Anyone else confused ?...one minute , a post saying once we leave the EU we could scrap vat is pedalling lies , next minute a post admits that it is true.....haha love this place #consistent
It is clearly a bogus claim. The Government could abolish income tax without leaving the EU. It is foolish to think that the Government would return money to us with one hand without implementing a way of taking it back with the other hand. For anyone to be able to get an extra 20% in their pockets, would mean that they would have to spend their whole lives spending all their income on products that were subject to 20% vat. Who does that?
To start with we are talking about VAT not income tax , in case you don't know the difference one is a direct tax , and the other is an indirect tax. Fact : We are unable to scrap VAT whilst being a member of the EU .
So do you think we will scrap it when we leave?
No I don't , but that's irrelevant . I'm quoting indisputable facts here , which you are denying. We will have the choice though , which we currently don't.
So what you seem to be saying is that even though the Government has no intention of ever scrapping vat, the fact that they could, even though they are not, after leaving the EU is some sort of real benefit?
I'm not arguing for or against , I'm merely stating the FACTS . Something which are very thin on the ground on this thread . Tomgoodun , incorrectly "whooped" that a post that once we leave the EU we would be able to scrap VAT if we wanted to , was " peddling lies " . You also said as much , even though you dont know the difference between income tax and VAT , I'm merely correcting the pair of you . And hopefully any stray reader won't be influenced by falsities. Also how can I possibly predict what future governments do in respect to this or anything ...sorry my crystal ball is in the repair shop .
Seen as you obviously haven't read this , I'm requoting.
Lets just say that if you used this document in a sales pitch, it would be likely you would get prosecuted. Any UKIP voter that believes this will definitely be extremely disappointed. It is completely in line with the leave campaign in the referendum.
Anyone else confused ?...one minute , a post saying once we leave the EU we could scrap vat is pedalling lies , next minute a post admits that it is true.....haha love this place #consistent
It is clearly a bogus claim. The Government could abolish income tax without leaving the EU. It is foolish to think that the Government would return money to us with one hand without implementing a way of taking it back with the other hand. For anyone to be able to get an extra 20% in their pockets, would mean that they would have to spend their whole lives spending all their income on products that were subject to 20% vat. Who does that?
To start with we are talking about VAT not income tax , in case you don't know the difference one is a direct tax , and the other is an indirect tax. Fact : We are unable to scrap VAT whilst being a member of the EU .
So do you think we will scrap it when we leave?
No I don't , but that's irrelevant . I'm quoting indisputable facts here , which you are denying. We will have the choice though , which we currently don't.
So what you seem to be saying is that even though the Government has no intention of ever scrapping vat, the fact that they could, even though they are not, after leaving the EU is some sort of real benefit?
I'm not arguing for or against , I'm merely stating the FACTS . Something which are very thin on the ground on this thread . Tomgoodun , incorrectly "whooped" that a post that once we leave the EU we would be able to scrap VAT if we wanted to , was " peddling lies " . You also said as much , even though you dont know the difference between income tax and VAT , I'm merely correcting the pair of you . And hopefully any stray reader won't be influenced by falsities. Also how can I possibly predict what future governments do in respect to this or anything ...sorry my crystal ball is in the repair shop .
Seen as you obviously haven't read this , I'm requoting.
Anyone else confused ?...one minute , a post saying once we leave the EU we could scrap vat is pedalling lies , next minute a post admits that it is true.....haha love this place #consistent
It is clearly a bogus claim. The Government could abolish income tax without leaving the EU. It is foolish to think that the Government would return money to us with one hand without implementing a way of taking it back with the other hand. For anyone to be able to get an extra 20% in their pockets, would mean that they would have to spend their whole lives spending all their income on products that were subject to 20% vat. Who does that?
To start with we are talking about VAT not income tax , in case you don't know the difference one is a direct tax , and the other is an indirect tax. Fact : We are unable to scrap VAT whilst being a member of the EU .
So do you think we will scrap it when we leave?
No I don't , but that's irrelevant . I'm quoting indisputable facts here , which you are denying. We will have the choice though , which we currently don't.
So what you seem to be saying is that even though the Government has no intention of ever scrapping vat, the fact that they could, even though they are not, after leaving the EU is some sort of real benefit?
I'm not arguing for or against , I'm merely stating the FACTS . Something which are very thin on the ground on this thread . Tomgoodun , incorrectly "whooped" that a post that once we leave the EU we would be able to scrap VAT if we wanted to , was " peddling lies " . You also said as much , even though you dont know the difference between income tax and VAT , I'm merely correcting the pair of you . And hopefully any stray reader won't be influenced by falsities. Also how can I possibly predict what future governments do in respect to this or anything ...sorry my crystal ball is in the repair shop .
Seen as you obviously haven't read this , I'm requoting.
Lets just say that if you used this document in a sales pitch, it would be likely you would get prosecuted. Any UKIP voter that believes this will definitely be extremely disappointed. It is completely in line with the leave campaign in the referendum.
Agreed the wording isn't the best in relation to the 20% bit ...but it remains factually correct , that whilst in the EU we can't scrap VAT if we wished to.
