4 ms·

I think plenty of people that voted Leave put other concerns - identity, sovereignty, community etc - above the strictly economic. And why shouldn't they? We do

I think plenty of people that voted Leave put other concerns - identity, sovereignty, community etc - above the strictly economic. And why shouldn't they? We don't only live for money, do we?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
I agree with you in principal but Brexit wasn't a direct economics vs sovereignty trade-off. It's not clear that the UK will actually benefit in the categories you mentioned as a result of Brexit.
- growlist 7y ago
  I'm not arguing on the rationality or otherwise, just saying that the dry economic arguments aren't necessarily the ones that have traction with voters. I don't think that's a controversial thing to say. On those other issues I would say it's more subtle, in that leaving the EU at least opens the door to genuine controls on migration, for example, but the major parties are united in their refusal to offer the choice to the public.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    > genuine controls on migration Can you be extremely clear on what you mean by this, and what you expect to achieve by restricting migration of EU nationals to the UK and UK nationals to the EU? And also acknowledge that the UK's controls on non-EU migration are extremely onerous and not a matter of EU policy?
    - growlist 7y ago
      As with another poster, you are mistaking me advocating for these things, whereas I am just observing. The argument is made that leaving the EU for more or less tangible feelings around sovereignty, identity etc. is futile because leaving the EU won't deliver changes in those areas. What I'm saying is that I agree it won't on its own deliver changes, but that it at least opens the door to changes in those areas. However, genuine change would require a political party to offer genuine controls on migration, for example, which none of the major parties are offering (Brexit Party arguable). Even Boris is offering an amnesty for illegal migrants already in the UK, and not offering any hope that migration will go down under a points based system. I don't think it's sensible to argue that we are not on the path towards a United States of Europe, and that leaving opens the door to a different future, I mean, why would the fight to keep the UK in be so fierce unless there were a lot at stake? It's futile arguing on the substance with me as if I'm advocating for it, I'm not, I'm just analysing.
      - pjc50 7y ago
        But none of those have a substance, they're mostly products of the newspapers misleading people! The idea that the UK somehow lacks "genuine controls on migration" is a total fiction, but Brits who haven't been through them or don't know people who have believe it because the newspapers have lied to them. The UK already has a points based immigration system, for example: https://workpermit.com/immigration/united-kingdom/uk-visa-tier-points-based-immigration-system https://workpermit.com/immigration/united-kingdom/uk-visa-ti... ; so why do people think it needs one?
    - growlist 7y ago
      Can't reply to your post below, but - net migration to the UK is running at hundreds of thousands per year, which is apparently causing all kinds of tensions with public services and society. You can't just hand wave that away by saying that the public are stupid for believing lies in the papers, and I would say this betrays on your part a contempt for your countrymen, and what's more I would say is inaccurate when the evidence of migration is glaringly obvious in pretty much any town of a reasonable size. No one needs to read the papers to know the country is changing before our eyes. And perhaps that's ok - if people are offered the choice and vote for it. In a democracy the populace should be offered a choice and have their choice respected. If you don't believe that, you believe in tyranny.
      - pjc50 7y ago
