4 ms·

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 ha

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).
crdoconnor 10y ago
>People are critical of the flagrant dishonesty of the Leave campaign It's not like the remain campaign was much more honest, and the level of scaremongering was absurd. Beyond the pale is the number of complaints that the sky has, in fact, fallen in because the FTSE has plunged and the pound has dropped. As if people from Sunderland or rural Wales were concerned about the cost of holidaying the Riviera or taking a hit on their non-existent stock portfolios. >He has also effectively promised major restrictions of immigration alongside access to the single market, which everyone knew was impossible Case in point. We'll continue to trade with Europe even without unrestricted immigration - it just won't be tarriff free trade. Nonetheless, the tarriff level will be throttled by WTO rules anyhow. Average tarriffs with the US is I think something like 2%. Not a sky falling figure that.
- CaptainZapp 10y ago
  Case in point. We'll continue to trade with Europe even without unrestricted immigration I think the city, as in the financial industry, which is a very important part of the British economy begs to differ.
- nikcub 10y ago
  > As if people from Sunderland or rural Wales were concerned about the cost of holidaying the Riviera or taking a hit on their non-existent stock portfolios. Economic downturns and recessions disproportionately affect the poor[0] and disadvantaged[1]. [0] http://www.russellsage.org/research/special-initiatives/great-recession/great-recession-rfp http://www.russellsage.org/research/special-initiatives/grea... [1] https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/discrimlend_final.pdf https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/disc...
  - crdoconnor 10y ago
    A) The parts of England that voted to exit were already in recession and nobody noticed. B) Actually they'll stand to do better because: * There will be less competition for jobs, meaning a rise in wages. * Westminster is more likely to direct funding their way in order to avoid another repeat of Thursday. * The low pound will be good for export industries.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
dang 10y ago
You responded to a thoughtful, reflective comment with an angry partisan one. That's the wrong direction in which to take an HN discussion. Please re-read lordnacho's comment and learn from it—I don't mean about UK politics, of course, but about how discourse is supposed to work on this site. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11992985 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11992985 and marked it off-topic.

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).

crdoconnor 10y ago

>People are critical of the flagrant dishonesty of the Leave campaign It's not like the remain campaign was much more honest, and the level of scaremongering was absurd. Beyond the pale is the number of complaints that the sky has, in fact, fallen in because the FTSE has plunged and the pound has dropped. As if people from Sunderland or rural Wales were concerned about the cost of holidaying the Riviera or taking a hit on their non-existent stock portfolios. >He has also effectively promised major restrictions of immigration alongside access to the single market, which everyone knew was impossible Case in point. We'll continue to trade with Europe even without unrestricted immigration - it just won't be tarriff free trade. Nonetheless, the tarriff level will be throttled by WTO rules anyhow. Average tarriffs with the US is I think something like 2%. Not a sky falling figure that.

CaptainZapp 10y ago
Case in point. We'll continue to trade with Europe even without unrestricted immigration I think the city, as in the financial industry, which is a very important part of the British economy begs to differ.
nikcub 10y ago
> As if people from Sunderland or rural Wales were concerned about the cost of holidaying the Riviera or taking a hit on their non-existent stock portfolios. Economic downturns and recessions disproportionately affect the poor[0] and disadvantaged[1]. [0] http://www.russellsage.org/research/special-initiatives/great-recession/great-recession-rfp http://www.russellsage.org/research/special-initiatives/grea... [1] https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/discrimlend_final.pdf https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/disc...
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  A) The parts of England that voted to exit were already in recession and nobody noticed. B) Actually they'll stand to do better because: * There will be less competition for jobs, meaning a rise in wages. * Westminster is more likely to direct funding their way in order to avoid another repeat of Thursday. * The low pound will be good for export industries.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

dang 10y ago

You responded to a thoughtful, reflective comment with an angry partisan one. That's the wrong direction in which to take an HN discussion. Please re-read lordnacho's comment and learn from it—I don't mean about UK politics, of course, but about how discourse is supposed to work on this site. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11992985 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11992985 and marked it off-topic.