On this thing about dictionary definitions. Whilst they may be a useful starting point a dictionary definition is not the definitive guide as to the meaning of a word. The meanings of words shift with time, context and usage and are rarely locked in place. 'Metropolitan' and most especially a modified term such as 'Metropolitan Elite' is open to quite a bit of interpretation.
On this thing about dictionary definitions. Whilst they may be a useful starting point a dictionary definition is not the definitive guide as to the meaning of a word. The meanings of words shift with time, context and usage and are rarely locked in place. 'Metropolitan' and most especially a modified term such as 'Metropolitan Elite' is open to quite a bit of interpretation.
To be fair, I think the link from @A-R-T-H-U-R explains it best. It goes cross-Party.
the "political elite" is not the same thing as the elite that @Southbank and others refer to, in so far as I understand them. Yes of course the Labour party has it's share of senior people who benefitted from a comfortable privileged upbringing. But they talk about a bigger group
The "liberal metropolitan elite" in their imagination seem to live mainly in South East England, and are in some way successful in business. In order to maximise hatred of this group it is suggested that their type of business is basically that of the City. This group is All Right Jack, and neither knows nor cares how people in say Leicester live. ( I cite Leicester because Peston did and he declared himself one of the LME despite not being a politician, and not obviously a supporter of one party or another.) My point was; whom did these kind of people typically vote for, long before Brexit? The Tories, surely.
The flaw in the tag is "liberal". Patently you can't be liberal and support the Tories, especially the motley crew I listed earlier. They don't get more illiberal than that lot.
When one points out that 16 million plus cannot all be in an elite we are then told that we are blindly following this LME. It is every bit as insulting as those slights that Brexiteers feel, some of them justified.
the "political elite" is not the same thing as the elite that @Southbank and others refer to, in so far as I understand them. Yes of course the Labour party has it's share of senior people who benefitted from a comfortable privileged upbringing. But they talk about a bigger group
The "liberal metropolitan elite" in their imagination seem to live mainly in South East England, and are in some way successful in business. In order to maximise hatred of this group it is suggested that their type of business is basically that of the City. This group is All Right Jack, and neither knows nor cares how people in say Leicester live. ( I cite Leicester because Peston did and he declared himself one of the LME despite not being a politician, and not obviously a supporter of one party or another.) My point was; whom did these kind of people typically vote for, long before Brexit? The Tories, surely.
The flaw in the tag is "liberal". Patently you can't be liberal and support the Tories, especially the motley crew I listed earlier. They don't get more illiberal than that lot.
When one points out that 16 million plus cannot all be in an elite we are then told that we are blindly following this LME. It is every bit as insulting as those slights that Brexiteers feel, some of them justified.
Your efforts in relation to the elite issue sound increasingly desperate. The majority of Tory Cabinet Ministers are Remainers and most Tory MPs as well. The City is mainly Remain as are the CBI and the Institute Of Directors and 80% of Academics. It is an open and shut case. Nobody is saying you are blindly following them, but you are in their side.
Yeah those academics, such bastard elites aren't they. Discovering cures and treatments for diseases, developing cleaner and future technologies, or advancing the forefront of computers and the internet. They should stick to their test tunes and leave politics to uneducated idealogues.
At least you have now identified who you believe to be elites (Tories, CBI, directors, academics). I also identified who I believe to be elites and how they were all overwhelmingly Leave voting. Can we just agree that the term 'elite' is a pointless slur and that neither Leave nor Remain can claim to represent the average British adult who is just trying to make their way through life.
Prague and I may be on the same side as academics, job creators and yes, some Tories. But you are on the side of the likes of Farage, Gove, BoJo, and the newspapers who print on a daily basis xenophobic stories and incite hatred, as well as the Vote Leave directors who boasted that it was their ability to lie and deceive the voters that won them the referendum.
I remember when Gina Miller first appeared in this debate and the Daily Mail and the Sun ran incredibly inflammatory headlines about her being an out of touch metropolitan liberal elite. It really is an utterly worthless term used by worthless people who have run out of arguments.
Given that the Brexit bill has been further delayed in the Commons and will be very hard to force through the Lords; and that Theresa May has, apparently, delayed any discussion in Cabinet of post-Brexit trade deals until 2018; and the fact that there has still not been "sufficient progress" on the Brexit talks with the EU, which will go on until at least December; and that the EU27 have already started preparing their negotiating plans for the deal, meaning the UK will be as under-prepared for the deal negotiation as we have been for the Brexit talks so far; and that we are therefore in the worst-possible position with regards to negotiating an exit and a deal...
...does anyone still believe that Brexit is going to be a success?
Yep - can't wait. I can't say I expected the EU27 to be falling over themselves to get us out.
Interesting that the "divorce bill" is a sticking point, yet meanwhile at the EIB:
Under the statutes of the EIB, its shareholders can only be member states of the EU. However, it had been hoped by many in senior positions in the bank that “rational thinking” would lead to an amendment to the rule book to allow the UK to stay. (The Guardian)
So, if rational thinking is going to be introduced (in a place), then perhaps elsewhere, the parties concerned in Brexit can get a move on and sort it out.
the EU27 have already started preparing their negotiating plans for the deal, meaning the UK will be as under-prepared for the deal negotiation as we have been for the Brexit talks so far
It's up to the 27 round the table as much as it is the UK to sort out the terms - we are leaving them, not vice versa, so they need to be more prepared than us (IMO).
Guy is married to the same girl for 40 years. Decides to leave her right now and look for a better option. Guy has the phone numbers for Nicole Sherzinger, Taylor Swift, Rachel Riley etc, but they could be wrong and even then - the ladies may not answer. A year later he talks to wife about the divorce bill - she says you can't have my Wham CD's and I want half the house and both the cats. Guy thinks - Phew, I thought I was gonna get the Wham CD's but half the house has skinted me and I miss the cats. In time - the guy rents the house next door with Sherzinger, Swift and Riley - sees cats over garden fence, and buys his own CD's.
It's interesting that you say you still think it's going to be a success, but haven't given a specific reason why. Is there anything that's happening that makes you still think that?
Also, I don't understand why anyone would be relaxed about our negotiating position on the post-Brexit deal being so woefully under-prepared than our negotiating partner's. If we do leave the EU, we will need a deal. Why would it be acceptable for us to be less well prepared than the organisation with whom we want to agree that deal?