EU foreign ministers have been arriving for an EU foreign affairs council meeting in Luxembourg. At least two of them, Teodor Melescanu, the Romanian foreign minister, and Timo Soini, the Finish foreign minister, have said they would back an article 50 extension
Georg von Harrach @georgvh EU rotating presidency (currently Romania): If there is a need for an extension, we will prepare all the logistics to do so. #brexit
9:14 AM - Apr 8, 2019
Georg von Harrach @georgvh Finnish Finnish Foreign Minister, Timo Soini: If #brexit extension is needed, it should be granted
Is cancelling Brexit the Prime Minister’s new default?
Is the de facto Brexit default now revoking Article 50 this week rather than a no-deal Brexit on 12 April?
I ask because the PM is now explicitly saying the choice is a binary one between some version of her negotiated deal and not leaving at all (that is what she said in her sofa chat on Sunday).
The point is that she has no power to prevent a no-deal Brexit on 12 April by delaying Brexit; for a delay, she needs the unanimous agreement of the EU's 27 leaders.
But she does have the unilateral power to prevent a no-deal by cancelling Brexit altogether, by revoking the Article 50 application to leave the EU.
So, have she and Whitehall, who are persuaded (rightly or wrongly) that no-deal on April 12 would be a catastrophe (especially for the integrity of UK), made a huge emotional leap to prepare for the political (if not economic) explosion of cancelling Brexit this week - in that there remains a serious risk that the EU will not grant the UK an extension or an extension on acceptable terms.
As I understand it, from Government sources, there is no intensifying of no-deal preparations on Monday (the famous Operation Yellowhammer), which there really ought to be if there was any serious prospect of the UK leaving without a deal in just a few days.
The Prime Minister has consistently pledged she won't revoke Article 50, but what she said on Sunday - about the UK facing a simple binary choice between her Withdrawal Agreement and no Brexit - makes no sense unless she is prepared to cancel the UK's departure from the EU.
And although she might claim that MPs would force her to revoke, that she would become their puppet, in practice - with so little time before April 12 - MPs could probably only instruct her in a non-binding way, and she would retain discretion.
If right at the last, the UK performs the volte face of volte faces and cancels Brexit, that would be her responsibility and her legacy, no one else's - for which many in her own party would vilify her, and many outside would cast her as the lost hero returned
PS. For the avoidance of doubt, when I suggest revocation may be the new Brexit default, I don't mean that it is her first choice.
The Prime Minister plainly wants to avoid it.
The question I am posing is whether she now sees Brexit cancellation as preferable to a no-deal at the end of this week.
Firstly, he is not being truthful, Jeremy Corbyn has been a Eurosceptic his whole life.
Secondly, not everyone out of all those leave voters, however many there was, were in favour of no deal.
Thirdly, when did you become in favour of no deal?
Fourthly, to say that the PM didn't deliver Brexit properly is very subjective.
Fifthly, I thought he and the ERG were representing leave voters?
Sixthly, the Corbyn May coalition only came about through the lack of support from the ERG.
As to the bolded bit , I never was ....but people are allowed to change their minds . We need a conclusion to the whole process for the sake of everyones sanity .
@dobiesdraw You quite rightly talk about the people being left behind in this country and the working class yet at the same time quote Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Redwood. I can assure you those two don't give a toss about the left behind and working class and see Brexit as a means to make even more money than they already have. The CBI, TUC & NFU who represent the people you are arguing on behalf all say a no deal Brexit will be a disaster. Surely they are the people you should be listening to, not right wing Tories? I live in London and looking at the predictions London would be least affected by Brexit so it won't impact on my life. I'm really angry about it though as I know it could have catastrophic effect on places like my hometown of Stoke. The majority of my family and friends voted leave and I'm pulling my hair out that they can't see the big picture. I understand giving the finger to the establishment in protest, I can't blame them but leaving the EU is NOT the answer. Punish the Tories at the ballot box for austerity and protecting their tax dodging rich mates who should be contributing their fair share to our crumbling public services.
Remainers, please stop treating everyone who voted Leave as if they are six years old
Since the referendum, I’ve been shocked to witness Remainers, around my and other people’s dinner tables, tacitly clubbing together in their scorn of their fellow countrymen and women who don’t agree with them. “Oh my God,” said one. “All those ignorant, uneducated people have ruined the future.”
Whose future? What do they know of the lives of ordinary people, whose lives are ruined right now by the EU? By the regulations, the loss of our legislature, the overcrowded NHS etc?
As a Europhile with postgraduate qualifications, I nearly voted Remain. Then, just before the referendum, I listened to the broadcasts, the sneering arrogance of Remainers, their ignorance of vast tracts of our country, their presumptions and judgements, all projected from immensely privileged lives.
So I voted Leave, for the forgotten backbone of our country, for southern Italy and Greece, for our legislature, worn away day by day, by unelected EU politicians.
Despite the mockery, disbelief and downright nastiness I have endured as a result, I am glad of it, even though I have concerns.
“We morons,” commented a builder, who voted Leave, “would fight for our country if we were invaded. That lot wouldn’t.”
Silently, most of the country would agree with him. Their dislike of a certain type of Remainer is palpable. So, Remainers – please don’t – just don’t – treat everyone who voted Leave as if they are six years old. Remember the French revolution and beware.
How does she know what goes on around other peoples dinner tables?
Why does she invite people she obviously dislikes to dinner at hers?
How many of them has she witnessed?
There were a number of polls that showed in general, that less educated people voted leave, but you can always argue about the accuracy of polls.
An intelligent person would never think that all thick people voted leave, nor that all clever people voted remain.
I am sure the publication of these polls gave leave voters the hump, and led them to believe that all remainers think they are thick, irrespective of how much truth there is in it.
