Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TD1]

People didn't just vote for money. But for those that valued it principally, then yes, that divide would be very relevant.

It's also true that I heard varied arguments in favour of Leave, but in favour of Remain the only one I heard spoken of was money.

[Starver]

Stability in general,.free movement (to tourism, educational opportunities, culture in all its forms¹). There's money involved in those, but only in the way that money is always involved.

Being part of a power-block (and with more say as to how that powerblock works than we would by bunking up in Trump's cell) was very important.  And just like Cornwall doesn't always have the same priorities as Lincolnshire or Cumbria or Kent, just because we're not always happy doesn't mean we (or Cornwall) would be better off out of Europe (or UK/England, depending upon the scheme).


Much of the Brexit was money (that infamous £350m for the NHS, etc, that was almost immediately disavowed), and the rest could as easily be linked to money as the non-monetary Remaining stuff.

e.g. those EU seasonal workers undermining our own workforce, not that we seem to have an appetite for seasonal work (and our benefits system strongly discourages it!), meaning that we need to pay more to our reluctant workers (and no more EU subsidies for environmentally friendly land use, unless we decide to fork out from our national purse directly, as on of many potential costs we didn't previously have), meaning food prices rise (or general taxation), hitting everybody who wants to eat (but not actually scaling to their wealth bracket, so richer people will be fairly Ok with that, our homegrown workers less so, unless somebody actually changes the benefits system to pay out more money to the low end(!)...).

But it was the bus and the (non-EU!) immigration stuff that stuck.  As witnessed by the 'overwhelming majority' who voted to <insert single, simplistic reason of the day here, according to who the speaker is>...  All of which is total bollocks, pardon my Esperanto....


¹ Not that a country would ever blanket ban another country's population from engaging in everyday international travel, above and beyond and actual individual/organisational membership of a persona non grata list... Oh, wait!

[Loud Whispers]

Interesting Starver, cos this goes at odds with all the folks scratching their heads saying this was the first UK vote in ages where "the economy stupid" did not sway voters

[Starver]

Interesting Starver, cos this goes at odds with all the folks scratching their heads saying this was the first UK vote in ages where "the economy stupid" did not sway voters

Huh?  What of mine is that in response to?

ETA: In fact, that supports my position.

[Loud Whispers]

In regards to the whole much of Brexit was about money thing

[ChairmanPoo]

In regards to the whole much of Brexit was about money thing

Don't be daft. Brexit was about the eternal struggle between order and chaos. Which one is gaining the upper hand is left to the criteria of the reader

[Loud Whispers]

Nyarlathotep reigns victorious

[Azzuro]

Dank memes are winning: invest in this now.

[Starver]

In regards to the whole much of Brexit was about money thing

You misread, then.

It's also true that I heard varied arguments in favour of Leave, but in favour of Remain the only one I heard spoken of was money.

To which I reply

Stability in general,.free movement (to tourism, educational opportunities, culture in all its forms¹). There's money involved in those, but only in the way that money is always involved.

[...]

Much of the Brexit [i.e. Leave, just to clarify] was money (that infamous £350m for the NHS, etc, that was almost immediately disavowed), and the rest could as easily be linked to money as the non-monetary Remaining stuff.

Make sense, now?

[TD1]

I was speaking of how it was characterised. Arguments revolving around immigration, for instance, were spoken of as concerning border security. Arguments around Europe included appeals to sovereignty and democracy.

Their Remain counterparts involved arguments around money, for example immigration - they're good workers! They make us money! - and Europe - the single market! Much trade! _{such wow.}

The Leave arguments may be linked to money - damn immigrants taking our jobs - but this was rarely the case, whereas Remain's main platform was based around counter arguments involving the words "ker" and "ching."

Of course, this wasn't always the case - some spoke of a greater place on the world stage in Europe, for instance, or of national projects. But a disproportionate section of the argument was "the economy, stupid."

[hector13]

Might I remind you about Boris' bus? You would imagine if you have a political battle bus, you'd put your most appealing slogan on it.

As a side note, most of the first page results from the Google search "Brexit bus" tell us about the big fat lie that slogan was, too.

[TD1]

Yea, the European funds being used for something useful argument. Not really as huge an argument for Leave as the "we will all literally die from economic collapse" thing was for remain.

[Starver]

Yea, the European funds being used for something useful argument. Not really as huge an argument for Leave as the "we will all literally die from economic collapse" thing was for remain.

Have you been drinking a different flavour of Lucozade Zero than me..?  That was, as mentioned, one of the great tenets of the campaign.  Not everyone took it to heart, but it was actually an oft-quoted reason in the vox populi, next to the mistargetted immigrants thing.

[Starver]

The thing to do would be to go through LW's old Brexit thread and see what the actual arguments posters here (from both sides) were focusing on.

Y'know, if you can be arsed.

Interesting. "Do a full analysis on goalposts that I've suddenly set up, or STFU...".  I actually credit posters here with more intelligence than the average voter (even when I disagree with them, or even think they're being particularly disingenuous). But, ok, I'll spend some time on that very specific target when I get some time, and try to enumerate our own voiced opinions.

For the man on the street we were actually talking about, we need some archive footage, or similar, which will need careful balancing to remove broadcaster bias in what they chose to make available.

We can always play the odds with the newspaper front pages (that selection in "alignment/argument type" terms are: Leave/financial, Leave/migration, Remain/financial, (nothing obvious), Remain/cultural, Remain/???, Remain/financial, Remain/faked news, Remain/employment rights - but other days may reveal other distributions...), to see what the various sides were putting through their respective media frontends, or listen to something like this...

[hector13]

Perhaps it would be a good time to remind you of Michael "the people have had enough of experts" Gove? Better yet, perhaps we should stop with the ad hominem?

Anyway, why are a broad selection of newspaper headlines of lesser quality as evidence than a pretty-much-anonymous internet forum set up for a niche game developer?