8 ms·

I didn't vote leave because of the money. I voted leave because I was dubious about the control the elected and unelected officials and secretaries in brussels

I didn't vote leave because of the money. I voted leave because I was dubious about the control the elected and unelected officials and secretaries in brussels had over British politics, and the rats nest of well paid jobs with crazy benefits waiting for british politicians in brussels when they retire from british politics, so long as they play nice with the EU and go along with the will of the government in Brussels. The "NHS bus" is a talking point very aggressively focused on by the remain campaign because it's an easy thing to point at as disingenuous, But I feel like there's a lot more nuance to the choice to leave the EU than many "remainers" believe. It's harmful to national discourse to narrow the argument for either side down to misinformation or this "they don't know what they're voting for" narrative (not saying you're asserting this, I've just seen it said a lot) because it chips away at the very concept of majority rule and proportional representation.

pjc50 7y ago
How do you feel about the unelected House of Lords? Or, for that matter, the election-untested Prime Minister and his definitely unelected SPADs? The EU parliamentarians are paid well, but I think there's a staff quality issue here and that UK MPs are actually underpaid; for the hours and responsibility, it's basically a company director level job. (Of course, the only people that take EU pay and deliberately do a bad job or fail to turn up are ... UKIP MEPs) Edit: I missed your reference to "proportional representation", which of course we don't have in the UK parliament either. Which is why the government was able to be formed with only about 42% of votes, plus a veto of the 0.9% of DUP votes. We have a semi-proportional system for MEPs, though.
- dev_north_east 7y ago
  > (Of course, the only people that take EU pay and deliberately do a bad job or fail to turn up are ... UKIP MEPs) Well that's blatantly not true. And their "job" is to represent their voters, which they are doing. "We shouldn't be here," was their cry in the Euro election. Absenteeism/disruption by representative politicians is perfectly fine in my book, as long as that's what they campaign on.
rezeroed 7y ago
Aka a straw man.
ben_w 7y ago
Good for you. Unfortunately, I have encountered quite a lot of people who do care about the money. Today, just half an hour ago, I saw someone tweeting that the EU was “bleeding the UK dry” by “taking” “£1 billion per month” [1] so I’m fairly sure that quite a lot of people did actually vote on the basis of the money. [1] 1e9, or roughly 0.01% of the EU-(annual)-GDP per month
- monadgonad 7y ago
  Comparing £1b to the EU GDP per month and not the UK one is a bit disingenuous.
  - reallydontask 7y ago
    true but even against the UK GDP is not that much really, is it? UK GDP is $2.6 trillion, or about $200Bn per month, so a 1Bn a month is not a massive amount. The amount is in and of itself irrelevant. What really matters is the ratio of that amount to the benefit the UK gets from free trade with the EU.
    - ben_w 7y ago
      > The amount is in and of itself irrelevant. What really matters is the ratio of that amount to the benefit the UK gets from free trade with the EU. I only recently learned about the mistake-theory/conflict-theory dichotomy. I think the benefits don’t matter to a conflict theorists, only if insert-tribal-leader-here likes it. (There are at least four relevant tribes that support Brexit, at least five that don’t, and in one case they share a leader who has been carefully trying to keep both sides on his team). I am almost entirely a mistake theorist on that axis.
  - DougBTX 7y ago
    Yes, better to compare to UK gov budget in the linked article. So £12B vs £772B, or 1.5%. Also the the £12B doesn’t include the rebate or other benefits, so the real value is less.
  - Swenrekcah 7y ago
onlingyding 7y ago
There was however a significant amount of misinformation coming from the leave campaign which are hard to ignore and given our current situation are fairly relevant. For example it was repeatedly stated that a vote to leave didn't mean a vote to leave the single market or that Turkey was joining the EU which will 'flood' the UK with Turkish immigrants. The leave campaign was extremely successful because it targeted different groups of interests with different messages. That's why none of those different interests can now agree on the final outcome. If I was you I'd also be slightly dubious about the dark money behind all of the pro Brexit 'grassroots' campaign groups.
- ackshually 7y ago
  Didn't intend to imply that the Leave campaign was performed wholly in good faith, I'm not so naive as to think that there are not parties that benefit from the weakness of the pound and instability that the unprepared government has caused scrambling to react to a referendum the majority of MPs were sure would come up remain. However your point on the leave campaign is only one side of the story; The BBC's coverage of the lead up to the referendum was overwhelmingly pro-remain, the figures I've seen (though I don't have them to hand) were 80% pro-remain coverage. Additionally, the remain campaign had full overt government backing; Every single household in England recieved a flyer explaining why David Cameron and his cronies thought that the UK should remain, which is much more penetration than any slogan on a bus could get. Thanks for your reply, it's nice to have a reasonable debate with people with differing opinions on this matter, usually I just get called racist for voting leave and have trouble explaining my views after that.
  - petschge 7y ago
    So the government and BBC being (unfairly perhaps) pro-remain is a reason to vote leave? Yes, you can argue "both sides were unfair". But one side was unfair by lying, the other was unfair by using their position of power to spread correct (but favorable to them) information. Not the same kind of unfair at all.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    The problem is that so much of the Leave argument is based on easily debunkable misleading news stories in the press, that it's impossible to give it 50/50 coverage without people being (rightly) outraged about the low quality of the coverage. The BBC is not obliged to give airtime to political flat earthers, but it still does anyway. From my point of view they helped create the problem by running Farage et al on Question Time far more often than the electoral popularity of their party would warrant.