She quotes one person supporting this view, which is hardly decisive.
The reasons quoted for the EU ruining peoples lives are very thin.
Which regulations ruin peoples lives?
Which lives are ruined by the loss of our legislature, when in reality the EU contribute only 7% of our Primary Legislation.
The NHS queues are exacerbated by the EU staff returning home after being made to feel unwelcome in our country.
The reasons behind her changing her mind are confused and seem to be based more on the personalities involved rather than the issue.
I am more of the opinion that the referendum was about the future of the people that live in this country rather than Italy or Greece. Or how it affects a forgotten backbone. Can a country have a backbone? Isnt a country made up of individual backbones.
I wonder how glad she will be a few years after we leave.
It seems convenient to move from dinner tables, to builders. Is it really credible to suggest that leave voters would be prepared to fight for their country and remain voters wouldn't.
Many remain voters did so because they felt it was best for our country.
So I think this letter is short on truth, facts and specifics, and long on bs. I am not expecting a guillotine to be arriving in Westminster anytime soon. I am surprised she didn't get the 17.4 million people in, but she did manage the unelected representatives, which is also compulsory.
The whole point of the letter was to draw attention to the unfair treatment of leave voters by remainers, yet she is scathing in her condemnation of remainers.
I would have expected a more intelligent letter from someone with her academic qualifications.
The one thing that leave voters seem to have in common is that they are never specific, and always quote intangibles.
They say things about unelected representatives, but never explain what difference this makes. Do they think our elected representatives are a shining example for the rest of the world? They drone on about the loss of our legislature, never explain why they think this is true, or set out how this affects their everyday life. They accuse the EU of ruining peoples lives, but never give any examples of how they are doing this.
Remainers, please stop treating everyone who voted Leave as if they are six years old
Since the referendum, I’ve been shocked to witness Remainers, around my and other people’s dinner tables, tacitly clubbing together in their scorn of their fellow countrymen and women who don’t agree with them. “Oh my God,” said one. “All those ignorant, uneducated people have ruined the future.”
Whose future? What do they know of the lives of ordinary people, whose lives are ruined right now by the EU? By the regulations, the loss of our legislature, the overcrowded NHS etc?
As a Europhile with postgraduate qualifications, I nearly voted Remain. Then, just before the referendum, I listened to the broadcasts, the sneering arrogance of Remainers, their ignorance of vast tracts of our country, their presumptions and judgements, all projected from immensely privileged lives.
So I voted Leave, for the forgotten backbone of our country, for southern Italy and Greece, for our legislature, worn away day by day, by unelected EU politicians.
Despite the mockery, disbelief and downright nastiness I have endured as a result, I am glad of it, even though I have concerns.
“We morons,” commented a builder, who voted Leave, “would fight for our country if we were invaded. That lot wouldn’t.”
Silently, most of the country would agree with him. Their dislike of a certain type of Remainer is palpable. So, Remainers – please don’t – just don’t – treat everyone who voted Leave as if they are six years old. Remember the French revolution and beware.
How does she know what goes on around other peoples dinner tables?
Why does she invite people she obviously dislikes to dinner at hers?
How many of them has she witnessed?
There were a number of polls that showed in general, that less educated people voted leave, but you can always argue about the accuracy of polls.
An intelligent person would never think that all thick people voted leave, nor that all clever people voted remain.
I am sure the publication of these polls gave leave voters the hump, and led them to believe that all remainers think they are thick, irrespective of how much truth there is in it.
She quotes one person supporting this view, which is hardly decisive.
The reasons quoted for the EU ruining peoples lives are very thin.
Which regulations ruin peoples lives?
Which lives are ruined by the loss of our legislature, when in reality the EU contribute only 7% of our Primary Legislation.
The NHS queues are exacerbated by the EU staff returning home after being made to feel unwelcome in our country.
The reasons behind her changing her mind are confused and seem to be based more on the personalities involved rather than the issue.
I am more of the opinion that the referendum was about the future of the people that live in this country rather than Italy or Greece. Or how it affects a forgotten backbone. Can a country have a backbone? Isnt a country made up of individual backbones.
I wonder how glad she will be a few years after we leave.
It seems convenient to move from dinner tables, to builders. Is it really credible to suggest that leave voters would be prepared to fight for their country and remain voters wouldn't.
Many remain voters did so because they felt it was best for our country.
So I think this letter is short on truth, facts and specifics, and long on bs. I am not expecting a guillotine to be arriving in Westminster anytime soon. I am surprised she didn't get the 17.4 million people in, but she did manage the unelected representatives, which is also compulsory.
The whole point of the letter was to draw attention to the unfair treatment of leave voters by remainers, yet she is scathing in her condemnation of remainers.
I would have expected a more intelligent letter from someone with her academic qualifications.
The one thing that leave voters seem to have in common is that they are never specific, and always quote intangibles.
They say things about unelected representatives, but never explain what difference this makes. Do they think our elected representatives are a shining example for the rest of the world? They drone on about the loss of our legislature, never explain why they think this is true, or set out how this affects their everyday life. They accuse the EU of ruining peoples lives, but never give any examples of how they are doing this.
I am not sure why you posted it.
I posted it , because it's an opinion from someone..simple really
Firstly, he is not being truthful, Jeremy Corbyn has been a Eurosceptic his whole life.
Secondly, not everyone out of all those leave voters, however many there was, were in favour of no deal.
