Remind me again why we left the EU

[idler]

i reluctantly voted leave maybe 51/49% at the time. I had a postal vote so voted in advance and was in Rhodes when the vote was revealed.
I didn't want a federal Europe which is what I felt we were headed for.
I did expected an adult negotiated exit which would represent all or most voters  if it went my way.
I ŵould be happy if anyone can tell me how me views have been fairly represented. The leave at any costs campaign have totally misrepresented my views. I am happy for anybody from either side to tell me where my views have been taken into consideration.
I would also rather have concrete answers or views rather than smart replies. Excuse the brevity but I am seriously p***** off today so don't want to waste any time.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Idler.

You are precisely the example I've had in mind when I said the 2016 vote was flawed. "Leave" wasn't a defined thing. It encompassed a huge range of possible outcomes, of which leaving the CU and SM was one of the more extreme. I say to this day that if the choice had been between "Remain" and "Leave the SM and CU", the former would have won by 20%.

[idler]

I had used my postal vote when I talked to my 18 year old grandson who bave me a far better reason to remain than either Cameron or Obama. I can't remember what Bojo said at that time. I also felt pride and a sense of belonging when England played France after the Charlie Ebden outrage.
There again what do I know?
One thing for sure is that nobody reflected my views. Anybody who has been divorced knows that however painful it is closure is achieved by agreement and discussion.  Not one top level instigator on the leave side has ever come up with a significant benefit of leaving and supplied proof. I am OK, money in the bank, no debt, no mortgage and money invested.
Apart from a bequest in my will how does that beenefit my grandchildren?
Long term they will probably be worse off.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Idler.

It is far worse than them not being able to point to benefits.

I can point you to a dozen and more prominent Leave politicians who assured you (in ways ranging from Farage's weasel words to Hannan's categorical assurance) that leaving the SM wasn't what you were voting for.

I can point you to a dozen who insisted that predictions of problems in Northern Ireland were Project Fear.

Much as some folk want the line to be "You lost. Belt up and accept it," the point is that democracy dies away if politicians are allowed to tell what they know are lies at the time, and no-one cares afterwards.

[belton rover]

The vote and both campaigns should never have taken place, especially not the way they did. Both sides should take responsibility for the outcome.

[SydneyRover]

I had used my postal vote when I talked to my 18 year old grandson who bave me a far better reason to remain than either Cameron or Obama. I can't remember what Bojo said at that time. I also felt pride and a sense of belonging when England played France after the Charlie Ebden outrage.
There again what do I know?
One thing for sure is that nobody reflected my views. Anybody who has been divorced knows that however painful it is closure is achieved by agreement and discussion.  Not one top level instigator on the leave side has ever come up with a significant benefit of leaving and supplied proof. I am OK, money in the bank, no debt, no mortgage and money invested.
Apart from a bequest in my will how does that beenefit my grandchildren?
Long term they will probably be worse off.

I'd be intersted in sensible suggestions/discussions on bequests to organisations that further democracy as I am apprehensive about what sort of future awaits the next generations. I support Transparency International and some news organisations.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Belton
1) The vote happened for one reason and one reason only. To finish the generation-long civil war on the Right of British politics.

2) As for this bothsidesism take, I've asked you before for examples of lies from the Remain side and never had any response other than an article full of unsubstantiated opinions.

3) But ok, let's assume both sides lied. How many of the prominent Remain side from 2016 are still in front line politics? Whereas the people who lied to you knowingly and consistently from the Leave side now run the country. Looks like bothsidesism only goes so far.

[belton rover]

Billy. I said both sides are responsible for the outcome.
Stop misrepresenting me.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Belton.
You have previously said that both sides lied. You haven't retracted that to my knowledge so I fail to see how I am misrepresenting your views.