quietbritishjim 7y ago
I know Hacker News policy is to not talk about votes, but can we please be more vote friendly to this user, especially as they're new? I find it's very rare to see a Brexiteer in my usual bubble so I'm grateful to hear the opposing view. (At time of making this comment, the parent is greyed out from down votes.)
- pjc50 7y ago
  At this point, anyone who's still a Brexiteer has engaged in some extremely selective listening. There's no point in having a discussion with someone who won't seriously address the entirely likely problems of Brexit, both as a concept and how it is currently being done. (I mean, Brexiting to the status of Norway might at least have been feasible, but that's now a long way in the rear view mirror.)
  - kmm 7y ago
    I'm personally very worried about sentiments like the one you express. The smug complete dismissal of another's viewpoints, complete refusal to even just listen, generalizing over all people with the same ideas... Opinions like being in favor of Brexit are not in any sense as fundamentally objectionable and unacceptable even for disucussion as, for example, nazism or racism. Political divisiveness is a significant issue, and behavior like this is only going to make it worse.
    - pjc50 7y ago
      Being in favor of Brexit a few years ago was defensible - I used to be a moderate Euroskeptic myself. Being in favor of this Brexit here now is exactly what you're talking about: it requires dismissing all the other viewpoints and possible problems, such as the Irish border and what happens to people from whom freedom of movement is removed. "Smug complete dismissal of another's viewpoints" is exactly what the Tory government has done, and exactly why it's got into such a mess.
    - iikoolpp 7y ago
      This is the same kind of shit as the faux neutrality news reporters are held to on scientific topics. But, suddenly, because it's political we should then listen to their shit viewpoints?
simias 7y ago
>I voted leave because I was dubious about the control the elected and unelected officials and secretaries in brussels had over British politics, and the rats nest of well paid jobs with crazy benefits waiting for british politicians in brussels when they retire from british politics, so long as they play nice with the EU and go along with the will of the government in Brussels. What do you base this on? It's clear that this sentiment is shared by many brexiteers but what makes you think that? And what makes you think that an independent UK will be impervious to having external interests mingling with internal affairs? At least as a member of the union you have a voice during the elections, I doubt you'll have nearly that much influence with your post-brexit commercial partners (of which the biggest one will be... the EU). If anything, as a European myself, this Brexit crisis only served to make me respect the work of Brussels more than before because of how professional and rational their response has been so far. On the other hand the circus going on inside and outside 10 Downing Street makes the news almost daily. I guess that what I'm saying is that I'll gladly leave you your pure bred British-loving MPs and I'll keep my European Deputies. And if they get good benefits then good for them, as long as they do the job correctly.
- nmeofthestate 7y ago
  I wish people wouldn't characterise the UK leaving the EU as "gaining independence". The UK is was and will be an independent state with UN membership and sovereignty, including the right to leave international organisations.
gutnor 7y ago
That's actually a good point and well said ... 3 years ago. However, today you cannot make that argument with a straight face when Boris is a PM with a very weak democratic mandate, actively undermining the democratically elected Parliament, doubling down on the lies made by the campaigns, pushing for highly damaging (according to the Government own assessment) economic measure. From the Cambridge Analytica scandal we know that the bus not only worked, but it is the tip of the iceberg of a propaganda machine without conterpart in the remain side. I can't believe that on HN, Brexit is still seen as a "remainer" vs "leaver" problem. Brexit has exposed a much deeper rot and threat to democracy, not in the EU, but in the very heart of the UK institutions. Brexit is not a liberating process, it is a threat.
- shard972 7y ago
  Ok but he has called for an election so we can fix that democratic mandate issue but that's bad because Brexit might actually happen and the opposition can't risk that.
- fergie 7y ago
  (Lets call him "Johnson". "Boris" is either patronising or affectionate, and neither is appropriate for a head of state.) No Conservative government has served an entire term with an outright majority since Thatcher in the 1980s. Johnson is in a sense "unelected", but his premiership is no less legitimate than that of Cameron or Major. Like it or not, Johnson was the "biggest" voice behind the successful Brexit campaign, and it is therefore appropriate that he is tasked with making Brexit happen, and taking responsibility for its success or failure. Its completely fair to say that Brexit is an economically stupid and possibly xenophobic project, but its not fair to say that Brexit is a threat to democracy. Brexit is exactly what democracy looks like at its best: the people forcing the ruling classes to make decisions that are against the ruling class's own interests. EDIT: Johnson is of course the head of government, not the head of state, since the UK is a monarchy.
  - drcongo 7y ago
    There is nothing about Brexit that is against the ruling class's best interests. They're the only ones who are actually going to benefit from it in the form of huge profits from shorting the pound and selling off public services. It's all outlined in Rees-Mogg snr's handbook on how to make millions out of the misery of the working class.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
What of the rats nest of well paid jobs waiting for British politicians, and the revolving door to and from Westminster? Priti Patel, current Home Secretary, twice censured and one resignation in her short career for misusing public office and not revealing financing. Or BoJo and the apparent dodgy funding of Jennifer Acuri. Or Nick Clegg now in charge of Facebook ethics or some such (seems fitting somehow). Or the expenses scandal - now infamously moats and duck houses. There are hundreds of other examples. How exactly does leaving help? In the morass of abuse, personal gain and lies that is modern politics it's often the EU and those unelected folks in the Lords who hold British government to account. It's been the EU that has limited the worst excesses of both NewLabour and Tory of governing for the haves, and forgetting the have nots. As I understand it there was a lot of additional regional development funding that could have been claimed for UK regions, but wasn't. Because politics.
