"Modernism", "Elitism", and "The Working Classes"

[ahinton]

Not all who voted to leave the EU are best characterised as "Brexiteers". I was referring to those who are.

That's a moot terminological point. I think that it might be fair to say that everyone who voted for UK to leave EU could be regarded as a "Brexiteer" even if only
a) by virtue of having voted that way,
b) on a "lesser of two evils" basis and
c) passively (in the sense of voting only and not also actively campaigning for Brexit.
That said, Richard is correct on pointing out that Brexiteers "are by no means a homogeneous mob of idiots as they're often portrayed". Indeed, one of the most shameful and regrettable aspects of the campaign and much of what has and has not happened during subsequent "negotiations" is the animosity that has been genberated as a direct consequence of it.

I wonder just how embarrassing it might turn out to be should the seething cauldron of Italian politics ultimately bring about the collapse and demise of EU after UK will have spent squillions on trying to leave an institution that, by the end of the so-called "transition period", will no longer be there to leave? Is that a likely scenario? I doubt it. Is it a possible one? Who knows? It might be unwise to dismiss it out of hand...

[french frank]

We all know how complex the issue is, and motivations equally so. But I would consider - as I think Bryn's amendment indicated - those who most vocally declare a second vote to be "undemocratic" are those who fail to value democracy.

I've just read a very long article in the NY Times today, focusing on the effects of austerity on British society. It becomes more and more obvious what a disadvantage it was to have the Remain case championed by leaders of the then government, which was the object of such disaffection as being the architects of austerity.

[Richard Barrett]

We all know how complex the issue is, and motivations equally so. But I would consider - as I think Bryn's amendment indicated - those who most vocally declare a second vote to be "undemocratic" are those who fail to value democracy.

I've just read a very long article in the NY Times today, focusing on the effects of austerity on British society. It becomes more and more obvious what a disadvantage it was to have the Remain case championed by leaders of the then government, which was the object of such disaffection as being the architects of austerity.

Indeed.

[ahinton]

We all know how complex the issue is, and motivations equally so. But I would consider - as I think Bryn's amendment indicated - those who most vocally declare a second vote to be "undemocratic" are those who fail to value democracy.

Very true.

I've just read a very long article in the NY Times today, focusing on the effects of austerity on British society. It becomes more and more obvious what a disadvantage it was to have the Remain case championed by leaders of the then government, which was the object of such disaffection as being the architects of austerity.

I've not seen the article but it sounds spot on in that particular regard; even as a Remain supporter, I cannot help but note that not only did those leaders champion Remain, they spent almost £10m of taxpayers' money campaigning for it despite having purportedly taken a back seat on the issue by farming it out to the electorate to decide instead of doing what we pay politicians to do, namely debating and voting on it in Parliament - and, if that's not a classic case of governmental immoralit, I'm not sure what is!

[Beef Oven!]

We all know how complex the issue is, and motivations equally so. But I would consider - as I think Bryn's amendment indicated - those who most vocally declare a second vote to be "undemocratic" are those who fail to value democracy.

I've just read a very long article in the NY Times today, focusing on the effects of austerity on British society. It becomes more and more obvious what a disadvantage it was to have the Remain case championed by leaders of the then government, which was the object of such disaffection as being the architects of austerity.

I haven't read the NY Times article, but I would immediately dispute your inference that the government's association with austerity measures was a disadvantage; in theory perhaps, but in practice it appears that the problem for remain was the decision to focus on the economy and how households would be hit financially, when it was really all about perceived issues of sovereignty and immigration.

Speaking as a Brexiteer, I do not feel that I am denying democracy when I say that a second referendum is being used purely as a means to block a clean Brexit (which is what the 2016 referendum was about), or maybe any kind of Brexit at all.

[french frank]

I haven't read the NY Times article, but I would immediately dispute your inference that the government's association with austerity measures was a disadvantage

It was merely my inference! I think this may need a subscription - or register for a couple of free articles - but I did find the article hugely depressing as what the "working classes" [on topic ] feel: And how the writer thought that it was a sign of the UK moving away from Europe to embrace the situation in the US, and its adverse effects on the poorer and more vulnerable. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/28/w...y-poverty.html

in practice it appears that the problem for remain was the decision to focus on the economy and how households would be hit financially

Yes, but it was the Chancellor's use of inappropriate Treasury models as 'predictions' that was at the front of that strategy. Other people, like Prof Michael Dougan, focused on what we gained from the EU and the legal difficulties of leaving - much of which has already been highlighted now that negotiations have shown what we shall lose.

when it was really all about perceived issues of sovereignty and immigration.