[belton rover]

Billy. You have responded to a point of mine about responsibility for the result by, yet again, drudging up past, irrelevant discussion. If you wanted to continue that discussion instead of commenting on this one, then you could have at least made that clear.
Some advice: try to comment on the comments that a poster makes, rather than your pre conceived ideas about what you think the poster is saying.
I bet this all sounds familiar doesn’t it?

If you want to discuss how I think both sides lied (again) then we can. But right now, just to be clear, my point was that both sides are responsible for the outcome.
Do you want to discuss that?

[BillyStubbsTears]

I responded to a post about how both sides acted in the referendum campaign by commenting on the widely held belief (your belief in your own words, not an idea that I have made up) that both sides lied. You made that point vehemently before and I assume that at least part of your "both sides are responsible" comment is based on your passionately held belief that both sides were responsible for the lies that besmirched the campaign.

My take is that one side's campaign was grounded in egregious lies, dishonesty and misinformation. The other side's wasn't, but because of that scenario, the Remain side were always at a huge disadvantage.

The Remain side's argument was "Yes the EU is flawed but on balance we are better off in it." That is an argument based broadly on truth, but it is very weak against a "We can take back control and there are no downsides and anyone who says there are is peddling Project Fear" approach.

If the Remain side had wanted a campaign based in a sober assessment of pros and cons, they could have campaigned in that way. But they didn't. They based their campaign on egregious lies (80 million Turks are about the get the right to move to the UK) misinformation (£350m/week) and and a message that there were no.plans for the sort of Brexit we ended up with.

If you can give equally egregious examples of the Remain side knowingly misleading the electorate, then please do.

Saying "both sides are to blame" in the context of what how the Leave campaign was run is akin to saying both sides are to blame for the result when someone gets assaulted because the victim didn't knock the aggressor out.

But I'll accept your take. And it still leaves open my final point earlier. If both sides were to blame, clearly one set of politicians paid a hefty price, while the other set now runs the country. One side got rid of their leaders. The other side empowered them.

By the way, we didn't previously "discuss" your belief that both sides lied in any meaningful sense of the word. You claimed they did. I asked for evidence. You posted an article shot through with errors and opinion and when I pointed some of those out you had a rant at me for not accepting evidence.

[belton rover]

Billy. I fear you protest too much.

Again, I said both sides were responsible for the outcome. If you want to talk about that, then please do.

Some more advice: give yourself a bit more time away from this forum. Perhaps tell yourself not to post after 11pm. You were obviously very tired when you wrote your last rant. I know you didn’t mean to write that Remain based their campaign on egregious lies, but a casual forum member might be a bit confused.

[SydneyRover]

Sydney, maybe a big part of the reason the UK voted out was that it was becoming like Australia used to be, a penal colony for foreign criminals, the difference being that foreign criminals volunteered to come to the UK.

And maybe the fact that there were/are 19,000 less police since 2010 to catch criminals played a big part in it.

''Reality Check verdict: Labour's figures are about right. Latest statistics show that police officer numbers in England and Wales have fallen by 19,000 since 2010.

Shadow home secretary Diane Abbott said 20,000 police officers in England and Wales had been lost from the force since 2010''

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39779288

Police numbers from 2010-2020, 171,000 to 153,000 got any spare coppers guv'

Total police officer strength in the United Kingdom increased year on year
between 2003, when there were 155,000 officers, and 2010, when there
were just over 171,600. Since this peak, the number of police officers fell
each year up until 2018. Numbers have since recovered slightly and, at
31 March 2020, there were roughly 153,000 police officers operating
within the United Kingdom. This was a reduction of 1.2% compared to
2003 and of 10.6% from 2010.

file:///C:/Users/pauln/Downloads/SN00634.pdf

[Bentley Bullet]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/more-than-4000-extra-police-officers-to-fight-crime-as-recruitment-continues

[SydneyRover]

Sydney, maybe a big part of the reason the UK voted out was that it was becoming like Australia used to be, a penal colony for foreign criminals, the difference being that foreign criminals volunteered to come to the UK.

And maybe the fact that there were/are 19,000 less police since 2010 to catch criminals played a big part in it.

