propaganda on both sides, I won't deny that. However, the coverage in the 'impartial' BBC has been anything but. There have been very few instances of information-rich coverage from any of the mainstream news outlets, the coverage has been much more about personality politics than about fostering a healthy debate.
        scholia 10y ago
        > the coverage in the 'impartial' BBC has been anything but Really? What do you have in mind? Which mainstream sources have been more impartial?
- switch007 10y ago
  The corrupt have already got their hands on education - 40% of schools are acadamies. I don't see Noam Chomsky being included in the curriculum, ever!
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    That's no reason not to try.
  - elthran 10y ago
    Are you really trying to say that all academies are corrupt? I fail to see how not being controlled by a LEA means that you are straight away in the hands of corrupt big business/the man/the illuminati/whoever you think these corrupt people are.
  - ordbajsare 10y ago
    >I don't see Noam Chomsky being included in the curriculum, ever! Good since he is an dirty communist.
  - throwaway049 10y ago
    I don't have any fondness for the Academy system, but I don't think Noam Chomsky was on the National Curriculum in LEA schools either.
danmaz74 10y ago
> Boris Johnson said that British people would continue to be able to live, work and study in the EU, while at the same time the UK would be able to introduce a points-based system to control migration. I can hardly understand how can so many people believe such an obvious liar.
- zouhair 10y ago
  You start by making education expensive, then put a Trump forward.
- StavrosK 10y ago
  Wishful thinking.
- nickserv 10y ago
  Not technically a lie, people from any country outside the EU can "live, work and study in the EU"... it's just a whole lot more difficult ;-)
- tomp 10y ago
  Who would you believe then? Cameron who said that WW3 would start and Russia would invade Europe?!
  - Brakenshire 10y ago
    Cameron did not say that. He said "Can we be so sure peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt? Is that a risk worth taking?" which is absolutely valid. It is forty years since there was a fascist government in Spain, 30 years since half of Europe was run by authoritarian communist regimes, 20 years since there was genocide in Kosovo, and a war in Ukraine is still ongoing. The EU has been absolutely vital in stabilizing the continent over that timescale. Croatia and Serbia were involved in a civil war where 20,000 people died within our lifetimes, and Serbia will probably join Croatia as a member of the EU within the next decade, with open borders between he countries and guaranteed rights for minority groups. Cameron's comments were absolutely reasonable.
airesQ 10y ago
Leave says that the EU in undemocratic. But the EU is a democracy. It is certainly much more democratic than the British first-past-the-post and the house of Lords. Saying that the EU in undemocratic is just a meme. Then there is the question about the UK contributions. The UK does get its money worth, by the profit made trading in one of the biggest markets in the world (and with the countries that have trade deals with that market). By the investment that flows to UK (the FDI). By being part of continent that is much more prosperous then it would be otherwise. The UK needs the EU more than the EU needs the UK. Leave says that the UK has too many migrants, but it has fewer migrants than Ireland, Austria, Norway, Switzerland. Roughly the same number as France and Germany. The Leave camp doesn't have a plan and is awfully misinformed as to how the world works. It is a populist movement and that is all there is to it. Though to be fair, I would like to see a bit of compromise from the EU side of table. They are simply too intransigent. In theory everyone in Spain can move to Malta. Of course this would never happen in practice. But if the people in Malta are worried. The EU should consider providing them the legal means to deal with that hypothetical scenario. Instead of saying, its free movement, and that's it.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  > "is just a meme" Yeah, it's just a meme... just like we couldn't possibly trade in the EU without a trade deal is just a meme... or that all Leave campaigners are racist/stupid is just a meme...
  - wanda 10y ago
    If you think you can get a better deal than the one we have now, you are irrational or uninformed, if not stupid. You might get the same deal, but not a better one. It's just as irrational as an England supporter believing that England can win Euro 2016 after being knocked out. The Leave campaign and the referendum have both been engineered to rid Britain of both UKIP and Euroscepticism, one way or the other. The only good thing that will result from Brexit will be the disappearance of Nigel Farage, who will no longer have a reason to exist. Cameron has left article 50 inactive — more or less guaranteeing a Brexit trial period as far as the markets are concerned, and also guaranteeing a second referendum in the form of a Conservative leadership contest and subsequently a general election, with manifestos promising to initiate or cancel Brexit. Worst case scenario, on a global scale, UK fares well and EU starts to crack — Leave campaign was right (against all the odds and math) and article 50 is triggered. Best case scenario, UK fares badly, for EU it's business as usual, article 50 never activated, people vote for reformed Conservatives or Labour to cancel Brexit with landslide after people suffered with pricy food and clothing for months. For a damage control strategy to handle the result of a fundamentally terrible decision — to ask the masses a question without a definition of a meaningful majority — it's actually not bad.