ChrisRR 7y ago
Where do you stop with this train of thought though? Why do the MPs from the north have any say about what governs me in Berkshire? It's the same argument just at a larger scale.
- OscarCunningham 7y ago
  Nations are magical. It's bad for Polish people to immigrate here and take our jobs, but it's fine for people to move around within the UK. We need to tax the rich more to end the homelessness on our streets, but we have no obligation to help those in Africa. We need to use tariffs to protect our farmers, but there's no problem with shipping food across the country.
  - cja 7y ago
    1. Nations exist and have implications. 2a. If a Pole used to a certain living standard is happy to work for a lower wage than a Briton who is used to a higher standard of living then is that good or bad? Is it ok to have an opinion about it? Is it ok to have an opinion about it if you are a low paid Briton and a million Poles move to the UK? 2b. The UK is of finite size. Population is concentrated in certain areas within it. A significant growth in population has an effect. It affects traffic ("but we could build more roads" "but maybe I like the countryside and don't want more roads"), it affects housing ("but we could build more accommodation" "but maybe all that housing will be built close to jobs and amenities and thus be small and ugly and result in more crowded towns and cities and maybe I have a subjective view about that"), etc. 3. Foreign aid budgets and charities. More can be done. Make a donation! Be the change! 4. National security. Food rationing in the second world war. Farmers look after the countryside. Maybe we like to have farms and farmers. Is it ok to like to have farmers and farming? The EU thinks so - read about the CAP.
    - OscarCunningham 7y ago
      My point is that none of those arguments have anything about them that makes them specific to nations. For example 2a could equally be said by someone in London about immigration from the North. Why do we let these arguments have force at the national level but ignore them at subnational and supernational levels?
reallydontask 7y ago
> ... because it chips away at the very concept of majority rule and proportional representation. I'm not entirely sure how to read this comment. This country has one of the least representative electoral systems in the whole of the EU and this is for the commons, nevermind the wholly unelected lords.
- ibeckermayer 7y ago
  Do you recognize that this comment doesn’t expose anything contradictory in the OP? The British system can be far from ideal, and yet it still wouldn’t be better to overlay an even less accountable, more centralized government on top of it.
  - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
    I think the point is proportional representation. For instance, as a Lib Dem or Green voter living in a constituency with a strong Labour or Tory majority, you are not represented in the UK parliament at all. Being able to influence EU decisions through the EU parliament, which uses a more proportional voting system, at least gives you some democratic representation and accountability. Besides, "overlay" is not quite the right word for the relationship between the EU and the national level. The term used in Article 5 of the EU Treaty is subsidiarity, which essentially means to handle things as locally as possible and as globally as necessary to solve the problem. So it's not like the EU gets to overrule national parliaments on anything and everything. Of course you can endlessly debate what's possible and necessary in each individual case. But that's unavoidable. They're having the exact same debate in the US and the proponents of Scottish independence have yet another take on it.
    - ackshually 7y ago
      Fair enough, maybe that's the wrong term to use, after all just after the leave vote UKIP got an eighth of the national vote and no seats in parliament, so from the right wing point of view that's a poor term to use as well. Fair point regarding the house of lords, though I was under the impression they were more veto holders/policy checkers vs actual writers of law. Though I'm no expert. Thanks for your replies.
riazrizvi 7y ago
Voted Leave in support of the agenda of Brexit politicians due to doubts about European politicians’ pay, when pro-Brexit MEPs make 4x the compensation compared to average MEPs [1]. I wonder who is paying them this extra money? This argument confirms my general impression of the reasoning powers of Brexiteers. [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-party-meps-salary-eu-labour-latest-a9121601.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-party-...
Quarrelsome 7y ago
I voted Remain partly because I am dubious about the control of elected officials in the UK. I feel like some of these concerns have been vindicated as part of this process. Regardless of one's original outlook, I'm sure we can all agree that this is just one political party slowly shitting the bed over the course of three years. I'm pretty disgusted that they spent three years failing to get a deal past themselves and now they've shat so hard they've tossed their majority.
switch007 7y ago
Yes, we've heard this side a million times. What is in shorter supply is some examples of adverse outcomes of the "control". And "nuance"? Nuance about what? Your kind of comments can sometimes be summarised as: "I made a very educated and considered decision." It is not doing any explaining or engaging in debate
drcongo 7y ago
UK MEPs have only ever voted _against_ 2% of laws introduced by the EU (laws about human rights and closing corporate tax loopholes), they have voted _with_ 95% of the time. There's a reason for this, they took part in the shaping of those laws. Now we have no way of shaping laws throughout the continent we're a part of. We've thrown it all out the window because someone told you that the EU is trying to stop us from having bendy bananas.
- ackshually 7y ago
  First paragraph: We can choose to take on and add similar laws to our own government from outside the EU, including HR and tax loopholes, without having to worry about getting suckered in to things like the EU army (the latter of which is the reason why members of the armed forces overwhelmingly voted to leave.) Second paragraph: Bit disegenuous to throw a "you voted leave because XYZ" at me when I specifically posted my reason for voting leave in the post you're replying to...
