5 ms·

Doesn't help but it still is an accurate description.

frereubu 7y ago
Not necessarily. Some of them just had different priorities - giving the political establishment a kicking - after a decade of unneccessary austerity. I strongly disagree with those priorities, and think they shot themslves in the foot in the most terrible way, but to characterise 52% of the people who voted as stupid is to miss the point.
- makomk 7y ago
  It also wasn't entirely inappropriate as a way of giving the UK political establishment a good kicking, given that they'd been using the EU for decades as a way of pushing through laws they knew voters didn't want without that pesky business of having to publicly back them and get MPs to do the same. Remain supporters love to point to the fact that many unpopular EU laws were actually pushed for by the UK government as proof Leave supporters are stupid to blame the EU, but I don't think that argument flies.
roenxi 7y ago
It is pretty obvious that a large number of people disagree with the characterisation. Rather than hurling abuse, why not go a little further and explain what your objections are? Then maybe they'll change their minds instead of writing off opinions such as yours and the thread parent. It is rare to persuade people by throwing in the towel on explaining. Add some reasons.
- tasubotadas 7y ago
  >change their minds instead of writing off opinions such as yours and the thread parent. >It is rare to persuade people by throwing in the towel on explaining. TBH, I don't think you can reason with people like that. If that's your cup of tea, please do. Maybe you will make the world a better place. In the meantime, I'll be definitely making my world better, by avoiding brexiters, antivaxers, flat-earthers and other crazies. >Rather than hurling abuse Technically, I don't think that that matters, as I am not going and I am not insulting anybody specifically (if somebody takes an offence about such a general statement on the internet, it's kinda their problem). But if anybody would ask me to support their stance on pro-brexit, I would gladly call them (brexiters) an idiot. It really takes audacity to defend such a "move" where everybody loses.
_Understated_ 7y ago
Your comment is the first one I've ever downvoted on here. It's not an accurate description. Far from it. I consider myself to be smart. I sought out as much data as I could before deciding to vote leave and I am sure I was not the only one. The EU pact was originally trade-related. It wasn't about governance. That's all I want. Edit: To the person or people that downvoted me, any chance of an explanation?
- frereubu 7y ago
  I voted remain, but can understand your specific viewpoint despite not wanting what you do. But I'm curious - did you think that was what you were voting for when you voted to leave? Vote Leave's campaign was so nebulous that it felt really hard to understand what they were actually campaigning for. Also, political realities aside, would you (like Jacob Rees-Mogg did before the referendum) be interested in the results of a second referendum now that we know what the actual terms of the deal are? Edit: the downvote didn't come from me.
  - _Understated_ 7y ago
    First, I'm from Scotland and I also voted against independence, fwiw. I don't watch the news, too stage-managed and depressing but I still seek out information when I need to as I still know what's going on at a high level: I just don't see all the death and daily politicking (sp?). My issue with the EU (Now, I understand the nuances with the European Commission etc. but let's take it as "the EU" for the purposes of argument) is accountability. We have 650 MP's here in the UK deciding our fate for us. We don't need any more. The EU pact was originally about trade deals. I get governance from my locally elected MP's, I don't need anyone in Brussels deciding the fate of my country. It wasn't xenophobia as many MP's painted it, it was about accountability and governance. For me, at least. In terms of the deal we would get when we left? I didn't care and I still don't. We'll be fine. The 350 million bullshit was just that... bullshit! I knew it at the time. Both sides would have probably lied through their teeth or stretched the truth way beyond reality: we saw that with the first Scottish independence referendum where the SNP figures were based on an oil price that hit a one-day high (I believe... it was a while back!). If people trust their politicians to tell them the truth, or to put their interests at heart then that's the problem right there imo. And as for the second referendum, I'm not sure I would. People get cold feet. Also, people are easily swayed. I'm not afraid to say that I wouldn't want another one as I may not get the result I wanted. But that aside... we voted. We took a legal vote and the result is in. There would be the same shenanigans, lies and bullshit next time round anyway! Edit: I forgot about something. Sir Tom Hunter commissioned a study on the effects of leaving the EU. It was from scholars and such. So it was based (hopefully) on data more than rhetoric, votes and soundbites. It didn't pick a side, it just gave all the info it could to allow an informed decision. I'd made my mind up by then but it was informative but, to be honest, still quite speculative as there very little actual data to go on. I trusted something like that far more than anything from a politician. Edit2: Guys, the downvotes. C'mon! This isn't Reddit. By all means downvote but let's hear your argument. There are very few places you can go to get both sides of an argument where both parties don't resort to calling each other Nazi's. Even if you don't agree with me, tell me why please
uncle_j 7y ago
No it isn't. The money argument isn't a valid argument for the vast majority of people that voted to Leave. The people that voted leave just didn't think the economic argument is as important as you think it is. That doesn't make them stupid it simply means they have different priorities then you do.
- arethuza 7y ago
  "No it isn't. The money argument isn't a valid argument for the vast majority of people that voted to Leave." The 350 million a week message was a vital part of the Vote Leave strategy - and given that it was Dominic Cummings in charge there would have been hard data to support its appeal.
  - uncle_j 7y ago
    I don't think that would have swayed as many votes as you think it does. England has been euro-skeptic since Henry VIII. David Starky actually does some really good lectures about it. It is part of the Zeitgeist of this country.