lordnacho 10y ago
I can say the vitriol after the result has been crazy. My FB has dozens and dozens of posts from Remoaners decrying the idiots, racists, and old people who dared to vote against their righteous interest. At least there's a bit of humour now that England have been booted out of the European Championship. And it's all come out AFTER the result. Before the result, I suppose people thought it would go to Remain, but also there was very little activity. At least in my feed. I'm quite shocked by how little sympathy my friends have for the other side. There's a real split between people in the UK. People are saying they're "ashamed" of their country, they don't get why vast swathes of ordinary people away from London would want to leave Europe. For the record, most of my friends are university educated and voted Remain. The most powerful feature in classifying between the two camps seems to be university education (seems 100% of my non uni educated friends went for leave), the second conservatism (uni educated conservative voters more likely to be leavers). I'm somewhat indifferent on the issue; I reckon leaving will send a signal about reforming the EU, but also the UK needs to trade with Europe, so they cannot ever really leave. Any deal done will end up looking like Switzerland, which says it's not in the EU, but for practical stuff is. Do I think that's worth the hassle of actually leaving? Pretty marginal.
- jabbernotty 10y ago
  > the UK needs to trade with Europe, so they cannot ever really leave. Any deal done will end up looking like Switzerland Thse statements are seemingly facts to you, but personally I am not sure how either could become reality. I believe that the UK will have to leave, because the referendum is said to be binding. Going back on that would not be good for future voting or agreements. Swiss politicians did not, as far as I know, behave in any way similar to how some British politicians behave when it concerns the EU.
  - simonh 10y ago
    Switzerland held a referendum on stopping freedom of movement with the EU, which passed. The EU refused to even discuss it and the borders are still open and that's not going to change unless Switzerland wants to cancel all it's EU deals. Which isn't going to happen. Legally, referendums in the UK are advisory only.
abpavel 10y ago
That mandate of the EU is, and always was, to prevent WW3. That is its raison d'être, and all decisions branch out from not wanting to repeat past mistakes, and end up like Serbia/Croatia in 1996. You can point out Swiss all you want, but Switzerland is as special is the City of London (not London city).
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  > "That mandate of the EU is, and always was, to prevent WW3." Sort of. Many see that start of the EU was the ECSC (European Coal and Steel Community). Robert Schuman proposed it in 1950 to "make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Coal_and_Steel_Community https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Coal_and_Steel_Commun... However, the ideas behind the EU started before the ECSC. Jean Monnet is regarded by many to be the 'father' of the EU. Here's a quote from a speech he gave in 1943... https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jean_Monnet https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jean_Monnet "There will be no peace in Europe if the States rebuild themselves on the basis of national sovereignty, with its implications of prestige politics and economic protection…. The countries of Europe are not strong enough individually to be able to guarantee prosperity and social development for their peoples. The States of Europe must therefore form a federation or a European entity that would make them into a common economic unit." Furthermore, there have been other groups that have promoted peace in the region, namely NATO and OSCE. The agreement that led to NATO was signed in 1949, and OSCE was started in 1975, well ahead of the formation of the political union of the EU (the ECSC and EEC were mostly trade deals). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_for_Security_and_Co-operation_in_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_for_Security_and_... It's also worth noting that there was a failed attempt to build a pan-European military in 1952, and that Jean-Claude Junckher has indicated the EU may want its own army in the future: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Defence_Community https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Defence_Community https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/08/jean-claude-juncker-calls-for-eu-army-european-commission-miltary https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/08/jean-claude-ju...