Thirdly, when did you become in favour of no deal?
Fourthly, to say that the PM didn't deliver Brexit properly is very subjective.
Fifthly, I thought he and the ERG were representing leave voters?
Sixthly, the Corbyn May coalition only came about through the lack of support from the ERG.
As to the bolded bit , I never was ....but people are allowed to change their minds . We need a conclusion to the whole process for the sake of everyones sanity .
The whole point of the video was for him to be telling people we should be leaving with no deal this week.
Remainers, please stop treating everyone who voted Leave as if they are six years old
Since the referendum, I’ve been shocked to witness Remainers, around my and other people’s dinner tables, tacitly clubbing together in their scorn of their fellow countrymen and women who don’t agree with them. “Oh my God,” said one. “All those ignorant, uneducated people have ruined the future.”
Whose future? What do they know of the lives of ordinary people, whose lives are ruined right now by the EU? By the regulations, the loss of our legislature, the overcrowded NHS etc?
As a Europhile with postgraduate qualifications, I nearly voted Remain. Then, just before the referendum, I listened to the broadcasts, the sneering arrogance of Remainers, their ignorance of vast tracts of our country, their presumptions and judgements, all projected from immensely privileged lives.
So I voted Leave, for the forgotten backbone of our country, for southern Italy and Greece, for our legislature, worn away day by day, by unelected EU politicians.
Despite the mockery, disbelief and downright nastiness I have endured as a result, I am glad of it, even though I have concerns.
“We morons,” commented a builder, who voted Leave, “would fight for our country if we were invaded. That lot wouldn’t.”
Silently, most of the country would agree with him. Their dislike of a certain type of Remainer is palpable. So, Remainers – please don’t – just don’t – treat everyone who voted Leave as if they are six years old. Remember the French revolution and beware.
How does she know what goes on around other peoples dinner tables?
Why does she invite people she obviously dislikes to dinner at hers?
How many of them has she witnessed?
There were a number of polls that showed in general, that less educated people voted leave, but you can always argue about the accuracy of polls.
An intelligent person would never think that all thick people voted leave, nor that all clever people voted remain.
I am sure the publication of these polls gave leave voters the hump, and led them to believe that all remainers think they are thick, irrespective of how much truth there is in it.
She quotes one person supporting this view, which is hardly decisive.
The reasons quoted for the EU ruining peoples lives are very thin.
Which regulations ruin peoples lives?
Which lives are ruined by the loss of our legislature, when in reality the EU contribute only 7% of our Primary Legislation.
The NHS queues are exacerbated by the EU staff returning home after being made to feel unwelcome in our country.
The reasons behind her changing her mind are confused and seem to be based more on the personalities involved rather than the issue.
I am more of the opinion that the referendum was about the future of the people that live in this country rather than Italy or Greece. Or how it affects a forgotten backbone. Can a country have a backbone? Isnt a country made up of individual backbones.
I wonder how glad she will be a few years after we leave.
It seems convenient to move from dinner tables, to builders. Is it really credible to suggest that leave voters would be prepared to fight for their country and remain voters wouldn't.
Many remain voters did so because they felt it was best for our country.
So I think this letter is short on truth, facts and specifics, and long on bs. I am not expecting a guillotine to be arriving in Westminster anytime soon. I am surprised she didn't get the 17.4 million people in, but she did manage the unelected representatives, which is also compulsory.
The whole point of the letter was to draw attention to the unfair treatment of leave voters by remainers, yet she is scathing in her condemnation of remainers.
I would have expected a more intelligent letter from someone with her academic qualifications.
The one thing that leave voters seem to have in common is that they are never specific, and always quote intangibles.
They say things about unelected representatives, but never explain what difference this makes. Do they think our elected representatives are a shining example for the rest of the world? They drone on about the loss of our legislature, never explain why they think this is true, or set out how this affects their everyday life. They accuse the EU of ruining peoples lives, but never give any examples of how they are doing this.
I am not sure why you posted it.
I posted it , because it's an opinion from someone..simple really
I voted “Remain” because I believed it would be safer economically than if we had voted to leave. Therefore, while my heart says leave, cold hard reality said stay. I was always a “reluctant remainer.” I, therefore, cast my vote on June 23, 2016 with mixed feelings and waited for the result. Unlike many on my side of the debate, I did not take it for granted that “my side” would win. I knew that there was a distinct possibility that the UK would vote to leave. All I did was listen to what people were saying: if others in the “Remain” commentary class had done the same—if they’d had the humility to do the same—we might be in a different position today.
As Matthew Goodwin says in his article in Quillette, he had hoped that whatever the referendum result, it would act as a wake-up call to the elites that there were long-term issues that needed addressing if Britain was not to become even more polarized than it already was. I also had some of this hope following the referendum; having spoken to those who voted “Leave,” I knew it was more complex than those in the upper echelons of “Remain” camp had claimed. I hoped that our national conversation might grasp some sense of maturity and actually get down to some real issues in a more in-depth way—in a way that went past the usual party-political sound bites. This is not what happened.