  - pjc50 7y ago
    The "EU army" has been rather oversold, but why do people object to it when they don't object to NATO? Is this rooted in the actual structure of the EU army or is it based on what people read in the Brexit press?
  - MagnumOpus 7y ago
    > worry about getting suckered in to things like the EU army There is a veto right in the EU on everything defense related, nobody is getting suckered into anything.* I know that, you know that, why do you perpetuate the lie? *Except for the UK military into the Iraq war because their so-called "representatives" didn't and don't represent them. But that's another story.
jkoudys 7y ago
I'm as aggressively anti-Brexit as any Canadian could reasonably be, but I do find your point about the NHS bus to be very interesting. It's fascinating to take a look at what one political group's view of their opponent's core values and news are. It's a bit like when I read an article about what millenials are doing, and am perplexed to the point of questioning if I was really born between 1982 and 2000.
Xelbair 7y ago
>I voted leave because I was dubious about the control the elected and unelected officials and secretaries in brussels had over British politics, and the rats nest of well paid jobs with crazy benefits waiting for british politicians in brussels when they retire from british politics, so long as they play nice with the EU and go along with the will of the government in Brussels. Have you considered that after Brexit for UK to trade and work with Europe(which is vital for UK economy) they would still need to follow all the rules of EU and have no say about those rules? Not to mention that hard Brexit is impossible without giving North Ireland to Republic of Ireland. Did you notice that whole Brexit got traction when the deadline set by EU for UK to implement anti-tax evasion measures that target UK overseas territories? I honestly loathe EU, i absolutely hate huge parts of it, it is a bureaucratic Kafkaesque nightmare, that reminds me of my country under soviet occupation(The part i hate the most are unelected officials with basically minimal oversight). Yet it is still better for my country to be "in" than "out". From outside perspective it looks like Leavers want to have every benefit of staying in EU(trade deal with EU that mirrors current rules), Northern Ireland and every benefit of leaving EU(hard border). It isn't feasible. Nevertheless i respect your decision - it is your vote, cast in favour of what you think was the best for the country, what i loathe the most in democracy(which actually turns it into a farce - a popularity contest instead of merit based one) are people voting just because something is popular.
SirHound 7y ago
So you voted leave in case some people had career progression within a bureaucracy? So happy you felt it appropriate to sacrifice my right to live in my country of residence because you were "dubious". To think it wasn't for the money. It's comments like this for which half the country will never be forgiven.
- colinb 7y ago
  maybe if you got less angry, you wouldn't have spend so much time searching for forgiveness. The GP's comment opened with `I voted leave because I was dubious about the control the elected and unelected officials and secretaries in brussels had over British politics, ` I think it's a valid concern. Though not enough to sway my vote iff I'd remained but I was leaving the UK all by myself so it seemed unfair. But if all you can do is talk about how those who disagree with you do or don't deserve your forgiveness, then the fault is within you.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    But it's an extremely narrow view. It's a single concern, that requires ignoring all the other concerns. And in this case it's not a mere disagreement: every European living in the UK will be subject to the inconvenience and expense of settled status at best - and not all of them are eligible. Plenty of people have been handed the life-wrecking answer that they aren't eligible for settled status and have to leave their home or eventually the Home Office will deport them. I see no reason why those people should forgive. ( https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/reports/unsettled-status-which-eu-citizens-are-at-risk-of-failing-to-secure-their-rights-after-brexit/ https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/reports/unse... ) Wanting to leave the EU is an opinion. Voting to leave the EU is an action. That action has imposed a lot of costs and inconvenience on people, seemingly for no good reason. Why should those people forgive?
frobozz 7y ago
There may be more nuance, but as long as at least 650000 people were hoodwinked by that, or by the threat of their children being conscripted into the EU army or by the fear of Turkey joining imminently; or lured by the bogus newfound opportunities like buying fewer than five bananas at a time in the supermarket, or sending foreign criminals and scroungers back where they came from, then misinformation tipped the balance. I don't doubt that many people had legitimate, considered reasons for voting to leave. Those people are not the point of the argument. I'm certain that many did not have good reasons. I have met them. They post stupid memes on Facebook about poppies offending Muslims. If enough of those people were swung by The Bus or anything from Boris Johnson's 30-year campaign of lies about "Barmy Brussels Bureaucrats", then this is not a democratic result. It's harmful to the national discourse not to address misinformation. That is what truly chips away at the concept of democracy. If we just accept that lying to the electorate is all part of the game, then it becomes just that - a game, to be won by the loudest and least scrupulous players, rather than a sensible decision-making tool.
7952 7y ago
Of course this lack of nuance is utilised by brexiteer politicians a lot when it suits them. By talking about the "will of the people" they are reducing millions of people to a single constituency who want one thing. When actually leave voters want and care about lots of different things. And the best way to represent those opinions is through the normal democratic system giving equal weight to remainers. Except that isn't allowed to happen because politicians want to use the vote to push their opinion. But yes the lack of nuance is appalling.