  - kristofferR 10y ago
Brakenshire 10y ago
People are critical of the flagrant dishonesty of the Leave campaign, the way that all concerns were dismissed with the 'Project Fear' or 'the British public has had enough of experts' thought terminating cliches, and now the refusal to admit that the public have been lied to, and the new tendency to blame Remain voters and the EU for 'talking down the economy', or for requiring now what everyone knew would be the case beforehand in our trading/diplomatic/legal relationship post Brexit. And also the naked self-absorption of Leave campaigners like Boris Johnson, who made a series of completely unworkable promises and now doesn't even bother to turn up to parliament to discuss them. Britain paid £270m a week, and received back £100m. Johnson invented a £350m figure, the entirety of which he promised to the health service, and then promised the £100m spending commitments would be met. So his new spending requirements are £450m a week, and the money saved £270m. In other words, he has pretended to magic £180m a week out of thin air. He has also effectively promised major restrictions of immigration alongside access to the single market, which everyone knew was impossible, and promised there won't be a recession, which is unlikely. He gambled the country's stability for his personal advancement, and his duplicity and incompetence will probably lead to a far right party becoming a major force in British politics. It is not surprising that people are angry.
- rkangel 10y ago
  While you're probably right that the 'Leave' campaign is probably winning on the dishonesty front, there was a fairly sizeable departure from reality on both sides.
  - Brakenshire 10y ago
    Yes, I think that's reasonable, the whole campaign was of a poor standard. Very negative, and with little explanation of the actual mechanisms of trade or governance underlying the question. Having said that, there's plenty more you could bring up against the Leave side. The central claim of the imminent accession of Turkey in particular was an outright lie. And the general stoking up of xenophobia in order to get their way (followed by duplicity in trying to redefine their campaign the day after the vote had been taken).
- 10y ago
ikeboy 10y ago
I'm not too impressed by the logic of the first part about immigration. >During the campaign, some Leave campaigners sent a clear message that the referendum was about controlling immigration. Some are now being more nuanced, saying the UK's decision to leave the EU would not guarantee a significant decrease in immigration levels. Hm. So is it the same people and comparable claims? Let's see ... >Nigel Farage said: "Mass immigration is still hopelessly out of control and set to get worse if we remain inside the EU." >Similarly, leading pro-Leave campaigner and Tory leader front runner Boris Johnson said that the only solution to the scale of immigration which the UK was facing, was to leave the EU. >But in an article published in the Daily Telegraph on Monday, Mr Johnson denied a victory for leaving the EU could be linked to immigration. Um what? This is not at all inconsistent with the above statement. You can think that X is a good reason to leave the EU without thinking that most people who voted to leave did so because of X. >He wrote: "It is said that those who voted Leave were mainly driven by anxieties about immigration. I do not believe that is so." This is completely consistent with the previous statement. They don't have any quote from Farage in that section, only from "MEP Daniel Hannan" who wasn't mentioned previously. This reads as intentional misleading on the part of the BBC. The rest of the article isn't much better. The bar for demonstrating hypocrisy or retraction at least requires the same people to make the claims and that the two claims aren't consistent. The BBC has not met it.
return0 10y ago
Post-brexit, all the talk on both sides is about the immigration issues, the financial contribution and the future of the UK. No talk about the cultural identity of the UK or a debate about whether it is a european culture. Both brexiters and bremainers see the EU as an economic agreement only. The UK should go its own way. the anglosphere is a better fit for them. The support for bremain ranges from reluctant, to lukewarm, dispassionate and wary. We should seek people who actually believe in EU's future. I think Brexit was inevitable, although it came prematurely. All the current brexit leaders, however, are delusional. UK needs to find better leadership to get through this.
hnbro 10y ago
one-sided reporting as usual.
jkot 10y ago
> some of those who campaigned for Leave are now distancing themselves from this claim. Some have gone as far as admitting that it had been a mistake. So some people said something, and some other said something else, and some other changed their mind. I would really expect better journalism from BBC. Amateur bloggers are doing better job. If BBC did their job in the first place, Brexit would never win. It would be very simple to debung £350m figure and explain how EU works. Instead they pushed their own political agenda.