The issue is that the referendum was not about policy; it was a conflict of values, a conflict of visions as Thomas Sowell says. And values conflict are the most divisive. The side that won (“Leave”) tends to believe more strongly in things like patriotism, law and order, communitarianism and a certain degree of economic nationalism. And it had been on the losing side for the previous three decades. The side that lost (“Remain”)— particularly its elite—tends to believe more strongly in abstract ideals like diversity, progress, equality, and openness. And it had won in every way possible for the past three to four decades. Their defeat, the first in decades, led to a feeling that this wasn’t supposed to happen, and it’s not us and our values that are faulty but them and their values. Instead of reflection, what happened was a knee-jerk reaction from those in the commentary and political classes most invested in “Remain” against their fellow countrymen and women. This knee-jerk reaction displays a level of contempt, laziness of thinking, shallow prejudice and preconception, disdain, derision and downright snobbery that stem from the smug liberal style. It makes me ashamed to be associated with those who issue these arguments.
Despite the poor conduct both sides displayed in the campaign, those in the commentary and political classes who voted “Remain” are utterly unrepentant at not only their conduct during the referendum campaign, but remain so in the attitude towards “Leave” voters. To them, the vote was not a sign of deeper, underlying causes and issues unaddressed for years, it was much more short-term in origin. To them, most Leavers voted that way because they are stupid, ignorant proles who have no idea how anything works, especially the EU. Because of their stupidity and ignorance, the Brexit vote was an irrational backlash grounded in a fear and loathing of immigrants, fed by fake news and misinformation provided by Russia, manipulated by shadowy firms like Cambridge Analytica, and brainwashed by Facebook ads.
There have been various people saying that Brexit was due to white resentment, that “old white people” resentful and fearful at changing Britain voted to keep their privilege. There were and are people who argue that those who voted “Leave” are old and will be dead before the full effects are felt, so they have cursed the younger generation with something they didn’t vote for. Finally, there is the argument that people don’t vote to be poorer and don’t vote against their economic interest. This last argument is just bad: people’s concerns do not always fit into a country’s GDP. Instead of engaging with the arguments and positions of those who voted “Leave,” “Remain” elites have instead engaged in a campaign to delegitimize the result of the referendum, pushing back against it at every turn, either by overturning it, forcing a rerun or watering it down to such an extent that it becomes Brexit In Name Only (BRINO), a return to the status quo that many weren’t happy with in the first place. As Goodwin argues, “Brexit is to be opposed, not understood.” This attitude has led to the paucity of depth in approaching why “Remain” lost. Instead, lazy analysis has led to intellectually-wretched arguments that ignore any evidence to the contrary Some counter-examples that are ignored include the fact that 1 in 3 black and minority ethnic voters voted “Leave,” as well as almost half of 25-49 year olds, 1 in 2 women and 40% of voters in Greater London. When was the last time you heard that? As Goodwin points out, “Brexit appealed to white pensioners in England’s declining seaside towns but it also won majority support in highly ethnically diverse areas like Birmingham, Luton, and Slough.” Meanwhile, according to the National Centre for Social Research, what one might call pro-Brexit views have hovered at around 50% for over 20 years, views that were decades in the making.
But, of course, none of this is considered or even touched upon by “Remain” elites; much easier to reach for the short-termist teddy bear and blame it all on thick, fat and fascist Leave voters. The denouement of this approach is that some “Remain” elites now seem to gain a perverse sense of joy from the thought of a no-deal Brexit. Good, they think, when jobs start shipping to Europe, when food becomes more expensive, when the economy suffers, when those bigoted idiots suffer at the hands of their own stupid decision, that’ll show them that we were right all along.
At bottom, all these arguments display the “shadow of liberalism” that David Fuller of Rebel Wisdom talks about. Those who proclaim their tolerance of diversity only like the right sort of diversity: the type that agrees with their values. Those who proclaim their concern for the poor in the abstract nearly always find that they hate what the poor believe in when confronted with it. George Orwell, who described this exact situation in The Road to Wigan Pier, would not have been surprised.
This self-satisfaction and the smug style of liberalism in which it is rooted cannot conceive of the reality that it perhaps does not have all the answers. And when it is repudiated, the answer is to hope that those who moved against it will suffer for their intransigence. I am not a full Brexiteer, but this attitude is why I am now no longer a Remainer.
@dobiesdraw You quite rightly talk about the people being left behind in this country and the working class yet at the same time quote Jacob Rees-Mogg and John Redwood. I can assure you those two don't give a toss about the left behind and working class and see Brexit as a means to make even more money than they already have. The CBI, TUC & NFU who represent the people you are arguing on behalf all say a no deal Brexit will be a disaster. Surely they are the people you should be listening to, not right wing Tories? I live in London and looking at the predictions London would be least affected by Brexit so it won't impact on my life. I'm really angry about it though as I know it could have catastrophic effect on places like my hometown of Stoke. The majority of my family and friends voted leave and I'm pulling my hair out that they can't see the big picture. I understand giving the finger to the establishment in protest, I can't blame them but leaving the EU is NOT the answer. Punish the Tories at the ballot box for austerity and protecting their tax dodging rich mates who should be contributing their fair share to our crumbling public services.
I come from just north of you (Cheshire) and the majority of my family and friends 'oop norf' voted to leave..rather than go over old ground again and again about the collective strength of a union etc etc -which ironically they are staunch union people, the only other key thread to debate was immigration....
Regretfully-and with a degree of national shame and embarrassment- I consider this is one of the key reason for 'taking back control' and the outcome of the 1st referendum ( I say 1st because in optimism, I live in hope..)
The anecdotal view that the Polish people were ' taking all of our jobs' was bad enough, and of course complete fiction was then surpassed by a general discussion about the level of Bangladeshi/Asian/ano who have 'taken over' and reside and have their businesses in Hanley .
