Just came across this thanks to Twitter. Never come across the author, Ryan Heath before. He is an Aussie. He nails the whole Brexit malaise with devastating clarity, mixed with a dose of cold malice that reminds me of Shane Warne in his pomp.
Excerpts:
Brexit is the story of a proud former imperial power undergoing a mid-life crisis. The rest of the world is left listening to Britain’s therapy session as they drone on about their ex-spouse, the EU: When will they stop talking and just move on?
It is perhaps because of this history that many people in the U.K. are so awfully uninformed about the EU. Its political and journalistic classes are simply unused to having to consider the opinions of others.
It is fashionable to blame an irresponsible U.K. media (including the country’s most famous sometime-journalist, now leading Brexiteer MP Boris Johnson) for stoking misunderstanding about the EU for decades. Long before Macedonian troll factories and Russian bots there were the editors of the Sun tabloid newspaper.
But what about the millions of people who consumed those fibs and the spineless politicians who avoided the hassle of correcting them? We blame Greeks for blowing up their economy and hold accountable big-spending governments for saddling future generations with excessive debts. Britons don’t deserve a free pass: It’s time they reckoned with what they sowed through 45 years of shallow EU debate.
1) the total lie that Leave was ever ahead by 10 points (their biggest poll lead was only ever a few points, more or less immediately before the referendum voting day)
2) trying to capitalise on an innocent woman's murder for political purposes i.e. "if that woman hadn't gotten murdered, Leave would have won by a huge margin!"
3) ignoring the fact that the swell of leave polling had everything to do with millions of laundered, undeclared funds used to display illegal, targeted adverts to millions of swing voters
1) the total lie that Leave was ever ahead by 10 points (their biggest poll lead was only ever a few points, more or less immediately before the referendum voting day)
2) trying to capitalise on an innocent woman's murder for political purposes i.e. "if that woman hadn't gotten murdered, Leave would have won by a huge margin!"
3) ignoring the fact that the swell of leave polling had everything to do with millions of laundered, undeclared funds used to display illegal, targeted adverts to millions of swing voters
Aah, you both seem to be referring to the Lilico tweet. Whereas the previous post was the Heath quote. That explains it. D'accord!
Heard take today from a teacher of sixth formers (so don't shoot the messenger) that they all want to vote leave, and the harder the better if there's a second referendum. Their single reason is that they want the economy to tank so they may be able to afford a house. I appreciate this is small sample size, anecdotal evidence and therefore next to useless, however a few thoughts:
A) it's awful if the dream of owning a house is predicated on a financial crash, and all that entails.
I don't think they thought it through
C) I don't think the results of any second referendum are in the bag.
I am more interested in the outcome of a second referendum than the result.
Obviously, I would prefer that the 2016 referendum result had been to Remain. And I would prefer that remaining in the EU is the ultimate outcome. But, right now, if Theresa May switched her position and decided to withdraw Article 50, thus cancelling Brexit entirely, it would be a disaster. Almost as much of a disaster as Brexit itself.
The purpose of the second referendum should be to establish precisely which of the (probably) three options has the most support and then is acted upon. Both of these things are important; flushing out the "winning" option; and that option being given to Government as a simple, clear instruction (not a mere "mandate", which is what the current crop of politicians use to mean "they voted for roughly this and we are delivering roughly this"; but a zero-alternative instruction).
Right now, whichever option Theresa May settles on (a no-deal Brexit; her "deal"; no Brexit) would not gain the support of the House of Commons. They are stuck fast. And there is no majority yet in the public for either "type" of Brexit. With a 52 v 48 binary result last time, if we deliver any kind of Brexit, we go against the wishes of all of the 48 and a big chunk of the 52. The Government will have delivered an outcome that goes against what the public instructed them to do.
But a second referendum clears away that possibility. A multiple-choice, three-way referendum will result in a single, agreed, majority option, based on facts, that the Government has no option than to deliver, in full, without alteration, immediately. Any of the three options can be delivered without further "approval" of the EU (albeit that the Union would not welcome a no-deal). All we need to do is get the public's verdict on which option becomes the instruction, and then deliver it.
And this is where the outcome is more important than the result. If we, as the public, choose that our preference, having been given all the facts, is for a no-deal, we have no-one else to blame. It's our fault, we all have to get on with it. Likewise if we were to select either the May "deal" or to scrap Brexit. It settles the country's aspirations; it instructs Parliament as to what they have to do (and absolves them of culpability for choosing badly); and removes the EU from the decision.
The result is important; but not as important as the outcome.