41 points by ifdefdebug 10y ago

"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." - Frank Zappa

x5n1 10y ago
Stupidity is supposedly infinite, because intelligence is a very small needle in the search space of good decision making and understanding, the rest of that space is made of stupidity.
vixen99 10y ago
And what is the relevance of your point with regard to the link in question?
- ciconia 10y ago
  I think it's more or less self-evident, but to put it explicitly, in the current political ambience, results of referenda and elections are determined more by people's susceptibility to scare mongering than rational thinking. Is this relevant enough?

ZenoArrow 10y ago

I'm starting to think that the book Manufacturing Consent should be part of our school curriculum. I'd suggest seeing through media spin is a very useful life skill. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

lordnacho 10y ago
Doesn't everyone practice this, every day? It's not exactly news that the media are powerful and biased.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  > "Doesn't everyone practice this, every day?" Haha, hell no! Many people absorb what the media says with barely any questioning. Take this article for example, why is there no suggestion of Remain voters switching to Leave? Perhaps it's because the media coverage has been so one sided there's very little chance many people who voted to Remain would have need to question their convictions.
  - scholia 10y ago
    > Perhaps it's because the media coverage has been so one sided All the most one-side media coverage was on the Leave side, wasn't it? The Sun, The Daily Mail and The Daily Express in particular -- the main mass-circulation tabloids -- were full of pro-Leave lies. These are also papers that, not coincidentally, hate the BBC for being independent and excellent value for money.
    - ZenoArrow 10y ago
      There have been lies and propaganda on both sides, I won't deny that. However, the coverage in the 'impartial' BBC has been anything but. There have been very few instances of information-rich coverage from any of the mainstream news outlets, the coverage has been much more about personality politics than about fostering a healthy debate.
      - scholia 10y ago
        > the coverage in the 'impartial' BBC has been anything but Really? What do you have in mind? Which mainstream sources have been more impartial?
switch007 10y ago
The corrupt have already got their hands on education - 40% of schools are acadamies. I don't see Noam Chomsky being included in the curriculum, ever!
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  That's no reason not to try.
- elthran 10y ago
  Are you really trying to say that all academies are corrupt? I fail to see how not being controlled by a LEA means that you are straight away in the hands of corrupt big business/the man/the illuminati/whoever you think these corrupt people are.
- ordbajsare 10y ago
  >I don't see Noam Chomsky being included in the curriculum, ever! Good since he is an dirty communist.
- throwaway049 10y ago
  I don't have any fondness for the Academy system, but I don't think Noam Chomsky was on the National Curriculum in LEA schools either.

danmaz74 10y ago

> Boris Johnson said that British people would continue to be able to live, work and study in the EU, while at the same time the UK would be able to introduce a points-based system to control migration. I can hardly understand how can so many people believe such an obvious liar.

zouhair 10y ago
You start by making education expensive, then put a Trump forward.
StavrosK 10y ago
Wishful thinking.
nickserv 10y ago
Not technically a lie, people from any country outside the EU can "live, work and study in the EU"... it's just a whole lot more difficult ;-)
tomp 10y ago
Who would you believe then? Cameron who said that WW3 would start and Russia would invade Europe?!
- Brakenshire 10y ago
  Cameron did not say that. He said "Can we be so sure peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt? Is that a risk worth taking?" which is absolutely valid. It is forty years since there was a fascist government in Spain, 30 years since half of Europe was run by authoritarian communist regimes, 20 years since there was genocide in Kosovo, and a war in Ukraine is still ongoing. The EU has been absolutely vital in stabilizing the continent over that timescale. Croatia and Serbia were involved in a civil war where 20,000 people died within our lifetimes, and Serbia will probably join Croatia as a member of the EU within the next decade, with open borders between he countries and guaranteed rights for minority groups. Cameron's comments were absolutely reasonable.

airesQ 10y ago

Leave says that the EU in undemocratic. But the EU is a democracy. It is certainly much more democratic than the British first-past-the-post and the house of Lords. Saying that the EU in undemocratic is just a meme. Then there is the question about the UK contributions. The UK does get its money worth, by the profit made trading in one of the biggest markets in the world (and with the countries that have trade deals with that market). By the investment that flows to UK (the FDI). By being part of continent that is much more prosperous then it would be otherwise. The UK needs the EU more than the EU needs the UK. Leave says that the UK has too many migrants, but it has fewer migrants than Ireland, Austria, Norway, Switzerland. Roughly the same number as France and Germany. The Leave camp doesn't have a plan and is awfully misinformed as to how the world works. It is a populist movement and that is all there is to it. Though to be fair, I would like to see a bit of compromise from the EU side of table. They are simply too intransigent. In theory everyone in Spain can move to Malta. Of course this would never happen in practice. But if the people in Malta are worried. The EU should consider providing them the legal means to deal with that hypothetical scenario. Instead of saying, its free movement, and that's it.