I did have to politely remind people that a) Bangladesh/Pakistan/India was not a Brexit issue and b) positive immigration policies was partly an outcome of our colonial past... I still haven't had any response back..oh sorry apart from we'll be able to make our own rules again/jobs etc etc..yawn
Figure 2 displays Remainers’ assessments of Leavers’ reasons for voting Leave. It shows that Remain voters overestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to both regaining control over EU immigration and teaching British politicians a lesson. 52% of Remain voters rank ‘Leavers wanted the UK to regain control over EU immigration’ first, whereas only 39% of Leave voters rank ‘to regain control over EU immigration’ first. And 12% of Remain voters rank ‘Leavers wanted to teach British politicians a lesson’ first, whereas only 3% of Leave voters rank ‘to teach British politicians a lesson’ first.
Figure 2 displays Remainers’ assessments of Leavers’ reasons for voting Leave. It shows that Remain voters overestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to both regaining control over EU immigration and teaching British politicians a lesson. 52% of Remain voters rank ‘Leavers wanted the UK to regain control over EU immigration’ first, whereas only 39% of Leave voters rank ‘to regain control over EU immigration’ first. And 12% of Remain voters rank ‘Leavers wanted to teach British politicians a lesson’ first, whereas only 3% of Leave voters rank ‘to teach British politicians a lesson’ first.
I did say anecdotally...and as they discuss it in their anecdotal way, they (and/or I) perceived that immigration was 'their' key reason for voting leave...just an opinion
Figure 2 displays Remainers’ assessments of Leavers’ reasons for voting Leave. It shows that Remain voters overestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to both regaining control over EU immigration and teaching British politicians a lesson. 52% of Remain voters rank ‘Leavers wanted the UK to regain control over EU immigration’ first, whereas only 39% of Leave voters rank ‘to regain control over EU immigration’ first. And 12% of Remain voters rank ‘Leavers wanted to teach British politicians a lesson’ first, whereas only 3% of Leave voters rank ‘to teach British politicians a lesson’ first.
This is flawed in exactly the same way as Opinion Polls.
It does NOT give the reason that people vote in a particular way. It gives the reason that the voter SAYS was the reason they voted in a particular way. They are not the same thing.
When some Opinion Pollster asks someone whether they will vote for Corbyn, many who would (and do) say otherwise. Similarly, many people for whom Immigration was the most important factor will not say so, due to the negative implications some people put on such a statement.
The way people SAY they voted, and why, are not the same as why they DID, 3 years before. I am sure that would also be true for Remain voters.
Figure 2 displays Remainers’ assessments of Leavers’ reasons for voting Leave. It shows that Remain voters overestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to both regaining control over EU immigration and teaching British politicians a lesson. 52% of Remain voters rank ‘Leavers wanted the UK to regain control over EU immigration’ first, whereas only 39% of Leave voters rank ‘to regain control over EU immigration’ first. And 12% of Remain voters rank ‘Leavers wanted to teach British politicians a lesson’ first, whereas only 3% of Leave voters rank ‘to teach British politicians a lesson’ first.
This is flawed in exactly the same way as Opinion Polls.
It does NOT give the reason that people vote in a particular way. It gives the reason that the voter SAYS was the reason they voted in a particular way. They are not the same thing.
When some Opinion Pollster asks someone whether they will vote for Corbyn, many who would (and do) say otherwise. Similarly, many people for whom Immigration was the most important factor will not say so, due to the negative implications some people put on such a statement.
The way people SAY they voted, and why, are not the same as why they DID, 3 years before. I am sure that would also be true for Remain voters.
Well , the individual responses to these questions aren't made public , so I fail to see why anyone wouldn't tell the truth because of " negative implications" ...or am I misunderstanding your point ?
Comments
Any UKIP voter that believes this will definitely be extremely disappointed.
It is completely in line with the leave campaign in the referendum.
Georg von Harrach
@georgvh
EU rotating presidency (currently Romania): If there is a need for an extension, we will prepare all the logistics to do so. #brexit
9:14 AM - Apr 8, 2019
Georg von Harrach
@georgvh
Finnish Finnish Foreign Minister, Timo Soini: If #brexit extension is needed, it should be granted
Is the de facto Brexit default now revoking Article 50 this week rather than a no-deal Brexit on 12 April?
I ask because the PM is now explicitly saying the choice is a binary one between some version of her negotiated deal and not leaving at all (that is what she said in her sofa chat on Sunday).
The point is that she has no power to prevent a no-deal Brexit on 12 April by delaying Brexit; for a delay, she needs the unanimous agreement of the EU's 27 leaders.
But she does have the unilateral power to prevent a no-deal by cancelling Brexit altogether, by revoking the Article 50 application to leave the EU.
So, have she and Whitehall, who are persuaded (rightly or wrongly) that no-deal on April 12 would be a catastrophe (especially for the integrity of UK), made a huge emotional leap to prepare for the political (if not economic) explosion of cancelling Brexit this week - in that there remains a serious risk that the EU will not grant the UK an extension or an extension on acceptable terms.
As I understand it, from Government sources, there is no intensifying of no-deal preparations on Monday (the famous Operation Yellowhammer), which there really ought to be if there was any serious prospect of the UK leaving without a deal in just a few days.