One of the problems with the second referendum is that it is proposed by remainers. The reality is that it is the only clear way for the country to move out of the stalemate it is currently in. And it provides the opportunity for Leavers to re-affirm their original vote and send the message to politicians to get on with it. Everybody has to face the facts here- we are stuck - there is no point arguing for what sort of Brexit we want forever - we have to break up the blockage!
One of the problems with the second referendum is that it is proposed by remainers. The reality is that it is the only clear way for the country to move out of the stalemate it is currently in. And it provides the opportunity for Leavers to re-affirm their original vote and send the message to politicians to get on with it. Everybody has to face the facts here- we are stuck - there is no point arguing for what sort of Brexit we want forever - we have to break up the blockage!
And if the leave voters win again, they should then have to reaffirm it every year until they lose.
What happens by the way, if the second referendum result is 52-48 in favour of remain? We remain or have another?
One of the problems with the second referendum is that it is proposed by remainers. The reality is that it is the only clear way for the country to move out of the stalemate it is currently in. And it provides the opportunity for Leavers to re-affirm their original vote and send the message to politicians to get on with it. Everybody has to face the facts here- we are stuck - there is no point arguing for what sort of Brexit we want forever - we have to break up the blockage!
And if the leave voters win again, they should then have to reaffirm it every year until they lose.
What happens by the way, if the second referendum result is 52-48 in favour of remain? We remain or have another?
If we were in a position to deliver a binary outcome to the binary decision, a second referendum wouldn't be necessary.
But the fact is, the majority of people oppose the Brexit that is being delivered by the Prime Minister; the majority of people oppose a no-deal Brexit; the majority of people (based on 2016's result) oppose remaining. It is - clearly - impossible for the Government to deliver an outcome that meets the aspirations of the country.
Is that a good position to be in? Some people might think so. But I think most people wouldn't.
So a second referendum gives everyone the opportunity to look at facts for the first time; and to come up with a majority decision that the Government cannot avoid implementing.
One of the problems with the second referendum is that it is proposed by remainers. The reality is that it is the only clear way for the country to move out of the stalemate it is currently in. And it provides the opportunity for Leavers to re-affirm their original vote and send the message to politicians to get on with it. Everybody has to face the facts here- we are stuck - there is no point arguing for what sort of Brexit we want forever - we have to break up the blockage!
And if the leave voters win again, they should then have to reaffirm it every year until they lose.
What happens by the way, if the second referendum result is 52-48 in favour of remain? We remain or have another?
No. That's the good thing about Remain - it doesn't need clarification. leave on the other hand? May has a deal for leave, which a lot of Brexiteers are set to reject. However, the No Deal offer or Hard Brexit are distinct from the deal May has. After winning her vote of confidence, May was strutting outside Parliament saying her job was now to get on with giving Britain the Brexit it had asked for. Sorry, what? If Brexiteers are hopelessly split on the deal she has (and lets be honest, if se brings back a hard Brexit, the same will happen) how can there even exist a Brexit that the public have asked for? Unfortunately, the Brexiteers are desperate to cling onto a result they obtained, and the idea of having another terrifies them that it may be taken away. If we applied this to Parliament, we would still have Tony Blair or John Major - the public made their decision clear so why ask again?
One of the problems with the second referendum is that it is proposed by remainers. The reality is that it is the only clear way for the country to move out of the stalemate it is currently in. And it provides the opportunity for Leavers to re-affirm their original vote and send the message to politicians to get on with it. Everybody has to face the facts here- we are stuck - there is no point arguing for what sort of Brexit we want forever - we have to break up the blockage!
And if the leave voters win again, they should then have to reaffirm it every year until they lose.
What happens by the way, if the second referendum result is 52-48 in favour of remain? We remain or have another?
But they wouldn't have to as we would have left. The problem is somebody has to get a grip on reality here. I'll give it to you and feel free to tell me what is wrong with what follows. There are not the numbers for the ERG's hard Brexit, There are not the numbers for May's Brexit, there are not the numbers for Labours Customs Union Brexit, There are not the numbers for just calling Brexit off. Which of these options are going to carry the day? - it seems pretty clear that none of them will unless there is an external nudge.
The sooner people woke up and smelt the coffee the better. It isn't ideal, I agree, but there isn't an alternative.
One of the problems with the second referendum is that it is proposed by remainers. The reality is that it is the only clear way for the country to move out of the stalemate it is currently in. And it provides the opportunity for Leavers to re-affirm their original vote and send the message to politicians to get on with it. Everybody has to face the facts here- we are stuck - there is no point arguing for what sort of Brexit we want forever - we have to break up the blockage!