ZenoArrow 10y ago
> "is just a meme" Yeah, it's just a meme... just like we couldn't possibly trade in the EU without a trade deal is just a meme... or that all Leave campaigners are racist/stupid is just a meme...
- wanda 10y ago
  If you think you can get a better deal than the one we have now, you are irrational or uninformed, if not stupid. You might get the same deal, but not a better one. It's just as irrational as an England supporter believing that England can win Euro 2016 after being knocked out. The Leave campaign and the referendum have both been engineered to rid Britain of both UKIP and Euroscepticism, one way or the other. The only good thing that will result from Brexit will be the disappearance of Nigel Farage, who will no longer have a reason to exist. Cameron has left article 50 inactive — more or less guaranteeing a Brexit trial period as far as the markets are concerned, and also guaranteeing a second referendum in the form of a Conservative leadership contest and subsequently a general election, with manifestos promising to initiate or cancel Brexit. Worst case scenario, on a global scale, UK fares well and EU starts to crack — Leave campaign was right (against all the odds and math) and article 50 is triggered. Best case scenario, UK fares badly, for EU it's business as usual, article 50 never activated, people vote for reformed Conservatives or Labour to cancel Brexit with landslide after people suffered with pricy food and clothing for months. For a damage control strategy to handle the result of a fundamentally terrible decision — to ask the masses a question without a definition of a meaningful majority — it's actually not bad.

lordnacho 10y ago

I can say the vitriol after the result has been crazy. My FB has dozens and dozens of posts from Remoaners decrying the idiots, racists, and old people who dared to vote against their righteous interest. At least there's a bit of humour now that England have been booted out of the European Championship. And it's all come out AFTER the result. Before the result, I suppose people thought it would go to Remain, but also there was very little activity. At least in my feed. I'm quite shocked by how little sympathy my friends have for the other side. There's a real split between people in the UK. People are saying they're "ashamed" of their country, they don't get why vast swathes of ordinary people away from London would want to leave Europe. For the record, most of my friends are university educated and voted Remain. The most powerful feature in classifying between the two camps seems to be university education (seems 100% of my non uni educated friends went for leave), the second conservatism (uni educated conservative voters more likely to be leavers). I'm somewhat indifferent on the issue; I reckon leaving will send a signal about reforming the EU, but also the UK needs to trade with Europe, so they cannot ever really leave. Any deal done will end up looking like Switzerland, which says it's not in the EU, but for practical stuff is. Do I think that's worth the hassle of actually leaving? Pretty marginal.

jabbernotty 10y ago
> the UK needs to trade with Europe, so they cannot ever really leave. Any deal done will end up looking like Switzerland Thse statements are seemingly facts to you, but personally I am not sure how either could become reality. I believe that the UK will have to leave, because the referendum is said to be binding. Going back on that would not be good for future voting or agreements. Swiss politicians did not, as far as I know, behave in any way similar to how some British politicians behave when it concerns the EU.
- simonh 10y ago
  Switzerland held a referendum on stopping freedom of movement with the EU, which passed. The EU refused to even discuss it and the borders are still open and that's not going to change unless Switzerland wants to cancel all it's EU deals. Which isn't going to happen. Legally, referendums in the UK are advisory only.

abpavel 10y ago

That mandate of the EU is, and always was, to prevent WW3. That is its raison d'être, and all decisions branch out from not wanting to repeat past mistakes, and end up like Serbia/Croatia in 1996. You can point out Swiss all you want, but Switzerland is as special is the City of London (not London city).

ZenoArrow 10y ago
> "That mandate of the EU is, and always was, to prevent WW3." Sort of. Many see that start of the EU was the ECSC (European Coal and Steel Community). Robert Schuman proposed it in 1950 to "make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Coal_and_Steel_Community https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Coal_and_Steel_Commun... However, the ideas behind the EU started before the ECSC. Jean Monnet is regarded by many to be the 'father' of the EU. Here's a quote from a speech he gave in 1943... https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jean_Monnet https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jean_Monnet "There will be no peace in Europe if the States rebuild themselves on the basis of national sovereignty, with its implications of prestige politics and economic protection…. The countries of Europe are not strong enough individually to be able to guarantee prosperity and social development for their peoples. The States of Europe must therefore form a federation or a European entity that would make them into a common economic unit." Furthermore, there have been other groups that have promoted peace in the region, namely NATO and OSCE. The agreement that led to NATO was signed in 1949, and OSCE was started in 1975, well ahead of the formation of the political union of the EU (the ECSC and EEC were mostly trade deals). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_for_Security_and_Co-operation_in_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_for_Security_and_... It's also worth noting that there was a failed attempt to build a pan-European military in 1952, and that Jean-Claude Junckher has indicated the EU may want its own army in the future: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Defence_Community https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Defence_Community https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/08/jean-claude-juncker-calls-for-eu-army-european-commission-miltary https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/08/jean-claude-ju...
- kristofferR 10y ago