        > this betrays on your part a contempt for your countrymen A lot of people would deny this, but I'm at the stage where I am openly contemptuous of a lot of my countrymen for their aggressive refusal to listen to reason and their vindictive pursuit of policies which have harmed a lot of my friends. I count both EU and non-EU immigrants among my colleagues. Are you saying I should choose loyalty to random idiots I've never met but happen to share a birthplace with over people I actually work with and like? > evidence of migration is glaringly obvious People's immigration status is not written on their foreheads. What you mean is that you can see nonwhite or hear non-English-speaking people. > In a democracy the populace should be offered a choice and have their choice respected. If you don't believe that, you believe in tyranny. Sounds great, but what if the choice is meaningless, impossible, or infringes the rights of others? We can't "respect the choice" to, say, abolish rain on days when cricket is being played. And we should not respect the choice to take away the rights of others, such as the deportation and de-citizenship of British nationals who were born in Britain but happen to be of non-white ancestry.
        growlist 7y ago
        > I am openly contemptuous of a lot of my countrymen for their aggressive refusal to listen to reason and their vindictive pursuit of policies which have harmed a lot of my friends Appreciate your honesty, but you live in a society and other people have strong opinions also. Your opinion doesn't trump theirs, no matter how heartfelt it is or righteous you might feel > People's immigration status is not written on their foreheads. What you mean is that you can see nonwhite or hear non-English-speaking people. Yes? And? So what? I'm not allowed to believe the evidence of my own eyes now else I'm racist? > Sounds great, but what if the choice is meaningless, impossible, or infringes the rights of others? We can't "respect the choice" to, say, abolish rain on days when cricket is being played. And we should not respect the choice to take away the rights of others, such as the deportation and de-citizenship of British nationals who were born in Britain but happen to be of non-white ancestry. Immigration could be drastically reduced if there were the political will, but all major parties are fiercely pro-immigration. And you are having a laugh if you are seriously arguing that the drastic change observable is all British nationals. There's no point in us going much further as neither of us will convince the other. Bottom line: voters should be offered a choice, and that choice should be respected no matter how hateful you might think the motives. It's called democracy and it's all we have between us and the Gulags. Efforts to undermine it and free speech should be resisted at all costs.
exergy 7y ago
Foolishly naive of them too. Tying your identity to your country's can never end well, because every country has a nasty past and is full of despicable acts, which are very difficult to come to terms with. The UK, for instance, with its conduct when bombing Dresden, or when dealing with the famine in Bengal. I am not sure how the EU is imposing upon the community of the UK, when it famously has some of the most stringent requirements for immigrants.
- growlist 7y ago
  So the British are not permitted their own identity now? Both Dresden and the famine you cite are debatable. But anyway you are mistaken if you think I am advocating. I'm not. I am observing/speculating that I think many people that voted leave looked at the economic arguments and rated those lower than intangible feelings about identity etc. I don't think this is controversial! Politicians everywhere even when they make economic arguments couch them in emotional terms in order to sell them. It's standard politics.
  - exergy 7y ago
    I'm saying tying your identity to a nation is a cesspit to begin with. cf George Carlin's fantastic views [0] For shits and giggles, I'd LOVE to see you take a gander at justifying the inferno that was Dresden, and for extra credit, Churchill's: "I hate the Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion". I'm all ears cause I'm Indian, see. PS: I hope you don't get the impression that I think you're advocating for brexit. I do get that you're just explaining the Why. But I do not agree that it ISN'T controversial. Thanks to the shenanigans of the Leave dickheads, Britain has fucked not only itself, but a lot of other things as collateral. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7O8AI_0F1ts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7O8AI_0F1ts
    - hordeallergy 7y ago
      Based on your comments one would agree with Churchill. Dickhead.