There are so many "unknowns" about Brexit as a whole and it seems that we either fall into the "scared of the unknown certainties" OR "excited by unknown opportunities" I think this pretty much defines the Stay or Leave camps (post referendum).
Right from the start, the UK Gov was saying that we won't be "revealing our hand" before we get to the negotiating table - and yes, this could also be taken to mean that we have no idea what we are going to ask for/refuse to allow. I don't believe there is any concrete reason why it will be a success, but my faith is in the UK as a nation to deal with post-Brexit issues as they arise. Yes - for this we need sturdy politicians, and frankly we could do with better than we have at present, but I believe that better politicians will emerge in due course.
Relaxed ? I am a bit of a cynic generally when it comes to governments, and I don't believe that we are as under-prepared as we make out. Of course I could be badly wrong, but a major trading partner and chunky contributor to the EU budget is walking away, at a time when the poorer of the 27 are worried about funding and one of the major pillars (Spain) is fracturing. If I was Pres of the EU, I would be looking to make Brexit as painless as possible for the UK, and developing a stable ongoing relationship. IMO There will be a deal, but we want to make the 27 think that we will leave without a deal if nothing can be agreed in time.
Quotes like these are unhelpful to the process:
Juncker: (The English language is losing importance due to Brexit).
Barnier: ("The British Minister of Defence will no longer be able to sit on the Council of Defence Ministers and London will leave the European Defence Agency / EU-wide police force (Europol)...........Nevertheless, the union of 27 and the UK will have to join forces to deal with common threats as the safety of our fellow citizens is not being marketed).
The first quote is bizarre and the second is self-contradictory.
The 27 and UK should be talking all day everyday and sorting it out - as they should have been doing since June 2016.
Hi @Valiantphil thanks for replying. (A lot of people from either side of the debate disappear, rather than answer difficult questions - so, hats off!)
I totally agree with you that there doesn't appear to be any concrete reason why it will be a success. That's a big and honest admission on your part and something I have believed since day one (whenever that was). And it's also very honest of you to admit you're relying on blind "faith". I agree that we tend to make the best of every situation that is thrown our way and that this should continue. (It's obviously very irritating that this situation is so painfully self-inflicted).
Did Juncker really say "the English language is losing importance due to Brexit"? I hadn't heard that he has said that, but I can easily imagine him saying so. Because, after all, it's true, isn't it? There are 24 official languages in the EU. If we leave, there will only be two countries where English is an official language: Ireland and Malta (where it's not the primary language). So, what's inaccurate about Juncker's statement, considering the population of citizens from English language countries is diminishing from 70m to 5m? (Or, put another way, English is spoken as a first language by 13% of the EU population; if we leave, that will become 0.73%. Isn't it fair to say that if English speakers diminish by that much, the conclusion would be that it's losing its importance?) You might not like Juncker, but that doesn't mean that everything he says is wrong. Particularly when it's demonstrably right.
Yes he did, but it's not clear whether he meant in the EU Parliament (loads of blokes sitting in a room with translators on headphones) - or within the countries of the EU as an everyday thing.
If it's the former - who cares ?
If it's the latter - he is wrong (in my experience), with the number of Germans, Dutch, Scandos and even more Spanish people I do business with / meet. These folk are not going to stop speaking English just because we left the EU. That's why the comment was unhelpful - but as another poster already pointed out, there have been many unhelpful quotes on both sides.
I lived in Malta for 2 years just before they joined the EU - and trust me, Maltese was only used to understand the banknotes (pre-Euro currency) or have a proper noisy row
Given that the Brexit bill has been further delayed in the Commons and will be very hard to force through the Lords; and that Theresa May has, apparently, delayed any discussion in Cabinet of post-Brexit trade deals until 2018; and the fact that there has still not been "sufficient progress" on the Brexit talks with the EU, which will go on until at least December; and that the EU27 have already started preparing their negotiating plans for the deal, meaning the UK will be as under-prepared for the deal negotiation as we have been for the Brexit talks so far; and that we are therefore in the worst-possible position with regards to negotiating an exit and a deal...
...does anyone still believe that Brexit is going to be a success?
Yep - can't wait. I can't say I expected the EU27 to be falling over themselves to get us out.
Interesting that the "divorce bill" is a sticking point, yet meanwhile at the EIB:
Under the statutes of the EIB, its shareholders can only be member states of the EU. However, it had been hoped by many in senior positions in the bank that “rational thinking” would lead to an amendment to the rule book to allow the UK to stay. (The Guardian)
So, if rational thinking is going to be introduced (in a place), then perhaps elsewhere, the parties concerned in Brexit can get a move on and sort it out.
the EU27 have already started preparing their negotiating plans for the deal, meaning the UK will be as under-prepared for the deal negotiation as we have been for the Brexit talks so far
It's up to the 27 round the table as much as it is the UK to sort out the terms - we are leaving them, not vice versa, so they need to be more prepared than us (IMO).
Guy is married to the same girl for 40 years. Decides to leave her right now and look for a better option. Guy has the phone numbers for Nicole Sherzinger, Taylor Swift, Rachel Riley etc, but they could be wrong and even then - the ladies may not answer. A year later he talks to wife about the divorce bill - she says you can't have my Wham CD's and I want half the house and both the cats. Guy thinks - Phew, I thought I was gonna get the Wham CD's but half the house has skinted me and I miss the cats. In time - the guy rents the house next door with Sherzinger, Swift and Riley - sees cats over garden fence, and buys his own CD's.
It's interesting that you say you still think it's going to be a success, but haven't given a specific reason why. Is there anything that's happening that makes you still think that?
Also, I don't understand why anyone would be relaxed about our negotiating position on the post-Brexit deal being so woefully under-prepared than our negotiating partner's. If we do leave the EU, we will need a deal. Why would it be acceptable for us to be less well prepared than the organisation with whom we want to agree that deal?
There are so many "unknowns" about Brexit as a whole and it seems that we either fall into the "scared of the unknown certainties" OR "excited by unknown opportunities" I think this pretty much defines the Stay or Leave camps (post referendum).
Right from the start, the UK Gov was saying that we won't be "revealing our hand" before we get to the negotiating table - and yes, this could also be taken to mean that we have no idea what we are going to ask for/refuse to allow. I don't believe there is any concrete reason why it will be a success, but my faith is in the UK as a nation to deal with post-Brexit issues as they arise. Yes - for this we need sturdy politicians, and frankly we could do with better than we have at present, but I believe that better politicians will emerge in due course.