If by "breaking up the blockage" you mean getting Dyno Rod around to flush this monstrous turd of a political situation the Tories have created for us all, then I agree. All the better if they can get the rods out and get rid of the likes of Johnson, Farage, Davis, Fox, Raab, Mogg, IDS, Howey, Banks, Leadsum, Gove et al at the same time...
*for the avoidance of doubt the above is merely a toilet based metaphor and in no way do I advocate the literal use of high pressure water jets or water cannons to flush away the political floaters named above.*
Heard take today from a teacher of sixth formers (so don't shoot the messenger) that they all want to vote leave, and the harder the better if there's a second referendum. Their single reason is that they want the economy to tank so they may be able to afford a house. I appreciate this is small sample size, anecdotal evidence and therefore next to useless, however a few thoughts:
A) it's awful if the dream of owning a house is predicated on a financial crash, and all that entails.
I don't think they thought it through
C) I don't think the results of any second referendum are in the bag.
Genuine question. Do sixth formers nowadays have a big awareness of house prices and think about buying?
If i think back to that time, I think it was in the far distant future to me. The big issues were passing my driving test, getting good grades to go to Uni, getting laid and getting served in the pub. In interchangable order...
Admittedly media coverage of the issue would reach down further nowadays, but even so; I don't think my nephew and niece thought about it at sixth form, they do now, at the ages of 26 and 20, but both are strong Remainers.
Heard take today from a teacher of sixth formers (so don't shoot the messenger) that they all want to vote leave, and the harder the better if there's a second referendum. Their single reason is that they want the economy to tank so they may be able to afford a house. I appreciate this is small sample size, anecdotal evidence and therefore next to useless, however a few thoughts:
A) it's awful if the dream of owning a house is predicated on a financial crash, and all that entails.
I don't think they thought it through
C) I don't think the results of any second referendum are in the bag.
Genuine question. Do sixth formers nowadays have a big awareness of house prices and think about buying?
If i think back to that time, I think it was in the far distant future to me. The big issues were passing my driving test, getting good grades to go to Uni, getting laid and getting served in the pub. In interchangable order...
Admittedly media coverage of the issue would reach down further nowadays, but even so; I don't think my nephew and niece thought about it at sixth form, they do now, at the ages of 26 and 20, but both are strong Remainers.
I do not have an answer to that. From my own youth I was aware of mortgages... I doubt teenagers without jobs living independently have a complete grip on the mathematics though. There is "much talk" of house prices and how the young will never afford them, and in the news recently there was a story about a house price crash in the event of a no deal brexit, so perhaps that was the catalyst? Here the story https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-45516678
The reason I mentioned it was because I assumed most youngsters are remain (80% was floating around, though I haven't bothered to check) but it was the reasoning that intrigued me.
Just came across this thanks to Twitter. Never come across the author, Ryan Heath before. He is an Aussie. He nails the whole Brexit malaise with devastating clarity, mixed with a dose of cold malice that reminds me of Shane Warne in his pomp.
Excerpts:
Brexit is the story of a proud former imperial power undergoing a mid-life crisis. The rest of the world is left listening to Britain’s therapy session as they drone on about their ex-spouse, the EU: When will they stop talking and just move on?
It is perhaps because of this history that many people in the U.K. are so awfully uninformed about the EU. Its political and journalistic classes are simply unused to having to consider the opinions of others.
It is fashionable to blame an irresponsible U.K. media (including the country’s most famous sometime-journalist, now leading Brexiteer MP Boris Johnson) for stoking misunderstanding about the EU for decades. Long before Macedonian troll factories and Russian bots there were the editors of the Sun tabloid newspaper.
But what about the millions of people who consumed those fibs and the spineless politicians who avoided the hassle of correcting them? We blame Greeks for blowing up their economy and hold accountable big-spending governments for saddling future generations with excessive debts. Britons don’t deserve a free pass: It’s time they reckoned with what they sowed through 45 years of shallow EU debate.
Heard take today from a teacher of sixth formers (so don't shoot the messenger) that they all want to vote leave, and the harder the better if there's a second referendum. Their single reason is that they want the economy to tank so they may be able to afford a house. I appreciate this is small sample size, anecdotal evidence and therefore next to useless, however a few thoughts:
A) it's awful if the dream of owning a house is predicated on a financial crash, and all that entails.
I don't think they thought it through
C) I don't think the results of any second referendum are in the bag.
How do they expect to get a mortgage in a financial crash?
Comments
Excerpts:
Brexit is the story of a proud former imperial power undergoing a mid-life crisis. The rest of the world is left listening to Britain’s therapy session as they drone on about their ex-spouse, the EU: When will they stop talking and just move on?