The Prime Minister has consistently pledged she won't revoke Article 50, but what she said on Sunday - about the UK facing a simple binary choice between her Withdrawal Agreement and no Brexit - makes no sense unless she is prepared to cancel the UK's departure from the EU.
And although she might claim that MPs would force her to revoke, that she would become their puppet, in practice - with so little time before April 12 - MPs could probably only instruct her in a non-binding way, and she would retain discretion.
If right at the last, the UK performs the volte face of volte faces and cancels Brexit, that would be her responsibility and her legacy, no one else's - for which many in her own party would vilify her, and many outside would cast her as the lost hero returned
PS. For the avoidance of doubt, when I suggest revocation may be the new Brexit default, I don't mean that it is her first choice.
The Prime Minister plainly wants to avoid it.
The question I am posing is whether she now sees Brexit cancellation as preferable to a no-deal at the end of this week.
https://www.itv.com/news/2019-04-08/is-cancelling-brexit-the-prime-ministers-new-default/
Secondly, not everyone out of all those leave voters, however many there was, were in favour of no deal.
Thirdly, when did you become in favour of no deal?
Fourthly, to say that the PM didn't deliver Brexit properly is very subjective.
Fifthly, I thought he and the ERG were representing leave voters?
Sixthly, the Corbyn May coalition only came about through the lack of support from the ERG.
We need a conclusion to the whole process for the sake of everyones sanity .
I live in London and looking at the predictions London would be least affected by Brexit so it won't impact on my life. I'm really angry about it though as I know it could have catastrophic effect on places like my hometown of Stoke. The majority of my family and friends voted leave and I'm pulling my hair out that they can't see the big picture. I understand giving the finger to the establishment in protest, I can't blame them but leaving the EU is NOT the answer. Punish the Tories at the ballot box for austerity and protecting their tax dodging rich mates who should be contributing their fair share to our crumbling public services.
Why does she invite people she obviously dislikes to dinner at hers?
How many of them has she witnessed?
There were a number of polls that showed in general, that less educated people voted leave, but you can always argue about the accuracy of polls.
An intelligent person would never think that all thick people voted leave, nor that all clever people voted remain.
I am sure the publication of these polls gave leave voters the hump, and led them to believe that all remainers think they are thick, irrespective of how much truth there is in it.
She quotes one person supporting this view, which is hardly decisive.
The reasons quoted for the EU ruining peoples lives are very thin.
Which regulations ruin peoples lives?
Which lives are ruined by the loss of our legislature, when in reality the EU contribute only 7% of our Primary Legislation.
The NHS queues are exacerbated by the EU staff returning home after being made to feel unwelcome in our country.
The reasons behind her changing her mind are confused and seem to be based more on the personalities involved rather than the issue.
I am more of the opinion that the referendum was about the future of the people that live in this country rather than Italy or Greece. Or how it affects a forgotten backbone. Can a country have a backbone? Isnt a country made up of individual backbones.
I wonder how glad she will be a few years after we leave.
It seems convenient to move from dinner tables, to builders. Is it really credible to suggest that leave voters would be prepared to fight for their country and remain voters wouldn't.
Many remain voters did so because they felt it was best for our country.
So I think this letter is short on truth, facts and specifics, and long on bs. I am not expecting a guillotine to be arriving in Westminster anytime soon. I am surprised she didn't get the 17.4 million people in, but she did manage the unelected representatives, which is also compulsory.
The whole point of the letter was to draw attention to the unfair treatment of leave voters by remainers, yet she is scathing in her condemnation of remainers.
I would have expected a more intelligent letter from someone with her academic qualifications.
The one thing that leave voters seem to have in common is that they are never specific, and always quote intangibles.
They say things about unelected representatives, but never explain what difference this makes. Do they think our elected representatives are a shining example for the rest of the world? They drone on about the loss of our legislature, never explain why they think this is true, or set out how this affects their everyday life. They accuse the EU of ruining peoples lives, but never give any examples of how they are doing this.
I am not sure why you posted it.
I voted “Remain” because I believed it would be safer economically than if we had voted to leave. Therefore, while my heart says leave, cold hard reality said stay. I was always a “reluctant remainer.” I, therefore, cast my vote on June 23, 2016 with mixed feelings and waited for the result. Unlike many on my side of the debate, I did not take it for granted that “my side” would win. I knew that there was a distinct possibility that the UK would vote to leave. All I did was listen to what people were saying: if others in the “Remain” commentary class had done the same—if they’d had the humility to do the same—we might be in a different position today.
As Matthew Goodwin says in his article in Quillette, he had hoped that whatever the referendum result, it would act as a wake-up call to the elites that there were long-term issues that needed addressing if Britain was not to become even more polarized than it already was. I also had some of this hope following the referendum; having spoken to those who voted “Leave,” I knew it was more complex than those in the upper echelons of “Remain” camp had claimed. I hoped that our national conversation might grasp some sense of maturity and actually get down to some real issues in a more in-depth way—in a way that went past the usual party-political sound bites. This is not what happened.
The issue is that the referendum was not about policy; it was a conflict of values, a conflict of visions as Thomas Sowell says. And values conflict are the most divisive. The side that won (“Leave”) tends to believe more strongly in things like patriotism, law and order, communitarianism and a certain degree of economic nationalism. And it had been on the losing side for the previous three decades. The side that lost (“Remain”)— particularly its elite—tends to believe more strongly in abstract ideals like diversity, progress, equality, and openness. And it had won in every way possible for the past three to four decades.