''Reality Check verdict: Labour's figures are about right. Latest statistics show that police officer numbers in England and Wales have fallen by 19,000 since 2010.

Shadow home secretary Diane Abbott said 20,000 police officers in England and Wales had been lost from the force since 2010''

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39779288

As usual bb- you haven't addressed my concerns which if you read the comment where I suggested that the decline in police numbers (during the period coinciding with tory rule) would have played a part in more criminals on the streets.

Your recent post claiming 4000 police hired, was that before or after the vote? which is the point in hand.

[Bentley Bullet]

So you are saying a big part of the reason why foreign criminals came to the UK was because of the fact that there were/are 19,000 less police since 2010?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Thanks for pointing out my slip Belton.

As for the both sides argument, if you look at my post you'll see a reasoned argument for why I disagree. Odd that you consider that to be a rant, but there you go.

Of course, there is an argument that both sides are to blame for any outcome. If a kid is crossing the road and someone comes round the corner at 70mph and kills them, there's an argument that the kid is to blame for being there. But that's not really how sensible discussion goes is it? We look at degrees of blame.

So in this case, of course both sides were "to blame" for the referendum outcome. Beyond that statement of the meaningless, I don't know where you think the balance is. I gave you my reasoned opinion and you ignored it.

[selby]

  What's your opinion of the EU's attitude and  treatment of the UK since January Billy?
  Do you think they are playing the game? and when we stop the money tree abruptly and cost them £20 Billion do you think they will be happy?
 

[SydneyRover]

So you are saying a big part of the reason why foreign criminals came to the UK was because of the fact that there were/are 19,000 less police since 2010?

Please point out where I wrote anyyhing of the sort bb, getting a bit desperate?

[belton rover]

Phew. We got there eventually, Billy.
Now you’ve finally addressed my point, it seems we agree that both sides are responsible for the outcome. Though why you felt the need to respond in any way to something you consider meaningless, is pointless.

[Bentley Bullet]

So you are saying a big part of the reason why foreign criminals came to the UK was because of the fact that there were/are 19,000 less police since 2010?

Please point out where I wrote anyyhing of the sort bb, getting a bit desperate?

Sydney, maybe a big part of the reason the UK voted out was that it was becoming like Australia used to be, a penal colony for foreign criminals, the difference being that foreign criminals volunteered to come to the UK.

And maybe the fact that there were/are 19,000 less police since 2010 to catch criminals played a big part in it.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Phew. We got there eventually, Billy.
Now you’ve finally addressed my point, it seems we agree that both sides are responsible for the outcome. Though why you felt the need to respond in any way to something you consider meaningless, is pointless.

All those words and no information content.

I guess Otto, Daimler and Diesel are partly to blame for every road fatality because they invented petrol and diesel engines. Odd that no-one ever used that defence in court when they run someone down.

[River Don]

The EU referendum may well have become an attempt to settle an argument that had been raging in the tory party for a generation but that's not why it was instigated and the outcome was very clearly expected to be and meant to be a vote to remain. A remain vote to settle the question once and for all.

That's why the question of how the UK might leave was never properly defined as actually leaving was politically unthinkable. Leaving the answer unknown and undefined was meant to make the option much less credible. Cameron gambled the lot on the expected remain vote and lost and so resigned, despite saying he would not.

In truth Cameron didn't really want to hold an EU referendum at all. It was forced on him by the rise and rise of UKIP. Oh how the tory press congratulated him on 'shooting the UKIP fox.' when a referendum was promised.

I would say then that the reality is there was a grass roots public demand for a referendum and that was facilitated by the existence of an anti-EU party. UKIP.

Without UKIP the tories would never, ever have contemplated it because big business and their backers were very happy with the UK being in the EU.

[River Don]

Personally I think the one big untruth of the remain side was that the EU was merely a group of friendly nations co-operation in a friendly club.