And herein lies the complexity. You speak for yourself here, rather than Leavers as a united class.

I do not feel that I am denying democracy when I say that a second referendum is being used purely as a means to block a clean Brexit (which is what the 2016 referendum was about), or maybe any kind of Brexit at all.

The second referendum could only block Brexit if the result was reversed. Why would the first vote be more valid than the second?

[Richard Barrett]

The second referendum could only block Brexit if the result was reversed. Why would the first vote be more valid than the second?

There you have it. At the time of the first referendum, both main political parties and most of the media supported Remain and still there was a slim majority for Leave. Now we all know a lot more about the conditions and prospects of the situation, things it is surely reasonable to think we ought to have known before. Some people will have changed their minds, others won't. I haven't changed my mind. I didn't want a Tory Brexit or a Tory Remain, and I still don't. I think the EU is corrupt and undemocratic but I regard "sovereignty" as a delusion and immigration as beneficial. It was nothing short of imbecilic to offer a referendum with the simplistic question given, when, as we can see, there were so many often contradictory grievances and convictions feeding into it. If there's another referendum it would need to respect human intelligence a little more and give people a chance to express their views in rather more complexity, rather than pressing one of two buttons like rats in a maze. Not much hope of that, though, I dare say.

[ahinton]

I haven't read the NY Times article, but I would immediately dispute your inference that the government's association with austerity measures was a disadvantage; in theory perhaps, but in practice it appears that the problem for remain was the decision to focus on the economy and how households would be hit financially, when it was really all about perceived issues of sovereignty and immigration.

Whilst the "government's association with austerity measures" has been shown to be gravely disadvantageous by the evidence of the sheer numbers of UK citizens who have been directly disadvantaged by them, I think that one should be careful in trying to create a further association between them and the issue of UK's future within or outside EU; after all, those austerity measures were put in place - or at least their origins date from - well before that government announced a referendum on UK's future within EU in its 2015 General Election manifesto (and it is worth noting once again, even if only en passant, that the Tories were the only UK political party to promise any consideration of that relationship at that time and it quite unnecessarily and foolishly did so in the form of a referendum rather than debating and voting on it in both Houses of Parliament).

The "decision to focus on the economy and how households would be hit financially" was the right decision for Remain because of the extent to which Brexit might impact adversely on both compared to the status quo. In your assertion that "it was really all about perceived issues of sovereignty and immigration", the word "perceived" is the vital one here; after all, had such issues really been at the root of concerns about the continuing UK/EU relationship, mightn't it have been reasonable to expect that they would have exercised all UK political parties in the run-up to the 2015 General Election rather than only the Tory party?

As to your statement that you "do not feel that [you are] denying democracy when [you] say that a second referendum is being used purely as a means to block a clean Brexit", there are several issues here.

Firstly, given what's now known to have lain behind the Tory party's 2015 manifesto promise of a referendum on the issue, one might question how "democratic" that decision was, not only in its devolution of responsibility for it to the electorate (i.e. passing the buck) but also in the light of its main reason for raising it in the first place, namely fears (that turned out to be utterly unfounded) of defections from it to the now discredited and now almost defunct UKIP (which was hardly a justifiable excuse for any election manifesto pledge).

Secondly, the need for a second referendum - if indeed there is one - would principally be down to the fact that the electorate that its government charged to make a decision on the matter (instead of doing so itself) now knows far more about the subject and all that it entails than was the case in 2015 and that, as a consequence, voters on both sides (but almost certainly more on the Remain than the Leave side) would likely now vote differently to the way in which they did then.

How much discussion of the single market and customs union was there in 2015-16?

How much public consideration was given to the impact of Brexit upon UK businesses during the same period?

To what extent did the government's coyness (and I'm being polite here) about the complex details of the subject and the confusion and uncertainty associated therewith contribute to the generation of animosity and acrimony that so sullied the campaign and the almost two years since announcement of the opinion poll result?

By the same token, to what extent did the same government's reticence about that result not being legally binding assist in the growth of mistrust on the electorate's part?