I think plenty of people that voted Leave put other concerns - identity, sovereignty, community etc - above the strictly economic. And why shouldn't they? We don't only live for money, do we?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

I agree with you in principal but Brexit wasn't a direct economics vs sovereignty trade-off. It's not clear that the UK will actually benefit in the categories you mentioned as a result of Brexit.

growlist 7y ago
I'm not arguing on the rationality or otherwise, just saying that the dry economic arguments aren't necessarily the ones that have traction with voters. I don't think that's a controversial thing to say. On those other issues I would say it's more subtle, in that leaving the EU at least opens the door to genuine controls on migration, for example, but the major parties are united in their refusal to offer the choice to the public.
- pjc50 7y ago
  > genuine controls on migration Can you be extremely clear on what you mean by this, and what you expect to achieve by restricting migration of EU nationals to the UK and UK nationals to the EU? And also acknowledge that the UK's controls on non-EU migration are extremely onerous and not a matter of EU policy?
  - growlist 7y ago
    As with another poster, you are mistaking me advocating for these things, whereas I am just observing. The argument is made that leaving the EU for more or less tangible feelings around sovereignty, identity etc. is futile because leaving the EU won't deliver changes in those areas. What I'm saying is that I agree it won't on its own deliver changes, but that it at least opens the door to changes in those areas. However, genuine change would require a political party to offer genuine controls on migration, for example, which none of the major parties are offering (Brexit Party arguable). Even Boris is offering an amnesty for illegal migrants already in the UK, and not offering any hope that migration will go down under a points based system. I don't think it's sensible to argue that we are not on the path towards a United States of Europe, and that leaving opens the door to a different future, I mean, why would the fight to keep the UK in be so fierce unless there were a lot at stake? It's futile arguing on the substance with me as if I'm advocating for it, I'm not, I'm just analysing.
    - pjc50 7y ago
      But none of those have a substance, they're mostly products of the newspapers misleading people! The idea that the UK somehow lacks "genuine controls on migration" is a total fiction, but Brits who haven't been through them or don't know people who have believe it because the newspapers have lied to them. The UK already has a points based immigration system, for example: https://workpermit.com/immigration/united-kingdom/uk-visa-tier-points-based-immigration-system https://workpermit.com/immigration/united-kingdom/uk-visa-ti... ; so why do people think it needs one?
  - growlist 7y ago
    Can't reply to your post below, but - net migration to the UK is running at hundreds of thousands per year, which is apparently causing all kinds of tensions with public services and society. You can't just hand wave that away by saying that the public are stupid for believing lies in the papers, and I would say this betrays on your part a contempt for your countrymen, and what's more I would say is inaccurate when the evidence of migration is glaringly obvious in pretty much any town of a reasonable size. No one needs to read the papers to know the country is changing before our eyes. And perhaps that's ok - if people are offered the choice and vote for it. In a democracy the populace should be offered a choice and have their choice respected. If you don't believe that, you believe in tyranny.
    - pjc50 7y ago
      > this betrays on your part a contempt for your countrymen A lot of people would deny this, but I'm at the stage where I am openly contemptuous of a lot of my countrymen for their aggressive refusal to listen to reason and their vindictive pursuit of policies which have harmed a lot of my friends. I count both EU and non-EU immigrants among my colleagues. Are you saying I should choose loyalty to random idiots I've never met but happen to share a birthplace with over people I actually work with and like? > evidence of migration is glaringly obvious People's immigration status is not written on their foreheads. What you mean is that you can see nonwhite or hear non-English-speaking people. > In a democracy the populace should be offered a choice and have their choice respected. If you don't believe that, you believe in tyranny. Sounds great, but what if the choice is meaningless, impossible, or infringes the rights of others? We can't "respect the choice" to, say, abolish rain on days when cricket is being played. And we should not respect the choice to take away the rights of others, such as the deportation and de-citizenship of British nationals who were born in Britain but happen to be of non-white ancestry.
      - growlist 7y ago
        > I am openly contemptuous of a lot of my countrymen for their aggressive refusal to listen to reason and their vindictive pursuit of policies which have harmed a lot of my friends Appreciate your honesty, but you live in a society and other people have strong opinions also. Your opinion doesn't trump theirs, no matter how heartfelt it is or righteous you might feel > People's immigration status is not written on their foreheads. What you mean is that you can see nonwhite or hear non-English-speaking people. Yes? And? So what? I'm not allowed to believe the evidence of my own eyes now else I'm racist? > Sounds great, but what if the choice is meaningless, impossible, or infringes the rights of others? We can't "respect the choice" to, say, abolish rain on days when cricket is being played. And we should not respect the choice to take away the rights of others, such as the deportation and de-citizenship of British nationals who were born in Britain but happen to be of non-white ancestry. Immigration could be drastically reduced if there were the political will, but all major parties are fiercely pro-immigration. And you are having a laugh if you are seriously arguing that the drastic change observable is all British nationals. There's no point in us going much further as neither of us will convince the other. Bottom line: voters should be offered a choice, and that choice should be respected no matter how hateful you might think the motives. It's called democracy and it's all we have between us and the Gulags. Efforts to undermine it and free speech should be resisted at all costs.

exergy 7y ago

Foolishly naive of them too. Tying your identity to your country's can never end well, because every country has a nasty past and is full of despicable acts, which are very difficult to come to terms with. The UK, for instance, with its conduct when bombing Dresden, or when dealing with the famine in Bengal. I am not sure how the EU is imposing upon the community of the UK, when it famously has some of the most stringent requirements for immigrants.

growlist 7y ago
So the British are not permitted their own identity now? Both Dresden and the famine you cite are debatable. But anyway you are mistaken if you think I am advocating. I'm not. I am observing/speculating that I think many people that voted leave looked at the economic arguments and rated those lower than intangible feelings about identity etc. I don't think this is controversial! Politicians everywhere even when they make economic arguments couch them in emotional terms in order to sell them. It's standard politics.
- exergy 7y ago
  I'm saying tying your identity to a nation is a cesspit to begin with. cf George Carlin's fantastic views [0] For shits and giggles, I'd LOVE to see you take a gander at justifying the inferno that was Dresden, and for extra credit, Churchill's: "I hate the Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion". I'm all ears cause I'm Indian, see. PS: I hope you don't get the impression that I think you're advocating for brexit. I do get that you're just explaining the Why. But I do not agree that it ISN'T controversial. Thanks to the shenanigans of the Leave dickheads, Britain has fucked not only itself, but a lot of other things as collateral. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7O8AI_0F1ts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7O8AI_0F1ts
  - hordeallergy 7y ago
    Based on your comments one would agree with Churchill. Dickhead.