pjc50 7y ago

How do you feel about the unelected House of Lords? Or, for that matter, the election-untested Prime Minister and his definitely unelected SPADs? The EU parliamentarians are paid well, but I think there's a staff quality issue here and that UK MPs are actually underpaid; for the hours and responsibility, it's basically a company director level job. (Of course, the only people that take EU pay and deliberately do a bad job or fail to turn up are ... UKIP MEPs) Edit: I missed your reference to "proportional representation", which of course we don't have in the UK parliament either. Which is why the government was able to be formed with only about 42% of votes, plus a veto of the 0.9% of DUP votes. We have a semi-proportional system for MEPs, though.

dev_north_east 7y ago
> (Of course, the only people that take EU pay and deliberately do a bad job or fail to turn up are ... UKIP MEPs) Well that's blatantly not true. And their "job" is to represent their voters, which they are doing. "We shouldn't be here," was their cry in the Euro election. Absenteeism/disruption by representative politicians is perfectly fine in my book, as long as that's what they campaign on.

rezeroed 7y ago

Aka a straw man.

ben_w 7y ago

Good for you. Unfortunately, I have encountered quite a lot of people who do care about the money. Today, just half an hour ago, I saw someone tweeting that the EU was “bleeding the UK dry” by “taking” “£1 billion per month” [1] so I’m fairly sure that quite a lot of people did actually vote on the basis of the money. [1] 1e9, or roughly 0.01% of the EU-(annual)-GDP per month

monadgonad 7y ago
Comparing £1b to the EU GDP per month and not the UK one is a bit disingenuous.
- reallydontask 7y ago
  true but even against the UK GDP is not that much really, is it? UK GDP is $2.6 trillion, or about $200Bn per month, so a 1Bn a month is not a massive amount. The amount is in and of itself irrelevant. What really matters is the ratio of that amount to the benefit the UK gets from free trade with the EU.
  - ben_w 7y ago
    > The amount is in and of itself irrelevant. What really matters is the ratio of that amount to the benefit the UK gets from free trade with the EU. I only recently learned about the mistake-theory/conflict-theory dichotomy. I think the benefits don’t matter to a conflict theorists, only if insert-tribal-leader-here likes it. (There are at least four relevant tribes that support Brexit, at least five that don’t, and in one case they share a leader who has been carefully trying to keep both sides on his team). I am almost entirely a mistake theorist on that axis.
- DougBTX 7y ago
  Yes, better to compare to UK gov budget in the linked article. So £12B vs £772B, or 1.5%. Also the the £12B doesn’t include the rebate or other benefits, so the real value is less.
- Swenrekcah 7y ago

onlingyding 7y ago

There was however a significant amount of misinformation coming from the leave campaign which are hard to ignore and given our current situation are fairly relevant. For example it was repeatedly stated that a vote to leave didn't mean a vote to leave the single market or that Turkey was joining the EU which will 'flood' the UK with Turkish immigrants. The leave campaign was extremely successful because it targeted different groups of interests with different messages. That's why none of those different interests can now agree on the final outcome. If I was you I'd also be slightly dubious about the dark money behind all of the pro Brexit 'grassroots' campaign groups.

ackshually 7y ago
Didn't intend to imply that the Leave campaign was performed wholly in good faith, I'm not so naive as to think that there are not parties that benefit from the weakness of the pound and instability that the unprepared government has caused scrambling to react to a referendum the majority of MPs were sure would come up remain. However your point on the leave campaign is only one side of the story; The BBC's coverage of the lead up to the referendum was overwhelmingly pro-remain, the figures I've seen (though I don't have them to hand) were 80% pro-remain coverage. Additionally, the remain campaign had full overt government backing; Every single household in England recieved a flyer explaining why David Cameron and his cronies thought that the UK should remain, which is much more penetration than any slogan on a bus could get. Thanks for your reply, it's nice to have a reasonable debate with people with differing opinions on this matter, usually I just get called racist for voting leave and have trouble explaining my views after that.
- petschge 7y ago
  So the government and BBC being (unfairly perhaps) pro-remain is a reason to vote leave? Yes, you can argue "both sides were unfair". But one side was unfair by lying, the other was unfair by using their position of power to spread correct (but favorable to them) information. Not the same kind of unfair at all.
- pjc50 7y ago
  The problem is that so much of the Leave argument is based on easily debunkable misleading news stories in the press, that it's impossible to give it 50/50 coverage without people being (rightly) outraged about the low quality of the coverage. The BBC is not obliged to give airtime to political flat earthers, but it still does anyway. From my point of view they helped create the problem by running Farage et al on Question Time far more often than the electoral popularity of their party would warrant.