To what extent did the much-vaunted "will of the people" charged with voting in the referendum wilfully ignore not only those people's comparative ignorance of all that Brexit might entail but also the salient fact that "the will of the people" changes over time, a fact that is clear from the changes of government for which the electorate votes at each General Election; were that "will" cast in stone, there'd never be a change of government!

For the record, I favour a second referendum only because there was a first one which I do not believe should ever have been promised as an instrument wherewith to determine so overwhelming an aspect of UK's future for the next few decades; I'd prefer that it be properly debated in both Houses of Parliament but, as that didn't happen first time around, I accept (albeit with some reluctance) that there ought to be a like for like arrangment, so a second referndum it should be. Yes, in principle, Parliament should in any case debate the outcome of the "negotiations" and vote on whether implementation of their outcome would be to UK's advantage and, accordingly, whether or not to proceed with whatever "Brexit" might be on the table (if any) but, since the issue was first put out to "the people" to express their "will", it needs to be addressed in the same way a second time around and, after all, a week is a long time in politics yet more than three years will have elapsed between the two referenda.

Whilst you write of a second referendum as as possible "means to block a clean Brexit...or maybe any kind of Brexit at all", it could not be deemed to be so unless the first referendum "result" is overturned by it but, perhaps more importantly, the very notion of a "clean Brexit" has become less tenable by the day ever since that opinion poll result was declared; indeed, anything much less "clean" than what is illustrated by the outcome of "negotiations" to date would be hard to imagine!

Anyway, we've all now come quite a long way from the two "isms" and the "class" of the OP!...

[Beef Oven!]

Re: ff's post #156

I think that the point is that it did not matter which Treasury models were used, Remain were barking up the wrong tree.

By the by, I take what Dougan says with a pinch of salt. He appears to have spent his career within one single school of thought, and his professorship is funded by the European Union!

Do you mean a second vote, rather than the second vote? I'm suspicious of arguments for a second referendum. There doesn't seem to be any need for a second one. The first one was a clear in/out question. Cameron, Osborne, D. Milliband and other leading remainers went on TV, radio and newspapers and warned us the Leave meant leaving the single market, customs union etc. What would a second referendum be about?

[jean]

... I'm suspicious of arguments for a second referendum. There doesn't seem to be any need for a second one. The first one was a clear in/out question.

The question may have seemed clear, but the answer certainly wasn't.

And it emerged later that the apparent clarity of the question masked a great deal of misinformation on both sides.

[ahinton]

There you have it. At the time of the first referendum, both main political parties and most of the media supported Remain and still there was a slim majority for Leave. Now we all know a lot more about the conditions and prospects of the situation, things it is surely reasonable to think we ought to have known before. Some people will have changed their minds, others won't. I haven't changed my mind. I didn't want a Tory Brexit or a Tory Remain, and I still don't. I think the EU is corrupt and undemocratic but I regard "sovereignty" as a delusion and immigration as beneficial. It was nothing short of imbecilic to offer a referendum with the simplistic question given, when, as we can see, there were so many often contradictory grievances and convictions feeding into it. If there's another referendum it would need to respect human intelligence a little more and give people a chance to express their views in rather more complexity, rather than pressing one of two buttons like rats in a maze. Not much hope of that, though, I dare say.

I agree with every point that you make here, not least
(a) the shortcomings in provision of relevant information by the government that started this whole thing in the first place and
(b) what you appropriately describe as the "imbecilic" question posed by the referendum.
From each of these, one could perhaps be forgiven for assuming that the ability fully to appreciate all that went into the sixth and ninth symphonies of Mahler was deemed to be open to anyone and everyone with no more than the most basic knowledge of major, minor, augmented and diminished triads and of diatonic scales (OK, crap analogy, but at least part of the peak of the cap fits).

The only part of this that I would question is your reference to "a Tory Brexit or a Tory Remain"; whilst the referendum was promised, launched and to some extent conducted by the Tories and its outcome announced during a Tory government, it was not and never could have been "a Tory Brexit or a Tory Remain" in the longer term and, should either some form of Brexit proceed or should a second referendum overturn Brexit altogether and the Tories then lose the next General Election, we will not thenceforward have "a Tory Brexit or a Tory Remain".

[ahinton]

Re: ff's post #156

I think that the point is that it did not matter which Treasury models were used, Remain were barking up the wrong tree.