I’m not too sure about better politicians emerging in due course seeing as we have another 5 years of the Tories, propped up by the DUP. Not saying Labour or whoever would do any better but the negotiations are gonna be on the Tories up to leaving and after. They’re all over the shop and internally they can’t work out what they want as a party, let alone for a nation
Relaxed ? I am a bit of a cynic generally when it comes to governments, and I don't believe that we are as under-prepared as we make out. Of course I could be badly wrong, but a major trading partner and chunky contributor to the EU budget is walking away, at a time when the poorer of the 27 are worried about funding and one of the major pillars (Spain) is fracturing. If I was Pres of the EU, I would be looking to make Brexit as painless as possible for the UK, and developing a stable ongoing relationship. IMO There will be a deal, but we want to make the 27 think that we will leave without a deal if nothing can be agreed in time.
We’ve been massively underprepared. You only have to listen to David Davis answer certain questions, he hasn’t a clue how to go about this for a multitude of reasons, be that us thinking we could tackle our trading relationship first, internal politics in the Tory party or plain right arrogance and an assumption that undoing 40 years of statutes, laws, directives and regulations could be done in 2 years, the way we’ve gone about it.
our contributions to the EU have been positive on a number of levels, but I believe solidarity within the remaining EU States is more important to them than our relationship with us. If that means they have to cut their nose off to spite their face a bit, then so be it. The EU will dig their heels in to protect the institution. Whether that’s right or wrong or silly or even unfair and they are making an example of us, then quite frankly, who cares. We left. I see the negotiations as a bit like me going to my boss and asking for a pay rise. I contribute to my work and do a number of things well, but if he doesn’t want to pay me more, then who am I to say ‘oh you should be paying me more, I can’t believe we’re not going to discuss it.’
It’s a bit of a crude analogy I grant you, but the nuclear option is I quit, a bit like we could leave without a deal. bad for me because I could leave without another job to go to. Who knows. As you say I think there will be a deal, but what that looks like will probably disappoint most on remain and leave
Quotes like these are unhelpful to the process:
Juncker: (The English language is losing importance due to Brexit).
Barnier: ("The British Minister of Defence will no longer be able to sit on the Council of Defence Ministers and London will leave the European Defence Agency / EU-wide police force (Europol)...........Nevertheless, the union of 27 and the UK will have to join forces to deal with common threats as the safety of our fellow citizens is not being marketed).
The first quote is bizarre and the second is self-contradictory. Agree but these are tit for tat on both sides and we could go back and forth all day pulling out stupid comments from our government as well
The 27 and UK should be talking all day everyday and sorting it out - as they should have been doing since June 2016.
might have helped if May hadn’t have carried out her vanity project by calling a general election this summer. The EU had to stop and wait for her stupidity
Bad for my boss because he might lose a good worker,
Yes, a crude analogy but............ What if you are the top "Double Glazing" salesman pulling in enough orders in a day to fund the firm for a month? How long could he risk waiting to get an equivalent replacement for you - versus the cost of your pay rise request ?
Yeah those academics, such bastard elites aren't they. Discovering cures and treatments for diseases, developing cleaner and future technologies, or advancing the forefront of computers and the internet. They should stick to their test tunes and leave politics to uneducated idealogues.
At least you have now identified who you believe to be elites (Tories, CBI, directors, academics). I also identified who I believe to be elites and how they were all overwhelmingly Leave voting. Can we just agree that the term 'elite' is a pointless slur and that neither Leave nor Remain can claim to represent the average British adult who is just trying to make their way through life.
Prague and I may be on the same side as academics, job creators and yes, some Tories. But you are on the side of the likes of Farage, Gove, BoJo, and the newspapers who print on a daily basis xenophobic stories and incite hatred, as well as the Vote Leave directors who boasted that it was their ability to lie and deceive the voters that won them the referendum.
I remember when Gina Miller first appeared in this debate and the Daily Mail and the Sun ran incredibly inflammatory headlines about her being an out of touch metropolitan liberal elite. It really is an utterly worthless term used by worthless people who have run out of arguments.
The point of identifying that the majority of the elites, not all of them obviously, are anti-Brexit is because they have the power to screw Brexit up, which they are doing through indecisiveness and lack of a clear objective and basically because they do not believe in it. The only political party in Westminster which has a Leaver as leader is the DUP. The rest of us, Leavers or Remainers,are in the hands of the powerful anti-Brexiters.
Yeah those academics, such bastard elites aren't they. Discovering cures and treatments for diseases, developing cleaner and future technologies, or advancing the forefront of computers and the internet. They should stick to their test tunes and leave politics to uneducated idealogues.
At least you have now identified who you believe to be elites (Tories, CBI, directors, academics). I also identified who I believe to be elites and how they were all overwhelmingly Leave voting. Can we just agree that the term 'elite' is a pointless slur and that neither Leave nor Remain can claim to represent the average British adult who is just trying to make their way through life.
Prague and I may be on the same side as academics, job creators and yes, some Tories. But you are on the side of the likes of Farage, Gove, BoJo, and the newspapers who print on a daily basis xenophobic stories and incite hatred, as well as the Vote Leave directors who boasted that it was their ability to lie and deceive the voters that won them the referendum.
I remember when Gina Miller first appeared in this debate and the Daily Mail and the Sun ran incredibly inflammatory headlines about her being an out of touch metropolitan liberal elite. It really is an utterly worthless term used by worthless people who have run out of arguments.
The point of identifying that the majority of the elites, not all of them obviously, are anti-Brexit is because they have the power to screw Brexit up, which they are doing through indecisiveness and lack of a clear objective and basically because they do not believe in it. The only political party in Westminster which has a Leaver as leader is the DUP. The rest of us, Leavers or Remainers,are in the hands of the powerful anti-Brexiters.
So Brexit was caused by the non-democratically elected elites who are overwhelmingly Leavers but is now being orchestrated by the democratically-elected elites who were Remainers.
And you have a problem with the second group of elites but not the first.
Yeah those academics, such bastard elites aren't they. Discovering cures and treatments for diseases, developing cleaner and future technologies, or advancing the forefront of computers and the internet. They should stick to their test tunes and leave politics to uneducated idealogues.