Not necessarily. Some of them just had different priorities - giving the political establishment a kicking - after a decade of unneccessary austerity. I strongly disagree with those priorities, and think they shot themslves in the foot in the most terrible way, but to characterise 52% of the people who voted as stupid is to miss the point.

makomk 7y ago
It also wasn't entirely inappropriate as a way of giving the UK political establishment a good kicking, given that they'd been using the EU for decades as a way of pushing through laws they knew voters didn't want without that pesky business of having to publicly back them and get MPs to do the same. Remain supporters love to point to the fact that many unpopular EU laws were actually pushed for by the UK government as proof Leave supporters are stupid to blame the EU, but I don't think that argument flies.

roenxi 7y ago

It is pretty obvious that a large number of people disagree with the characterisation. Rather than hurling abuse, why not go a little further and explain what your objections are? Then maybe they'll change their minds instead of writing off opinions such as yours and the thread parent. It is rare to persuade people by throwing in the towel on explaining. Add some reasons.

tasubotadas 7y ago
>change their minds instead of writing off opinions such as yours and the thread parent. >It is rare to persuade people by throwing in the towel on explaining. TBH, I don't think you can reason with people like that. If that's your cup of tea, please do. Maybe you will make the world a better place. In the meantime, I'll be definitely making my world better, by avoiding brexiters, antivaxers, flat-earthers and other crazies. >Rather than hurling abuse Technically, I don't think that that matters, as I am not going and I am not insulting anybody specifically (if somebody takes an offence about such a general statement on the internet, it's kinda their problem). But if anybody would ask me to support their stance on pro-brexit, I would gladly call them (brexiters) an idiot. It really takes audacity to defend such a "move" where everybody loses.

_Understated_ 7y ago

Your comment is the first one I've ever downvoted on here. It's not an accurate description. Far from it. I consider myself to be smart. I sought out as much data as I could before deciding to vote leave and I am sure I was not the only one. The EU pact was originally trade-related. It wasn't about governance. That's all I want. Edit: To the person or people that downvoted me, any chance of an explanation?

frereubu 7y ago
I voted remain, but can understand your specific viewpoint despite not wanting what you do. But I'm curious - did you think that was what you were voting for when you voted to leave? Vote Leave's campaign was so nebulous that it felt really hard to understand what they were actually campaigning for. Also, political realities aside, would you (like Jacob Rees-Mogg did before the referendum) be interested in the results of a second referendum now that we know what the actual terms of the deal are? Edit: the downvote didn't come from me.
- _Understated_ 7y ago
  First, I'm from Scotland and I also voted against independence, fwiw. I don't watch the news, too stage-managed and depressing but I still seek out information when I need to as I still know what's going on at a high level: I just don't see all the death and daily politicking (sp?). My issue with the EU (Now, I understand the nuances with the European Commission etc. but let's take it as "the EU" for the purposes of argument) is accountability. We have 650 MP's here in the UK deciding our fate for us. We don't need any more. The EU pact was originally about trade deals. I get governance from my locally elected MP's, I don't need anyone in Brussels deciding the fate of my country. It wasn't xenophobia as many MP's painted it, it was about accountability and governance. For me, at least. In terms of the deal we would get when we left? I didn't care and I still don't. We'll be fine. The 350 million bullshit was just that... bullshit! I knew it at the time. Both sides would have probably lied through their teeth or stretched the truth way beyond reality: we saw that with the first Scottish independence referendum where the SNP figures were based on an oil price that hit a one-day high (I believe... it was a while back!). If people trust their politicians to tell them the truth, or to put their interests at heart then that's the problem right there imo. And as for the second referendum, I'm not sure I would. People get cold feet. Also, people are easily swayed. I'm not afraid to say that I wouldn't want another one as I may not get the result I wanted. But that aside... we voted. We took a legal vote and the result is in. There would be the same shenanigans, lies and bullshit next time round anyway! Edit: I forgot about something. Sir Tom Hunter commissioned a study on the effects of leaving the EU. It was from scholars and such. So it was based (hopefully) on data more than rhetoric, votes and soundbites. It didn't pick a side, it just gave all the info it could to allow an informed decision. I'd made my mind up by then but it was informative but, to be honest, still quite speculative as there very little actual data to go on. I trusted something like that far more than anything from a politician. Edit2: Guys, the downvotes. C'mon! This isn't Reddit. By all means downvote but let's hear your argument. There are very few places you can go to get both sides of an argument where both parties don't resort to calling each other Nazi's. Even if you don't agree with me, tell me why please

uncle_j 7y ago

No it isn't. The money argument isn't a valid argument for the vast majority of people that voted to Leave. The people that voted leave just didn't think the economic argument is as important as you think it is. That doesn't make them stupid it simply means they have different priorities then you do.

arethuza 7y ago
"No it isn't. The money argument isn't a valid argument for the vast majority of people that voted to Leave." The 350 million a week message was a vital part of the Vote Leave strategy - and given that it was Dominic Cummings in charge there would have been hard data to support its appeal.
- uncle_j 7y ago
  I don't think that would have swayed as many votes as you think it does. England has been euro-skeptic since Henry VIII. David Starky actually does some really good lectures about it. It is part of the Zeitgeist of this country.