quietbritishjim 7y ago

I know Hacker News policy is to not talk about votes, but can we please be more vote friendly to this user, especially as they're new? I find it's very rare to see a Brexiteer in my usual bubble so I'm grateful to hear the opposing view. (At time of making this comment, the parent is greyed out from down votes.)

pjc50 7y ago
At this point, anyone who's still a Brexiteer has engaged in some extremely selective listening. There's no point in having a discussion with someone who won't seriously address the entirely likely problems of Brexit, both as a concept and how it is currently being done. (I mean, Brexiting to the status of Norway might at least have been feasible, but that's now a long way in the rear view mirror.)
- kmm 7y ago
  I'm personally very worried about sentiments like the one you express. The smug complete dismissal of another's viewpoints, complete refusal to even just listen, generalizing over all people with the same ideas... Opinions like being in favor of Brexit are not in any sense as fundamentally objectionable and unacceptable even for disucussion as, for example, nazism or racism. Political divisiveness is a significant issue, and behavior like this is only going to make it worse.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    Being in favor of Brexit a few years ago was defensible - I used to be a moderate Euroskeptic myself. Being in favor of this Brexit here now is exactly what you're talking about: it requires dismissing all the other viewpoints and possible problems, such as the Irish border and what happens to people from whom freedom of movement is removed. "Smug complete dismissal of another's viewpoints" is exactly what the Tory government has done, and exactly why it's got into such a mess.
  - iikoolpp 7y ago
    This is the same kind of shit as the faux neutrality news reporters are held to on scientific topics. But, suddenly, because it's political we should then listen to their shit viewpoints?

simias 7y ago

>I voted leave because I was dubious about the control the elected and unelected officials and secretaries in brussels had over British politics, and the rats nest of well paid jobs with crazy benefits waiting for british politicians in brussels when they retire from british politics, so long as they play nice with the EU and go along with the will of the government in Brussels. What do you base this on? It's clear that this sentiment is shared by many brexiteers but what makes you think that? And what makes you think that an independent UK will be impervious to having external interests mingling with internal affairs? At least as a member of the union you have a voice during the elections, I doubt you'll have nearly that much influence with your post-brexit commercial partners (of which the biggest one will be... the EU). If anything, as a European myself, this Brexit crisis only served to make me respect the work of Brussels more than before because of how professional and rational their response has been so far. On the other hand the circus going on inside and outside 10 Downing Street makes the news almost daily. I guess that what I'm saying is that I'll gladly leave you your pure bred British-loving MPs and I'll keep my European Deputies. And if they get good benefits then good for them, as long as they do the job correctly.

nmeofthestate 7y ago
I wish people wouldn't characterise the UK leaving the EU as "gaining independence". The UK is was and will be an independent state with UN membership and sovereignty, including the right to leave international organisations.

gutnor 7y ago

That's actually a good point and well said ... 3 years ago. However, today you cannot make that argument with a straight face when Boris is a PM with a very weak democratic mandate, actively undermining the democratically elected Parliament, doubling down on the lies made by the campaigns, pushing for highly damaging (according to the Government own assessment) economic measure. From the Cambridge Analytica scandal we know that the bus not only worked, but it is the tip of the iceberg of a propaganda machine without conterpart in the remain side. I can't believe that on HN, Brexit is still seen as a "remainer" vs "leaver" problem. Brexit has exposed a much deeper rot and threat to democracy, not in the EU, but in the very heart of the UK institutions. Brexit is not a liberating process, it is a threat.

shard972 7y ago
Ok but he has called for an election so we can fix that democratic mandate issue but that's bad because Brexit might actually happen and the opposition can't risk that.
fergie 7y ago
(Lets call him "Johnson". "Boris" is either patronising or affectionate, and neither is appropriate for a head of state.) No Conservative government has served an entire term with an outright majority since Thatcher in the 1980s. Johnson is in a sense "unelected", but his premiership is no less legitimate than that of Cameron or Major. Like it or not, Johnson was the "biggest" voice behind the successful Brexit campaign, and it is therefore appropriate that he is tasked with making Brexit happen, and taking responsibility for its success or failure. Its completely fair to say that Brexit is an economically stupid and possibly xenophobic project, but its not fair to say that Brexit is a threat to democracy. Brexit is exactly what democracy looks like at its best: the people forcing the ruling classes to make decisions that are against the ruling class's own interests. EDIT: Johnson is of course the head of government, not the head of state, since the UK is a monarchy.
- drcongo 7y ago
  There is nothing about Brexit that is against the ruling class's best interests. They're the only ones who are actually going to benefit from it in the form of huge profits from shorting the pound and selling off public services. It's all outlined in Rees-Mogg snr's handbook on how to make millions out of the misery of the working class.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

What of the rats nest of well paid jobs waiting for British politicians, and the revolving door to and from Westminster? Priti Patel, current Home Secretary, twice censured and one resignation in her short career for misusing public office and not revealing financing. Or BoJo and the apparent dodgy funding of Jennifer Acuri. Or Nick Clegg now in charge of Facebook ethics or some such (seems fitting somehow). Or the expenses scandal - now infamously moats and duck houses. There are hundreds of other examples. How exactly does leaving help? In the morass of abuse, personal gain and lies that is modern politics it's often the EU and those unelected folks in the Lords who hold British government to account. It's been the EU that has limited the worst excesses of both NewLabour and Tory of governing for the haves, and forgetting the have nots. As I understand it there was a lot of additional regional development funding that could have been claimed for UK regions, but wasn't. Because politics.