At least you have now identified who you believe to be elites (Tories, CBI, directors, academics). I also identified who I believe to be elites and how they were all overwhelmingly Leave voting. Can we just agree that the term 'elite' is a pointless slur and that neither Leave nor Remain can claim to represent the average British adult who is just trying to make their way through life.
Prague and I may be on the same side as academics, job creators and yes, some Tories. But you are on the side of the likes of Farage, Gove, BoJo, and the newspapers who print on a daily basis xenophobic stories and incite hatred, as well as the Vote Leave directors who boasted that it was their ability to lie and deceive the voters that won them the referendum.
I remember when Gina Miller first appeared in this debate and the Daily Mail and the Sun ran incredibly inflammatory headlines about her being an out of touch metropolitan liberal elite. It really is an utterly worthless term used by worthless people who have run out of arguments.
The point of identifying that the majority of the elites, not all of them obviously, are anti-Brexit is because they have the power to screw Brexit up, which they are doing through indecisiveness and lack of a clear objective and basically because they do not believe in it. The only political party in Westminster which has a Leaver as leader is the DUP. The rest of us, Leavers or Remainers,are in the hands of the powerful anti-Brexiters.
So Brexit was caused by the non-democratically elected elites who are overwhelmingly Leavers but is now being orchestrated by the democratically-elected elites who were Remainers.
And you have a problem with the second group of elites but not the first.
No, Brexit was an expression of the will of the majority, led by a minority of the elite. It is now being thwarted by a majority of the elite, supported by a minority of the people.
Brexit was a more or less equal split of those who voted, with Leave having a relatively marginal lead on polling day.
But those who campaigned for and funded the Brexit campaign were very much the rich and powerful who have a vested interest in subverting democracy.
Do you think Leave would have ever won if these elites had not spent the last 30 years spreading lies and propaganda through their newspapers and influence? Or that the referendum would have even happened if it wasn't for these rich and powerful people? There was certainly no popular movement to leave the EU: UKIP were struggling to get even a single seat in the House of Commons. It was only because of the money coming from a handful of rich people that UKIP lasted as long as it did, as opposed to it having any real support.
Two thirds of the electorate do not want Brexit. The rich and powerful who want to use Brexit to further their own goals at the expense of the British people are the ones who you should be worried about, not democratically elected representatives who are trying to deliver what is essentially a fantasy.
Why is your definition of elite more valid than mine? And why do you use it as an insult? Now you've actually defined who the elite are, isn't it a bit weird to say 'educated people, job creators, and democratic representatives' are thwarting Brexit?
@Valiantphil - we’ve gone over the text limit so my response is below
Are we the top biller though. One of the top contributors yes, contribute enough to compromise the whole of the institution and give us our cake and eat it, unlikely
I see a deal, but one that is neither here nor there and probably one that a lot of the hard brexiteers in gvt don’t want. And in my opinion, they’re the ones stopping this happening as much as the EU, maybe more. May is caught between a rock and a hard place because she ultimately wants to please the hard liners, but the hard liners terms won’t sit with the EU
For me, the ones that are holding up this happening are the Redwoods, Rees Mogg, Gove and Johnson etc
Brexit was a more or less equal split of those who voted, with Leave having a relatively marginal lead on polling day.
But those who campaigned for and funded the Brexit campaign were very much the rich and powerful who have a vested interest in subverting democracy.
Do you think Leave would have ever won if these elites had not spent the last 30 years spreading lies and propaganda through their newspapers and influence? Or that the referendum would have even happened if it wasn't for these rich and powerful people? There was certainly no popular movement to leave the EU: UKIP were struggling to get even a single seat in the House of Commons. It was only because of the money coming from a handful of rich people that UKIP lasted as long as it did, as opposed to it having any real support.
Two thirds of the electorate do not want Brexit. The rich and powerful who want to use Brexit to further their own goals at the expense of the British people are the ones who you should be worried about, not democratically elected representatives who are trying to deliver what is essentially a fantasy.
Why is your definition of elite more valid than mine? And why do you use it as an insult? Now you've actually defined who the elite are, isn't it a bit weird to say 'educated people, job creators, and democratic representatives' are thwarting Brexit?
Because in a democracy 'educated people,job creators and democratic representatives' have no extra rights than you and me. You have made the same claim for a long time that everybody who did not vote Leave wanted to Remain. If I made the same claim the other way you would rightly ridicule it, but it would have the same validity, that is none. I think Leave won because a majority of voters decided the majority of the elite which campaigned for Remain did not reflect their interests. Your contempt for ordinary people and belief they are gullible fools is in a long tradition of anti-democracy. Are you Peter Mandelson in disguise?
Brexit was a more or less equal split of those who voted, with Leave having a relatively marginal lead on polling day.
But those who campaigned for and funded the Brexit campaign were very much the rich and powerful who have a vested interest in subverting democracy.
Do you think Leave would have ever won if these elites had not spent the last 30 years spreading lies and propaganda through their newspapers and influence? Or that the referendum would have even happened if it wasn't for these rich and powerful people? There was certainly no popular movement to leave the EU: UKIP were struggling to get even a single seat in the House of Commons. It was only because of the money coming from a handful of rich people that UKIP lasted as long as it did, as opposed to it having any real support.
Two thirds of the electorate do not want Brexit. The rich and powerful who want to use Brexit to further their own goals at the expense of the British people are the ones who you should be worried about, not democratically elected representatives who are trying to deliver what is essentially a fantasy.
Why is your definition of elite more valid than mine? And why do you use it as an insult? Now you've actually defined who the elite are, isn't it a bit weird to say 'educated people, job creators, and democratic representatives' are thwarting Brexit?
Because in a democracy 'educated people,job creators and democratic representatives' have no extra rights than you and me. You have made the same claim for a long time that everybody who did not vote Leave wanted to Remain. If I made the same claim the other way you would rightly ridicule it, but it would have the same validity, that is none. I think Leave won because a majority of voters decided the majority of the elite which campaigned for Remain did not reflect their interests. Your contempt for ordinary people and belief they are gullible fools is in a long tradition of anti-democracy. Are you Peter Mandelson in disguise?
Ridiculous post. I don't have contempt for ordinary people, I have contempt for the rich and powerful who bought the vote and sold the British people the lie that it was in their interests.