The reality is the EU is a longterm nation building project. Ken Clarke admits as much and was looking forward to the day when Westminster became little more than a county council. That was the truth remain didn't want to admit and the British government was not able to admit for decades.

[belton rover]

Phew. We got there eventually, Billy.
Now you’ve finally addressed my point, it seems we agree that both sides are responsible for the outcome. Though why you felt the need to respond in any way to something you consider meaningless, is pointless.

All those words and no information content.

I guess Otto, Daimler and Diesel are partly to blame for every road fatality because they invented petrol and diesel engines. Odd that no-one ever used that defence in court when they run someone down.

And still you try to pick a fight over something you profess not to care for.

[belton rover]

Remain should never have lost. They were arrogant and dismissive of Leave (and in turn of many of the people of the UK), until it was too late.

[River Don]

Remain should never have lost. They were arrogant and dismissive of Leave (and in turn of many of the people of the UK), until it was too late.

Maybe not but at some point, someway the EU required the consent of the people of the UK. It had been put off after dodgy outcomes of votes in other EU nations on the issue. Gordon Brown could not just sign us up to it all away from the public gaze.

Frankly it was always going to be tricky selling it to the public and they knew it, the politicians had been putting off a vote for a longtime.

[selby]

  Belton , they were thick as well Farage ran rings around them, and being seen as arrogant and next door to committing treason by constantly taking the route over to Brussels to court and suck up to the same EU leaders who had blanked Cameron quite openly and being interviewed on Waterloo Platforms of the Eurostar trains day after day, and not realising what it looked like to the man in the street who were hoping for some recompense for our continual putting in money for other countries to reap the benefit.
   Educated idiots.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Remain should never have lost. They were arrogant and dismissive of Leave (and in turn of many of the people of the UK), until it was too late.

And there's the nub. How are you supposed to have a sensible discussion with people shose entire campaign was based on misinformation, hiding of real intentions and straight up lying?

If you treat them as a serious set of proposals to be debated seriously, you are screwed because you've lost the basis of an evidence-based discussion and you are playing on the liars home turf.

If you call them out as liars you are accused of being arrogant and dismissive of them and anyone who believes the lies.

The Remain side mostly took the latter approach and certainly had an air of incredulity that they were even having to deal with the lies, they were so obvious and so egregious. That had simply never happened before in UK politics and yes, I can well see that someone telling voters they are being lied to may well come across as arrogant and dismissive. We are in a different world now of course and rejection of objective truth is pretty well established in certain wings of politics, whether it's Trump's 25,000 documented falsehoods or Johnson insisting in the 2019 election campaign that the WA he had signed which called for border checks in the Irish Sea didn't mean there wold be border checks in the Irish Sea. 

The 2016 campaign was the start of that. As I said last night, it made for an impossible scenario. The Leave side consistently mislead the public into thinking that we could have all the benefits of being in the EU while "taking back control". That was absolute horseshit, but it allowed Leave to paint a glorious picture of the future and many, many people believed it, assisted by the tsunami of social media disinformation that Cummings directed at people who had been profiled as being susceptible to that.

Remain on the other hand could not in good faith campaign on any ticket other than "The EU is not perfect but it is better than the problems we'll have outside it." That is a dull, flat, grey campaign theme, but it is a truthful one. Clearly it wasn't enough.

[BigH]

Remember that, in political terms, Remain v Leave was Tory on Tory! No one else called for a referendum.

Cameron/Osborne in one corner vs Johnson/Gove in the other. Everyone else was merely a pundit. Even Johnson and Gove ignored Farage in the run up to the vote. Labour's involvement was incidental because of Corbyn's dithering and lack of enthusiasm for the whole thing.

So when people say that both sides were to blame I can see what they mean because this was a game where both sides came from within one political party.

But the bigger point surely has to be this: It is the Conservative Party, and the Conservative Party alone, that has brought us to this point.

BB when you talk about winners and losers, it was never going to be you or I. It was only ever about the guy in Number 10!