It is perhaps because of this history that many people in the U.K. are so awfully uninformed about the EU. Its political and journalistic classes are simply unused to having to consider the opinions of others.
It is fashionable to blame an irresponsible U.K. media (including the country’s most famous sometime-journalist, now leading Brexiteer MP Boris Johnson) for stoking misunderstanding about the EU for decades. Long before Macedonian troll factories and Russian bots there were the editors of the Sun tabloid newspaper.
But what about the millions of people who consumed those fibs and the spineless politicians who avoided the hassle of correcting them? We blame Greeks for blowing up their economy and hold accountable big-spending governments for saddling future generations with excessive debts. Britons don’t deserve a free pass: It’s time they reckoned with what they sowed through 45 years of shallow EU debate.
Aye Andrew, impossible.
Unless one actually has a working brain, you sick prat.
That's like boasting to being the lead navigator of the Titanic.
1) the total lie that Leave was ever ahead by 10 points (their biggest poll lead was only ever a few points, more or less immediately before the referendum voting day)
2) trying to capitalise on an innocent woman's murder for political purposes i.e. "if that woman hadn't gotten murdered, Leave would have won by a huge margin!"
3) ignoring the fact that the swell of leave polling had everything to do with millions of laundered, undeclared funds used to display illegal, targeted adverts to millions of swing voters
A) it's awful if the dream of owning a house is predicated on a financial crash, and all that entails.
C) I don't think the results of any second referendum are in the bag.
Obviously, I would prefer that the 2016 referendum result had been to Remain. And I would prefer that remaining in the EU is the ultimate outcome. But, right now, if Theresa May switched her position and decided to withdraw Article 50, thus cancelling Brexit entirely, it would be a disaster. Almost as much of a disaster as Brexit itself.
The purpose of the second referendum should be to establish precisely which of the (probably) three options has the most support and then is acted upon. Both of these things are important; flushing out the "winning" option; and that option being given to Government as a simple, clear instruction (not a mere "mandate", which is what the current crop of politicians use to mean "they voted for roughly this and we are delivering roughly this"; but a zero-alternative instruction).
Right now, whichever option Theresa May settles on (a no-deal Brexit; her "deal"; no Brexit) would not gain the support of the House of Commons. They are stuck fast. And there is no majority yet in the public for either "type" of Brexit. With a 52 v 48 binary result last time, if we deliver any kind of Brexit, we go against the wishes of all of the 48 and a big chunk of the 52. The Government will have delivered an outcome that goes against what the public instructed them to do.
But a second referendum clears away that possibility. A multiple-choice, three-way referendum will result in a single, agreed, majority option, based on facts, that the Government has no option than to deliver, in full, without alteration, immediately. Any of the three options can be delivered without further "approval" of the EU (albeit that the Union would not welcome a no-deal). All we need to do is get the public's verdict on which option becomes the instruction, and then deliver it.
And this is where the outcome is more important than the result. If we, as the public, choose that our preference, having been given all the facts, is for a no-deal, we have no-one else to blame. It's our fault, we all have to get on with it. Likewise if we were to select either the May "deal" or to scrap Brexit. It settles the country's aspirations; it instructs Parliament as to what they have to do (and absolves them of culpability for choosing badly); and removes the EU from the decision.
The result is important; but not as important as the outcome.
What happens by the way, if the second referendum result is 52-48 in favour of remain? We remain or have another?
But the fact is, the majority of people oppose the Brexit that is being delivered by the Prime Minister; the majority of people oppose a no-deal Brexit; the majority of people (based on 2016's result) oppose remaining. It is - clearly - impossible for the Government to deliver an outcome that meets the aspirations of the country.
Is that a good position to be in? Some people might think so. But I think most people wouldn't.
So a second referendum gives everyone the opportunity to look at facts for the first time; and to come up with a majority decision that the Government cannot avoid implementing.
The sooner people woke up and smelt the coffee the better. It isn't ideal, I agree, but there isn't an alternative.
*for the avoidance of doubt the above is merely a toilet based metaphor and in no way do I advocate the literal use of high pressure water jets or water cannons to flush away the political floaters named above.*
If i think back to that time, I think it was in the far distant future to me. The big issues were passing my driving test, getting good grades to go to Uni, getting laid and getting served in the pub. In interchangable order...
Admittedly media coverage of the issue would reach down further nowadays, but even so; I don't think my nephew and niece thought about it at sixth form, they do now, at the ages of 26 and 20, but both are strong Remainers.
The reason I mentioned it was because I assumed most youngsters are remain (80% was floating around, though I haven't bothered to check) but it was the reasoning that intrigued me.