Our EU membership was the status quo so it is definitely correct to say that if only a third of people stated that their preference is to leave then implicitly the other two thirds do not want to leave.
You seem to have contempt for British people because you think the only reason why people voted remain was because the elites told them to. You also seem to have contempt for democracy because you defend those who corrupt our democracy.
Our elected representatives are there democratically to do a job. Likewise academics and job creators have a right to inform and provide their expertise. If these groups all agree that Brexit is a bad idea then by all means they should do what they can to limit its damage. That's what democracy is: people voicing their opinions for the national good.
Our EU membership was the status quo so it is definitely correct to say that if only a third of people stated that their preference is to leave then implicitly the other two thirds do not want to leave.
............
Playing devils advocate, can’t the opposite also be stated?
..... if only a third of people stated that their preference is to remain then implicitly the other two thirds want to exit.
Brexit was a more or less equal split of those who voted, with Leave having a relatively marginal lead on polling day.
But those who campaigned for and funded the Brexit campaign were very much the rich and powerful who have a vested interest in subverting democracy.
Do you think Leave would have ever won if these elites had not spent the last 30 years spreading lies and propaganda through their newspapers and influence? Or that the referendum would have even happened if it wasn't for these rich and powerful people? There was certainly no popular movement to leave the EU: UKIP were struggling to get even a single seat in the House of Commons. It was only because of the money coming from a handful of rich people that UKIP lasted as long as it did, as opposed to it having any real support.
Two thirds of the electorate do not want Brexit. The rich and powerful who want to use Brexit to further their own goals at the expense of the British people are the ones who you should be worried about, not democratically elected representatives who are trying to deliver what is essentially a fantasy.
Why is your definition of elite more valid than mine? And why do you use it as an insult? Now you've actually defined who the elite are, isn't it a bit weird to say 'educated people, job creators, and democratic representatives' are thwarting Brexit?
Because in a democracy 'educated people,job creators and democratic representatives' have no extra rights than you and me. You have made the same claim for a long time that everybody who did not vote Leave wanted to Remain. If I made the same claim the other way you would rightly ridicule it, but it would have the same validity, that is none. I think Leave won because a majority of voters decided the majority of the elite which campaigned for Remain did not reflect their interests. Your contempt for ordinary people and belief they are gullible fools is in a long tradition of anti-democracy. Are you Peter Mandelson in disguise?
Ridiculous post. I don't have contempt for ordinary people, I have contempt for the rich and powerful who bought the vote and sold the British people the lie that it was in their interests.
Our EU membership was the status quo so it is definitely correct to say that if only a third of people stated that their preference is to leave then implicitly the other two thirds do not want to leave.
You seem to have contempt for British people because you think the only reason why people voted remain was because the elites told them to. You also seem to have contempt for democracy because you defend those who corrupt our democracy.
Our elected representatives are there democratically to do a job. Likewise academics and job creators have a right to inform and provide their expertise. If these groups all agree that Brexit is a bad idea then by all means they should do what they can to limit its damage. That's what democracy is: people voicing their opinions for the national good.
I do not have contempt for those who voted Remain, nor do I think their votes were bought and sold as you claim Leavers's votes were, although it would make just as much sense as your claim, perhaps more so as Remain's campaign was mainly about the economic damage of Brexit. You are quite wrong that because the elite disagree with Brexit they have a right to subvert it. They can campaign against it and stand in elections against it of course, but they cannot be allowed to use their wealth and power to stop it-as Gina Miller is doing for example.
Brexit was a more or less equal split of those who voted, with Leave having a relatively marginal lead on polling day.
But those who campaigned for and funded the Brexit campaign were very much the rich and powerful who have a vested interest in subverting democracy.
Do you think Leave would have ever won if these elites had not spent the last 30 years spreading lies and propaganda through their newspapers and influence? Or that the referendum would have even happened if it wasn't for these rich and powerful people? There was certainly no popular movement to leave the EU: UKIP were struggling to get even a single seat in the House of Commons. It was only because of the money coming from a handful of rich people that UKIP lasted as long as it did, as opposed to it having any real support.
Two thirds of the electorate do not want Brexit. The rich and powerful who want to use Brexit to further their own goals at the expense of the British people are the ones who you should be worried about, not democratically elected representatives who are trying to deliver what is essentially a fantasy.
Why is your definition of elite more valid than mine? And why do you use it as an insult? Now you've actually defined who the elite are, isn't it a bit weird to say 'educated people, job creators, and democratic representatives' are thwarting Brexit?
Because in a democracy 'educated people,job creators and democratic representatives' have no extra rights than you and me. You have made the same claim for a long time that everybody who did not vote Leave wanted to Remain. If I made the same claim the other way you would rightly ridicule it, but it would have the same validity, that is none. I think Leave won because a majority of voters decided the majority of the elite which campaigned for Remain did not reflect their interests. Your contempt for ordinary people and belief they are gullible fools is in a long tradition of anti-democracy. Are you Peter Mandelson in disguise?
Ridiculous post. I don't have contempt for ordinary people, I have contempt for the rich and powerful who bought the vote and sold the British people the lie that it was in their interests.
Our EU membership was the status quo so it is definitely correct to say that if only a third of people stated that their preference is to leave then implicitly the other two thirds do not want to leave.
You seem to have contempt for British people because you think the only reason why people voted remain was because the elites told them to. You also seem to have contempt for democracy because you defend those who corrupt our democracy.
Our elected representatives are there democratically to do a job. Likewise academics and job creators have a right to inform and provide their expertise. If these groups all agree that Brexit is a bad idea then by all means they should do what they can to limit its damage. That's what democracy is: people voicing their opinions for the national good.
I do not have contempt for those who voted Remain, nor do I think their votes were bought and sold as you claim Leavers's votes were, although it would make just as much sense as your claim, perhaps more so as Remain's campaign was mainly about the economic damage of Brexit. You are quite wrong that because the elite disagree with Brexit they have a right to subvert it. They can campaign against it and stand in elections against it of course, but they cannot be allowed to use their wealth and power to stop it-as Gina Miller is doing for example.
My understanding is that Gina Miller is anxious that the UK parliament have a proper say, which after all is what leavers wanted, isn't it?
Brexit was a more or less equal split of those who voted, with Leave having a relatively marginal lead on polling day.