ChrisRR 7y ago

Where do you stop with this train of thought though? Why do the MPs from the north have any say about what governs me in Berkshire? It's the same argument just at a larger scale.

OscarCunningham 7y ago
Nations are magical. It's bad for Polish people to immigrate here and take our jobs, but it's fine for people to move around within the UK. We need to tax the rich more to end the homelessness on our streets, but we have no obligation to help those in Africa. We need to use tariffs to protect our farmers, but there's no problem with shipping food across the country.
- cja 7y ago
  1. Nations exist and have implications. 2a. If a Pole used to a certain living standard is happy to work for a lower wage than a Briton who is used to a higher standard of living then is that good or bad? Is it ok to have an opinion about it? Is it ok to have an opinion about it if you are a low paid Briton and a million Poles move to the UK? 2b. The UK is of finite size. Population is concentrated in certain areas within it. A significant growth in population has an effect. It affects traffic ("but we could build more roads" "but maybe I like the countryside and don't want more roads"), it affects housing ("but we could build more accommodation" "but maybe all that housing will be built close to jobs and amenities and thus be small and ugly and result in more crowded towns and cities and maybe I have a subjective view about that"), etc. 3. Foreign aid budgets and charities. More can be done. Make a donation! Be the change! 4. National security. Food rationing in the second world war. Farmers look after the countryside. Maybe we like to have farms and farmers. Is it ok to like to have farmers and farming? The EU thinks so - read about the CAP.
  - OscarCunningham 7y ago
    My point is that none of those arguments have anything about them that makes them specific to nations. For example 2a could equally be said by someone in London about immigration from the North. Why do we let these arguments have force at the national level but ignore them at subnational and supernational levels?

reallydontask 7y ago

> ... because it chips away at the very concept of majority rule and proportional representation. I'm not entirely sure how to read this comment. This country has one of the least representative electoral systems in the whole of the EU and this is for the commons, nevermind the wholly unelected lords.

ibeckermayer 7y ago
Do you recognize that this comment doesn’t expose anything contradictory in the OP? The British system can be far from ideal, and yet it still wouldn’t be better to overlay an even less accountable, more centralized government on top of it.
- fauigerzigerk 7y ago
  I think the point is proportional representation. For instance, as a Lib Dem or Green voter living in a constituency with a strong Labour or Tory majority, you are not represented in the UK parliament at all. Being able to influence EU decisions through the EU parliament, which uses a more proportional voting system, at least gives you some democratic representation and accountability. Besides, "overlay" is not quite the right word for the relationship between the EU and the national level. The term used in Article 5 of the EU Treaty is subsidiarity, which essentially means to handle things as locally as possible and as globally as necessary to solve the problem. So it's not like the EU gets to overrule national parliaments on anything and everything. Of course you can endlessly debate what's possible and necessary in each individual case. But that's unavoidable. They're having the exact same debate in the US and the proponents of Scottish independence have yet another take on it.
  - ackshually 7y ago
    Fair enough, maybe that's the wrong term to use, after all just after the leave vote UKIP got an eighth of the national vote and no seats in parliament, so from the right wing point of view that's a poor term to use as well. Fair point regarding the house of lords, though I was under the impression they were more veto holders/policy checkers vs actual writers of law. Though I'm no expert. Thanks for your replies.

riazrizvi 7y ago

Voted Leave in support of the agenda of Brexit politicians due to doubts about European politicians’ pay, when pro-Brexit MEPs make 4x the compensation compared to average MEPs [1]. I wonder who is paying them this extra money? This argument confirms my general impression of the reasoning powers of Brexiteers. [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-party-meps-salary-eu-labour-latest-a9121601.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-party-...

Quarrelsome 7y ago

I voted Remain partly because I am dubious about the control of elected officials in the UK. I feel like some of these concerns have been vindicated as part of this process. Regardless of one's original outlook, I'm sure we can all agree that this is just one political party slowly shitting the bed over the course of three years. I'm pretty disgusted that they spent three years failing to get a deal past themselves and now they've shat so hard they've tossed their majority.

switch007 7y ago

Yes, we've heard this side a million times. What is in shorter supply is some examples of adverse outcomes of the "control". And "nuance"? Nuance about what? Your kind of comments can sometimes be summarised as: "I made a very educated and considered decision." It is not doing any explaining or engaging in debate

drcongo 7y ago

UK MEPs have only ever voted _against_ 2% of laws introduced by the EU (laws about human rights and closing corporate tax loopholes), they have voted _with_ 95% of the time. There's a reason for this, they took part in the shaping of those laws. Now we have no way of shaping laws throughout the continent we're a part of. We've thrown it all out the window because someone told you that the EU is trying to stop us from having bendy bananas.