Brakenshire 10y ago

People are critical of the flagrant dishonesty of the Leave campaign, the way that all concerns were dismissed with the 'Project Fear' or 'the British public has had enough of experts' thought terminating cliches, and now the refusal to admit that the public have been lied to, and the new tendency to blame Remain voters and the EU for 'talking down the economy', or for requiring now what everyone knew would be the case beforehand in our trading/diplomatic/legal relationship post Brexit. And also the naked self-absorption of Leave campaigners like Boris Johnson, who made a series of completely unworkable promises and now doesn't even bother to turn up to parliament to discuss them. Britain paid £270m a week, and received back £100m. Johnson invented a £350m figure, the entirety of which he promised to the health service, and then promised the £100m spending commitments would be met. So his new spending requirements are £450m a week, and the money saved £270m. In other words, he has pretended to magic £180m a week out of thin air. He has also effectively promised major restrictions of immigration alongside access to the single market, which everyone knew was impossible, and promised there won't be a recession, which is unlikely. He gambled the country's stability for his personal advancement, and his duplicity and incompetence will probably lead to a far right party becoming a major force in British politics. It is not surprising that people are angry.

rkangel 10y ago
While you're probably right that the 'Leave' campaign is probably winning on the dishonesty front, there was a fairly sizeable departure from reality on both sides.
- Brakenshire 10y ago
  Yes, I think that's reasonable, the whole campaign was of a poor standard. Very negative, and with little explanation of the actual mechanisms of trade or governance underlying the question. Having said that, there's plenty more you could bring up against the Leave side. The central claim of the imminent accession of Turkey in particular was an outright lie. And the general stoking up of xenophobia in order to get their way (followed by duplicity in trying to redefine their campaign the day after the vote had been taken).
10y ago

ikeboy 10y ago

I'm not too impressed by the logic of the first part about immigration. >During the campaign, some Leave campaigners sent a clear message that the referendum was about controlling immigration. Some are now being more nuanced, saying the UK's decision to leave the EU would not guarantee a significant decrease in immigration levels. Hm. So is it the same people and comparable claims? Let's see ... >Nigel Farage said: "Mass immigration is still hopelessly out of control and set to get worse if we remain inside the EU." >Similarly, leading pro-Leave campaigner and Tory leader front runner Boris Johnson said that the only solution to the scale of immigration which the UK was facing, was to leave the EU. >But in an article published in the Daily Telegraph on Monday, Mr Johnson denied a victory for leaving the EU could be linked to immigration. Um what? This is not at all inconsistent with the above statement. You can think that X is a good reason to leave the EU without thinking that most people who voted to leave did so because of X. >He wrote: "It is said that those who voted Leave were mainly driven by anxieties about immigration. I do not believe that is so." This is completely consistent with the previous statement. They don't have any quote from Farage in that section, only from "MEP Daniel Hannan" who wasn't mentioned previously. This reads as intentional misleading on the part of the BBC. The rest of the article isn't much better. The bar for demonstrating hypocrisy or retraction at least requires the same people to make the claims and that the two claims aren't consistent. The BBC has not met it.

return0 10y ago

Post-brexit, all the talk on both sides is about the immigration issues, the financial contribution and the future of the UK. No talk about the cultural identity of the UK or a debate about whether it is a european culture. Both brexiters and bremainers see the EU as an economic agreement only. The UK should go its own way. the anglosphere is a better fit for them. The support for bremain ranges from reluctant, to lukewarm, dispassionate and wary. We should seek people who actually believe in EU's future. I think Brexit was inevitable, although it came prematurely. All the current brexit leaders, however, are delusional. UK needs to find better leadership to get through this.

hnbro 10y ago

one-sided reporting as usual.

jkot 10y ago

> some of those who campaigned for Leave are now distancing themselves from this claim. Some have gone as far as admitting that it had been a mistake. So some people said something, and some other said something else, and some other changed their mind. I would really expect better journalism from BBC. Amateur bloggers are doing better job. If BBC did their job in the first place, Brexit would never win. It would be very simple to debung £350m figure and explain how EU works. Instead they pushed their own political agenda.