But those who campaigned for and funded the Brexit campaign were very much the rich and powerful who have a vested interest in subverting democracy.
Do you think Leave would have ever won if these elites had not spent the last 30 years spreading lies and propaganda through their newspapers and influence? Or that the referendum would have even happened if it wasn't for these rich and powerful people? There was certainly no popular movement to leave the EU: UKIP were struggling to get even a single seat in the House of Commons. It was only because of the money coming from a handful of rich people that UKIP lasted as long as it did, as opposed to it having any real support.
Two thirds of the electorate do not want Brexit. The rich and powerful who want to use Brexit to further their own goals at the expense of the British people are the ones who you should be worried about, not democratically elected representatives who are trying to deliver what is essentially a fantasy.
Why is your definition of elite more valid than mine? And why do you use it as an insult? Now you've actually defined who the elite are, isn't it a bit weird to say 'educated people, job creators, and democratic representatives' are thwarting Brexit?
Because in a democracy 'educated people,job creators and democratic representatives' have no extra rights than you and me. You have made the same claim for a long time that everybody who did not vote Leave wanted to Remain. If I made the same claim the other way you would rightly ridicule it, but it would have the same validity, that is none. I think Leave won because a majority of voters decided the majority of the elite which campaigned for Remain did not reflect their interests. Your contempt for ordinary people and belief they are gullible fools is in a long tradition of anti-democracy. Are you Peter Mandelson in disguise?
Ridiculous post. I don't have contempt for ordinary people, I have contempt for the rich and powerful who bought the vote and sold the British people the lie that it was in their interests.
Our EU membership was the status quo so it is definitely correct to say that if only a third of people stated that their preference is to leave then implicitly the other two thirds do not want to leave.
You seem to have contempt for British people because you think the only reason why people voted remain was because the elites told them to. You also seem to have contempt for democracy because you defend those who corrupt our democracy.
Our elected representatives are there democratically to do a job. Likewise academics and job creators have a right to inform and provide their expertise. If these groups all agree that Brexit is a bad idea then by all means they should do what they can to limit its damage. That's what democracy is: people voicing their opinions for the national good.
I do not have contempt for those who voted Remain, nor do I think their votes were bought and sold as you claim Leavers's votes were, although it would make just as much sense as your claim, perhaps more so as Remain's campaign was mainly about the economic damage of Brexit. You are quite wrong that because the elite disagree with Brexit they have a right to subvert it. They can campaign against it and stand in elections against it of course, but they cannot be allowed to use their wealth and power to stop it-as Gina Miller is doing for example.
My understanding is that Gina Miller is anxious that the UK parliament have a proper say, which after all is what leavers wanted, isn't it?
Brexit was a more or less equal split of those who voted, with Leave having a relatively marginal lead on polling day.
But those who campaigned for and funded the Brexit campaign were very much the rich and powerful who have a vested interest in subverting democracy.
Do you think Leave would have ever won if these elites had not spent the last 30 years spreading lies and propaganda through their newspapers and influence? Or that the referendum would have even happened if it wasn't for these rich and powerful people? There was certainly no popular movement to leave the EU: UKIP were struggling to get even a single seat in the House of Commons. It was only because of the money coming from a handful of rich people that UKIP lasted as long as it did, as opposed to it having any real support.
Two thirds of the electorate do not want Brexit. The rich and powerful who want to use Brexit to further their own goals at the expense of the British people are the ones who you should be worried about, not democratically elected representatives who are trying to deliver what is essentially a fantasy.
Why is your definition of elite more valid than mine? And why do you use it as an insult? Now you've actually defined who the elite are, isn't it a bit weird to say 'educated people, job creators, and democratic representatives' are thwarting Brexit?
Because in a democracy 'educated people,job creators and democratic representatives' have no extra rights than you and me. You have made the same claim for a long time that everybody who did not vote Leave wanted to Remain. If I made the same claim the other way you would rightly ridicule it, but it would have the same validity, that is none. I think Leave won because a majority of voters decided the majority of the elite which campaigned for Remain did not reflect their interests. Your contempt for ordinary people and belief they are gullible fools is in a long tradition of anti-democracy. Are you Peter Mandelson in disguise?
Ridiculous post. I don't have contempt for ordinary people, I have contempt for the rich and powerful who bought the vote and sold the British people the lie that it was in their interests.
Our EU membership was the status quo so it is definitely correct to say that if only a third of people stated that their preference is to leave then implicitly the other two thirds do not want to leave.
You seem to have contempt for British people because you think the only reason why people voted remain was because the elites told them to. You also seem to have contempt for democracy because you defend those who corrupt our democracy.
Our elected representatives are there democratically to do a job. Likewise academics and job creators have a right to inform and provide their expertise. If these groups all agree that Brexit is a bad idea then by all means they should do what they can to limit its damage. That's what democracy is: people voicing their opinions for the national good.
I do not have contempt for those who voted Remain, nor do I think their votes were bought and sold as you claim Leavers's votes were, although it would make just as much sense as your claim, perhaps more so as Remain's campaign was mainly about the economic damage of Brexit. You are quite wrong that because the elite disagree with Brexit they have a right to subvert it. They can campaign against it and stand in elections against it of course, but they cannot be allowed to use their wealth and power to stop it-as Gina Miller is doing for example.
My understanding is that Gina Miller is anxious that the UK parliament have a proper say, which after all is what leavers wanted, isn't it?
Everything she does is aimed at stopping Brexit.
Why do you say that? What exactly has she done that she ought not to have done?
So Gina Miller isn't allowed to use her money and power to try to stop Brexit.
But the rich and powerful who funded UKIP and Vote Leave were allowed to use their money to subvert democracy.
The fact is both leavers and remainers are normal ordinary people. You perceive Remainers to be in the thrall of the elite but that's because you seem to view anyone with any level of education or qualification as 'the elite' and personally I would rather be on the side of those who had an informed opinion. Brexiters like you seem to try and turn it into a bad thing that those who actually had a qualified opinion on the EU were overwhelmingly Remain. Just because you were on the side of people who would repeat the same old untrue nonsense day in day out. Not my fault you backed those with no expertise and not the experts, don't try and make that into a negative.
Our EU membership was the status quo so it is definitely correct to say that if only a third of people stated that their preference is to leave then implicitly the other two thirds do not want to leave.
............
Playing devils advocate, can’t the opposite also be stated?