ackshually 7y ago
First paragraph: We can choose to take on and add similar laws to our own government from outside the EU, including HR and tax loopholes, without having to worry about getting suckered in to things like the EU army (the latter of which is the reason why members of the armed forces overwhelmingly voted to leave.) Second paragraph: Bit disegenuous to throw a "you voted leave because XYZ" at me when I specifically posted my reason for voting leave in the post you're replying to...
- pjc50 7y ago
  The "EU army" has been rather oversold, but why do people object to it when they don't object to NATO? Is this rooted in the actual structure of the EU army or is it based on what people read in the Brexit press?
- MagnumOpus 7y ago
  > worry about getting suckered in to things like the EU army There is a veto right in the EU on everything defense related, nobody is getting suckered into anything.* I know that, you know that, why do you perpetuate the lie? *Except for the UK military into the Iraq war because their so-called "representatives" didn't and don't represent them. But that's another story.

jkoudys 7y ago

I'm as aggressively anti-Brexit as any Canadian could reasonably be, but I do find your point about the NHS bus to be very interesting. It's fascinating to take a look at what one political group's view of their opponent's core values and news are. It's a bit like when I read an article about what millenials are doing, and am perplexed to the point of questioning if I was really born between 1982 and 2000.

Xelbair 7y ago

>I voted leave because I was dubious about the control the elected and unelected officials and secretaries in brussels had over British politics, and the rats nest of well paid jobs with crazy benefits waiting for british politicians in brussels when they retire from british politics, so long as they play nice with the EU and go along with the will of the government in Brussels. Have you considered that after Brexit for UK to trade and work with Europe(which is vital for UK economy) they would still need to follow all the rules of EU and have no say about those rules? Not to mention that hard Brexit is impossible without giving North Ireland to Republic of Ireland. Did you notice that whole Brexit got traction when the deadline set by EU for UK to implement anti-tax evasion measures that target UK overseas territories? I honestly loathe EU, i absolutely hate huge parts of it, it is a bureaucratic Kafkaesque nightmare, that reminds me of my country under soviet occupation(The part i hate the most are unelected officials with basically minimal oversight). Yet it is still better for my country to be "in" than "out". From outside perspective it looks like Leavers want to have every benefit of staying in EU(trade deal with EU that mirrors current rules), Northern Ireland and every benefit of leaving EU(hard border). It isn't feasible. Nevertheless i respect your decision - it is your vote, cast in favour of what you think was the best for the country, what i loathe the most in democracy(which actually turns it into a farce - a popularity contest instead of merit based one) are people voting just because something is popular.

SirHound 7y ago

So you voted leave in case some people had career progression within a bureaucracy? So happy you felt it appropriate to sacrifice my right to live in my country of residence because you were "dubious". To think it wasn't for the money. It's comments like this for which half the country will never be forgiven.

colinb 7y ago
maybe if you got less angry, you wouldn't have spend so much time searching for forgiveness. The GP's comment opened with `I voted leave because I was dubious about the control the elected and unelected officials and secretaries in brussels had over British politics, ` I think it's a valid concern. Though not enough to sway my vote iff I'd remained but I was leaving the UK all by myself so it seemed unfair. But if all you can do is talk about how those who disagree with you do or don't deserve your forgiveness, then the fault is within you.
- pjc50 7y ago
  But it's an extremely narrow view. It's a single concern, that requires ignoring all the other concerns. And in this case it's not a mere disagreement: every European living in the UK will be subject to the inconvenience and expense of settled status at best - and not all of them are eligible. Plenty of people have been handed the life-wrecking answer that they aren't eligible for settled status and have to leave their home or eventually the Home Office will deport them. I see no reason why those people should forgive. ( https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/reports/unsettled-status-which-eu-citizens-are-at-risk-of-failing-to-secure-their-rights-after-brexit/ https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/reports/unse... ) Wanting to leave the EU is an opinion. Voting to leave the EU is an action. That action has imposed a lot of costs and inconvenience on people, seemingly for no good reason. Why should those people forgive?

frobozz 7y ago

There may be more nuance, but as long as at least 650000 people were hoodwinked by that, or by the threat of their children being conscripted into the EU army or by the fear of Turkey joining imminently; or lured by the bogus newfound opportunities like buying fewer than five bananas at a time in the supermarket, or sending foreign criminals and scroungers back where they came from, then misinformation tipped the balance. I don't doubt that many people had legitimate, considered reasons for voting to leave. Those people are not the point of the argument. I'm certain that many did not have good reasons. I have met them. They post stupid memes on Facebook about poppies offending Muslims. If enough of those people were swung by The Bus or anything from Boris Johnson's 30-year campaign of lies about "Barmy Brussels Bureaucrats", then this is not a democratic result. It's harmful to the national discourse not to address misinformation. That is what truly chips away at the concept of democracy. If we just accept that lying to the electorate is all part of the game, then it becomes just that - a game, to be won by the loudest and least scrupulous players, rather than a sensible decision-making tool.

7952 7y ago

Of course this lack of nuance is utilised by brexiteer politicians a lot when it suits them. By talking about the "will of the people" they are reducing millions of people to a single constituency who want one thing. When actually leave voters want and care about lots of different things. And the best way to represent those opinions is through the normal democratic system giving equal weight to remainers. Except that isn't allowed to happen because politicians want to use the vote to push their opinion. But yes the lack of nuance is appalling.