Their defeat, the first in decades, led to a feeling that this wasn’t supposed to happen, and it’s not us and our values that are faulty but them and their values. Instead of reflection, what happened was a knee-jerk reaction from those in the commentary and political classes most invested in “Remain” against their fellow countrymen and women. This knee-jerk reaction displays a level of contempt, laziness of thinking, shallow prejudice and preconception, disdain, derision and downright snobbery that stem from the smug liberal style. It makes me ashamed to be associated with those who issue these arguments.
Despite the poor conduct both sides displayed in the campaign, those in the commentary and political classes who voted “Remain” are utterly unrepentant at not only their conduct during the referendum campaign, but remain so in the attitude towards “Leave” voters. To them, the vote was not a sign of deeper, underlying causes and issues unaddressed for years, it was much more short-term in origin. To them, most Leavers voted that way because they are stupid, ignorant proles who have no idea how anything works, especially the EU. Because of their stupidity and ignorance, the Brexit vote was an irrational backlash grounded in a fear and loathing of immigrants, fed by fake news and misinformation provided by Russia, manipulated by shadowy firms like Cambridge Analytica, and brainwashed by Facebook ads.
There have been various people saying that Brexit was due to white resentment, that “old white people” resentful and fearful at changing Britain voted to keep their privilege. There were and are people who argue that those who voted “Leave” are old and will be dead before the full effects are felt, so they have cursed the younger generation with something they didn’t vote for. Finally, there is the argument that people don’t vote to be poorer and don’t vote against their economic interest. This last argument is just bad: people’s concerns do not always fit into a country’s GDP.
Instead of engaging with the arguments and positions of those who voted “Leave,” “Remain” elites have instead engaged in a campaign to delegitimize the result of the referendum, pushing back against it at every turn, either by overturning it, forcing a rerun or watering it down to such an extent that it becomes Brexit In Name Only (BRINO), a return to the status quo that many weren’t happy with in the first place. As Goodwin argues, “Brexit is to be opposed, not understood.” This attitude has led to the paucity of depth in approaching why “Remain” lost. Instead, lazy analysis has led to intellectually-wretched arguments that ignore any evidence to the contrary
Some counter-examples that are ignored include the fact that 1 in 3 black and minority ethnic voters voted “Leave,” as well as almost half of 25-49 year olds, 1 in 2 women and 40% of voters in Greater London. When was the last time you heard that? As Goodwin points out, “Brexit appealed to white pensioners in England’s declining seaside towns but it also won majority support in highly ethnically diverse areas like Birmingham, Luton, and Slough.” Meanwhile, according to the National Centre for Social Research, what one might call pro-Brexit views have hovered at around 50% for over 20 years, views that were decades in the making.
But, of course, none of this is considered or even touched upon by “Remain” elites; much easier to reach for the short-termist teddy bear and blame it all on thick, fat and fascist Leave voters. The denouement of this approach is that some “Remain” elites now seem to gain a perverse sense of joy from the thought of a no-deal Brexit. Good, they think, when jobs start shipping to Europe, when food becomes more expensive, when the economy suffers, when those bigoted idiots suffer at the hands of their own stupid decision, that’ll show them that we were right all along.
At bottom, all these arguments display the “shadow of liberalism” that David Fuller of Rebel Wisdom talks about. Those who proclaim their tolerance of diversity only like the right sort of diversity: the type that agrees with their values. Those who proclaim their concern for the poor in the abstract nearly always find that they hate what the poor believe in when confronted with it. George Orwell, who described this exact situation in The Road to Wigan Pier, would not have been surprised.
This self-satisfaction and the smug style of liberalism in which it is rooted cannot conceive of the reality that it perhaps does not have all the answers. And when it is repudiated, the answer is to hope that those who moved against it will suffer for their intransigence. I am not a full Brexiteer, but this attitude is why I am now no longer a Remainer.
https://merionwest.com/2018/08/06/i-am-no-longer-a-brexit-remainer/
I come from just north of you (Cheshire) and the majority of my family and friends 'oop norf' voted to leave..rather than go over old ground again and again about the collective strength of a union etc etc -which ironically they are staunch union people, the only other key thread to debate was immigration....
Regretfully-and with a degree of national shame and embarrassment- I consider this is one of the key reason for 'taking back control' and the outcome of the 1st referendum ( I say 1st because in optimism, I live in hope..)
The anecdotal view that the Polish people were ' taking all of our jobs' was bad enough, and of course complete fiction was then surpassed by a general discussion about the level of Bangladeshi/Asian/ano who have 'taken over' and reside and have their businesses in Hanley .
I did have to politely remind people that a) Bangladesh/Pakistan/India was not a Brexit issue and b) positive immigration policies was partly an outcome of our colonial past... I still haven't had any response back..oh sorry apart from we'll be able to make our own rules again/jobs etc etc..yawn
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/05/04/leavers-have-a-better-understanding-of-remainers-motivations-than-vice-versa/
It does NOT give the reason that people vote in a particular way. It gives the reason that the voter SAYS was the reason they voted in a particular way. They are not the same thing.
When some Opinion Pollster asks someone whether they will vote for Corbyn, many who would (and do) say otherwise. Similarly, many people for whom Immigration was the most important factor will not say so, due to the negative implications some people put on such a statement.
The way people SAY they voted, and why, are not the same as why they DID, 3 years before. I am sure that would also be true for Remain voters.