..... if only a third of people stated that their preference is to remain then implicitly the other two thirds want to exit.
No because as I said if our EU membership is the status quo those who do not vote implicitly support the status quo.
I would say the same thing if we were out of the EU as the status quo and only a third wanted to join.
As @Southbank explained "The elites have their hands on the levers of power and are using that power to sabotage Brexit in ways I outlined in my last post" I also referred in my post to "liberal elite" being politicians effectively holding an elitist stance on what process was, and was not, representative democracy. That justified screwing up any approach to deliver an optimal Brexit outcome under the pretence that they were protecting democracy. I did not refer to Remainers as "elite", but since when were posts not twisted on here to justify an abusive response.
Compared to the personal abuse and calling out the morons and idiots who voted Brexit on these threads, the outrage of Remainers by being associated with the term "elite", escapes me. If we can't call some politicians "Liberal elite" I also assume we can't refer to other politicians as "swivel eyed".
but since when were posts not twisted on here to justify an abusive response.
Compared to the personal abuse and calling out the morons and idiots who voted Brexit on these threads
In an earlier Brexit thread I mentioned going to university to help illustrate an example, you proceeded to abuse me for mentioning going to university then told me I had my head up my arse.
So I wouldn't really go about whinging about others twisting posts and abusing others because you've been doing it for a year now. Especially since nearly every post you have made in a Brexit related thread has been an abusive response to a remain voter.
For the record it isn't outrage that Remainers are called elites but incredulence that those who voted for something being promoted by Farage, BoJo, Gove, JRM, Lawson and other rich/powerful/establishment figures could imagine that it was the other side who were the elites. It's like a Chelsea fan moaning that Leicester relies on a foreign millionaire.
Our EU membership was the status quo so it is definitely correct to say that if only a third of people stated that their preference is to leave then implicitly the other two thirds do not want to leave.
............
Playing devils advocate, can’t the opposite also be stated?
..... if only a third of people stated that their preference is to remain then implicitly the other two thirds want to exit.
In fairness, and while limited in scope, so not true in every case, I know of individuals who didn't vote because they thought things were okay as they were (which does suggest that not all those who could be classed as pro-Remain are likely to win any Nobel prizes any time soon) - I will admit that this news had me going through the roof at the time.
It is more likely that those who were unhappy with UK membership of the EU would have voted. Indeed, it is quite likely that almost all of those wishing to leave the EU did vote to do so.
Whilst a (perhaps significant) percentage of those who did not vote might have had no opinion at all on the EU, it is not unreasonable to suggest that more would have accepted the continuation of the status quo than the current course as their preferred choice.
However, as they could not be arsed getting their fingers out, it is, in the end a fairly academic debate.
The more important question is what trading relationship the UK will have with the EU in the future.
Personally, I think the chance of agreeing the bespoke arrangement suggested by the Prime Minister is remote (actually unobtainable within the time available). I would not hold out great hopes for a transition period either, as, before being agreed, both sides need to be clear what it is a transition to.
If the UK wants a deal, and it is not always clear whether all the Government does, the only choices are Single Market, Customs Union or a variation on CETA. Nothing else can be agreed within the twelve months remaining before the ratification process must begin.
If the UK goes down the unilateral free trade route, I fear for those (often in the regions) described as the left behinds, because their (and, for the purposes of Northern Ireland, mine also) futures will be absolutely shafted.
PS. In order to achieve any deal, however, the dreaded sufficient progress will need to be made over the next few weeks.
This must confuse people who rely on the Guardian to confirm the expert view that Brexit can only be a disaster for the UK.
"That is the conclusion of a government commissioned review on industrial digitalisation, published today and led by industry chief Jürgen Maier, the UK and Ireland boss of German engineering giant Siemens."
Comments
The meanings of words shift with time, context and usage and are rarely locked in place.
'Metropolitan' and most especially a modified term such as 'Metropolitan Elite' is open to quite a bit of interpretation.
https://google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/voices/south-wales-valleys-brexit-vote-leave-a8021051.html%3famp
Perhaps they dont see the signs...
or maybe they still remember the signs from 1975?
the "political elite" is not the same thing as the elite that @Southbank and others refer to, in so far as I understand them. Yes of course the Labour party has it's share of senior people who benefitted from a comfortable privileged upbringing. But they talk about a bigger group
The "liberal metropolitan elite" in their imagination seem to live mainly in South East England, and are in some way successful in business. In order to maximise hatred of this group it is suggested that their type of business is basically that of the City. This group is All Right Jack, and neither knows nor cares how people in say Leicester live. ( I cite Leicester because Peston did and he declared himself one of the LME despite not being a politician, and not obviously a supporter of one party or another.) My point was; whom did these kind of people typically vote for, long before Brexit? The Tories, surely.
The flaw in the tag is "liberal". Patently you can't be liberal and support the Tories, especially the motley crew I listed earlier. They don't get more illiberal than that lot.
When one points out that 16 million plus cannot all be in an elite we are then told that we are blindly following this LME. It is every bit as insulting as those slights that Brexiteers feel, some of them justified.
Nobody is saying you are blindly following them, but you are in their side.
At least you have now identified who you believe to be elites (Tories, CBI, directors, academics). I also identified who I believe to be elites and how they were all overwhelmingly Leave voting. Can we just agree that the term 'elite' is a pointless slur and that neither Leave nor Remain can claim to represent the average British adult who is just trying to make their way through life.
Prague and I may be on the same side as academics, job creators and yes, some Tories. But you are on the side of the likes of Farage, Gove, BoJo, and the newspapers who print on a daily basis xenophobic stories and incite hatred, as well as the Vote Leave directors who boasted that it was their ability to lie and deceive the voters that won them the referendum.
I remember when Gina Miller first appeared in this debate and the Daily Mail and the Sun ran incredibly inflammatory headlines about her being an out of touch metropolitan liberal elite. It really is an utterly worthless term used by worthless people who have run out of arguments.
Yes he did, but it's not clear whether he meant in the EU Parliament (loads of blokes sitting in a room with translators on headphones) - or within the countries of the EU as an everyday thing.
If it's the former - who cares ?
If it's the latter - he is wrong (in my experience), with the number of Germans, Dutch, Scandos and even more Spanish people I do business with / meet. These folk are not going to stop speaking English just because we left the EU. That's why the comment was unhelpful - but as another poster already pointed out, there have been many unhelpful quotes on both sides.