By the by, I take what Dougan says with a pinch of salt. He appears to have spent his career within one single school of thought, and his professorship is funded by the European Union!

Do you mean a second vote, rather than the second vote? I'm suspicious of arguments for a second referendum. There doesn't seem to be any need for a second one. The first one was a clear in/out question. Cameron, Osborne, D. Milliband and other leading remainers went on TV, radio and newspapers and warned us the Leave meant leaving the single market, customs union etc. What would a second referendum be about?

But to what extent did these issues get aired so that voters would have a better understand as to what they were being called upon to vote for? Nowhere near enough, I believe. And there seemed to be even less discussion as to why the matter needed to be raised in the first place or why it was to be addressed by means of a referendum.

One question hanging over the possibility of a second referendum would probably be whether the "like for like" arrangement should extend to posing the same absurdly simplistic question as was asked first time around and, if so, I believe that this would risk destroying any credibility that a second attempt might otherwise have. People's attitudes to UK's continued membership or otherwise of the single market and the customs union vary considerably; likewise, there remains a small faction of extreme Brexiteers that see as the ultimate desired goal not merely UK's withdrawal from EU but the outright and permanent collapse of EU. As Richard and others have rightly noted, Brexiteers are far from being all in the one class with broadly identical ideas about UK's future; I do think, for what it may or may not be worth in the greater scheme of things, that there might be rather more unity of aspiration and belief within the Remain camp, although maybe that's only because it's easier for those who prefer to maintain the status quo.

[Beef Oven!]

The question may have seemed clear, but the answer certainly wasn't.

And it emerged later that the apparent clarity of the question masked a great deal of misinformation on both sides.

The answer was clear too. A small electoral preference to leave. The government then took this outcome of the advisory referendum to inform their plan on what to do about EU membership. They decided to leave and took this to parliament where it was ratified.

[ahinton]

The answer was clear too. A small electoral preference to leave. The government then took this outcome of the advisory referendum to inform their plan on what to do about EU membership. They decided to leave and took this to parliament where it was ratified.

The question was clear per se but hopelessly unfit for purpose, which is far more to the point; there wasn't even any "shake-it-all-about" after the "in/out". The government must have known from before the outset that the devil was in the copious detail; the nature and extent of that detail would have clarified that a referendum containing a long list of questions would be one from which the vast variety of answers to which no kind of meaningful average could possibly have been drawn, yet this obvious fact seems not to have occured to said government or, if it did, it unwisely chose to ignore it. Had it taken all of this properly on board before deciding what if anything to do about it, as indeed it should have done, it ought accordingly to have thought to itself "OK, do we really need to examine this question of UK's future within EU and, if so, why, on what grounds and how best should it be done?"; this would have have clarified beyond all doubt that it was way too complex and far-reaching to warrant being addressed via referendum and would therefore have either to be abandoned altogether or debated and voted on in both Houses of Parliament where the professional expertise and the necessary time for those who represent the electorate to consider all of its ramifications would have been available.

[Beef Oven!]

The question was clear per se but hopelessly unfit for purpose, which is far more to the point; there wasn't even any "shake-it-all-about" after the "in/out". The government must have known from before the outset that the devil was in the copious detail; the nature and extent of that detail would have clarified that a referendum containing a long list of questions would be one from which the vast variety of answers to which no kind of meaningful average could possibly have been drawn, yet this obvious fact seems not to have occured to said government or, if it did, it unwisely chose to ignore it. Had it taken all of this properly on board before deciding what if anything to do about it, as indeed it should have done, it ought accordingly to have thought to itself "OK, do we really need to examine this question of UK's future within EU and, if so, why, on what grounds and how best should it be done?"; this would have have clarified beyond all doubt that it was way too complex and far-reaching to warrant being addressed via referendum and would therefore have either to be abandoned altogether or debated and voted on in both Houses of Parliament where the professional expertise and the necessary time for those who represent the electorate to consider all of its ramifications would have been available.

C'mon, everyone knows that all this current 'devil in the detail', confusion etc is just being whipped up by the political elite and fellow travellers because they want to prevent the UK from leaving - Clegg's even written a book called 'How To Stop Brexit: A Comprehensive Guide To Keeping Britain In The European Union'!!!! and some Brexiteers are just as bad, the other way around. For us honest people in the middle, the 30 odd millions, it's like siblings dealing with two dysfunctional parents!