I lived in Malta for 2 years just before they joined the EU - and trust me, Maltese was only used to understand the banknotes (pre-Euro currency) or have a proper noisy row
Bad for my boss because he might lose a good worker,
Yes, a crude analogy but............
What if you are the top "Double Glazing" salesman pulling in enough orders in a day to fund the firm for a month? How long could he risk waiting to get an equivalent replacement for you - versus the cost of your pay rise request ?
The rest of us, Leavers or Remainers,are in the hands of the powerful anti-Brexiters.
And you have a problem with the second group of elites but not the first.
But those who campaigned for and funded the Brexit campaign were very much the rich and powerful who have a vested interest in subverting democracy.
Do you think Leave would have ever won if these elites had not spent the last 30 years spreading lies and propaganda through their newspapers and influence? Or that the referendum would have even happened if it wasn't for these rich and powerful people? There was certainly no popular movement to leave the EU: UKIP were struggling to get even a single seat in the House of Commons. It was only because of the money coming from a handful of rich people that UKIP lasted as long as it did, as opposed to it having any real support.
Two thirds of the electorate do not want Brexit. The rich and powerful who want to use Brexit to further their own goals at the expense of the British people are the ones who you should be worried about, not democratically elected representatives who are trying to deliver what is essentially a fantasy.
Why is your definition of elite more valid than mine? And why do you use it as an insult? Now you've actually defined who the elite are, isn't it a bit weird to say 'educated people, job creators, and democratic representatives' are thwarting Brexit?
Are we the top biller though. One of the top contributors yes, contribute enough to compromise the whole of the institution and give us our cake and eat it, unlikely
I see a deal, but one that is neither here nor there and probably one that a lot of the hard brexiteers in gvt don’t want. And in my opinion, they’re the ones stopping this happening as much as the EU, maybe more. May is caught between a rock and a hard place because she ultimately wants to please the hard liners, but the hard liners terms won’t sit with the EU
For me, the ones that are holding up this happening are the Redwoods, Rees Mogg, Gove and Johnson etc
May is desperate to keep them on side
You have made the same claim for a long time that everybody who did not vote Leave wanted to Remain. If I made the same claim the other way you would rightly ridicule it, but it would have the same validity, that is none.
I think Leave won because a majority of voters decided the majority of the elite which campaigned for Remain did not reflect their interests. Your contempt for ordinary people and belief they are gullible fools is in a long tradition of anti-democracy. Are you Peter Mandelson in disguise?
Our EU membership was the status quo so it is definitely correct to say that if only a third of people stated that their preference is to leave then implicitly the other two thirds do not want to leave.
You seem to have contempt for British people because you think the only reason why people voted remain was because the elites told them to. You also seem to have contempt for democracy because you defend those who corrupt our democracy.
Our elected representatives are there democratically to do a job. Likewise academics and job creators have a right to inform and provide their expertise. If these groups all agree that Brexit is a bad idea then by all means they should do what they can to limit its damage. That's what democracy is: people voicing their opinions for the national good.
............
Playing devils advocate, can’t the opposite also be stated?
..... if only a third of people stated that their preference is to remain then implicitly the other two thirds want to exit.
You are quite wrong that because the elite disagree with Brexit they have a right to subvert it. They can campaign against it and stand in elections against it of course, but they cannot be allowed to use their wealth and power to stop it-as Gina Miller is doing for example.
What exactly has she done that she ought not to have done?
But the rich and powerful who funded UKIP and Vote Leave were allowed to use their money to subvert democracy.
The fact is both leavers and remainers are normal ordinary people. You perceive Remainers to be in the thrall of the elite but that's because you seem to view anyone with any level of education or qualification as 'the elite' and personally I would rather be on the side of those who had an informed opinion. Brexiters like you seem to try and turn it into a bad thing that those who actually had a qualified opinion on the EU were overwhelmingly Remain. Just because you were on the side of people who would repeat the same old untrue nonsense day in day out. Not my fault you backed those with no expertise and not the experts, don't try and make that into a negative.
I would say the same thing if we were out of the EU as the status quo and only a third wanted to join.
Compared to the personal abuse and calling out the morons and idiots who voted Brexit on these threads, the outrage of Remainers by being associated with the term "elite", escapes me. If we can't call some politicians "Liberal elite" I also assume we can't refer to other politicians as "swivel eyed".
Why so sensitive?
In an earlier Brexit thread I mentioned going to university to help illustrate an example, you proceeded to abuse me for mentioning going to university then told me I had my head up my arse.
So I wouldn't really go about whinging about others twisting posts and abusing others because you've been doing it for a year now. Especially since nearly every post you have made in a Brexit related thread has been an abusive response to a remain voter.
For the record it isn't outrage that Remainers are called elites but incredulence that those who voted for something being promoted by Farage, BoJo, Gove, JRM, Lawson and other rich/powerful/establishment figures could imagine that it was the other side who were the elites. It's like a Chelsea fan moaning that Leicester relies on a foreign millionaire.
It is more likely that those who were unhappy with UK membership of the EU would have voted. Indeed, it is quite likely that almost all of those wishing to leave the EU did vote to do so.
Whilst a (perhaps significant) percentage of those who did not vote might have had no opinion at all on the EU, it is not unreasonable to suggest that more would have accepted the continuation of the status quo than the current course as their preferred choice.
However, as they could not be arsed getting their fingers out, it is, in the end a fairly academic debate.
The more important question is what trading relationship the UK will have with the EU in the future.
Personally, I think the chance of agreeing the bespoke arrangement suggested by the Prime Minister is remote (actually unobtainable within the time available). I would not hold out great hopes for a transition period either, as, before being agreed, both sides need to be clear what it is a transition to.
If the UK wants a deal, and it is not always clear whether all the Government does, the only choices are Single Market, Customs Union or a variation on CETA. Nothing else can be agreed within the twelve months remaining before the ratification process must begin.
If the UK goes down the unilateral free trade route, I fear for those (often in the regions) described as the left behinds, because their (and, for the purposes of Northern Ireland, mine also) futures will be absolutely shafted.
PS. In order to achieve any deal, however, the dreaded sufficient progress will need to be made over the next few weeks.
This must confuse people who rely on the Guardian to confirm the expert view that Brexit can only be a disaster for the UK.