What do you think the British government's purpose with brexit was?

[mikeymikec]

I've had a number of opinions over time but I haven't arrived at many definite conclusions.

IMO (in no particular order, certainly not certainty):

1) Cameron used the promise of a referendum as a vote-winner in the 2015 election.

2) Prior to the referendum, the prevailing mood in the tory party was pro-brexit, but it would never risk losing an election with a potential vote-loser (and it was correct, it would have blocked access to nearly half the electorate if brexit had been its election campaign position), so it decided to give the appearance of sitting on the fence (being in both remain and leave campaigns).

3) Running a half-arsed remain campaign was part of the plan. Almost all of the leave campaign's main points were debunked before the referendum, and in true weasel politician tradition, dropped after the referendum. The remain campaign should have been like shooting fish in a barrel, but instead it came out with vague 'doom and gloom' statements instead of attacking the leave campaign's argument points, as the latter was proposing a change, that's where the battle needed to be.

4) The type of austerity that the tory party has been pushing since 2010 is showing a number of flaws, not least in the fact that all NHS trusts are reporting that their budgets are falling well-short of their needs, and with yesterday's widely-reported news, I think that the tories realise that austerity is not going to win them another election, so what's needed is an event that is unlikely to be considered entirely their fault, ie. Brexit.

5) Party unity. The tories have always had pro-EU members and eurosceptics. By burning the bridges with the EU, there goes a reason for party discord.

6) I don't think any political party wants a referendum where it's not gunning for a particular result. No, I'm not suggesting electoral fraud.

7) At face value, it isn't even vaguely logical that a political party runs a referendum, then the members who campaigned for the winning side all step away from the result and let the other side implement the result of it, and the other side dedicate themselves to implementing the result without question despite the fact that every verifiable claim of brexit has been debunked. It's like saying, "oh dear, I think I've been scammed, shall I give the scammer all my money anyway? Ok then".

 

[agent00f]

I've had a number of opinions over time but I haven't arrived at many definite conclusions.

IMO (in no particular order, certainly not certainty):

1) Cameron used the promise of a referendum as a vote-winner in the 2015 election.

2) Prior to the referendum, the prevailing mood in the tory party was pro-brexit, but it would never risk losing an election with a potential vote-loser (and it was correct, it would have blocked access to nearly half the electorate if brexit had been its election campaign position), so it decided to give the appearance of sitting on the fence (being in both remain and leave campaigns).

3) Running a half-arsed remain campaign was part of the plan. Almost all of the leave campaign's main points were debunked before the referendum, and in true weasel politician tradition, dropped after the referendum. The remain campaign should have been like shooting fish in a barrel, but instead it came out with vague 'doom and gloom' statements instead of attacking the leave campaign's argument points, as the latter was proposing a change, that's where the battle needed to be.

4) The type of austerity that the tory party has been pushing since 2010 is showing a number of flaws, not least in the fact that all NHS trusts are reporting that their budgets are falling well-short of their needs, and with yesterday's widely-reported news, I think that the tories realise that austerity is not going to win them another election, so what's needed is an event that is unlikely to be considered entirely their fault, ie. Brexit.

5) Party unity. The tories have always had pro-EU members and eurosceptics. By burning the bridges with the EU, there goes a reason for party discord.

6) I don't think any political party wants a referendum where it's not gunning for a particular result. No, I'm not suggesting electoral fraud.

7) At face value, it isn't even vaguely logical that a political party runs a referendum, then the members who campaigned for the winning side all step away from the result and let the other side implement the result of it, and the other side dedicate themselves to implementing the result without question despite the fact that every verifiable claim of brexit has been debunked. It's like saying, "oh dear, I think I've been scammed, shall I give the scammer all my money anyway? Ok then".

A key aspect to keep in mind is that both this and the US election were pretty close. Relatively few people voting one way instead of the other would've tipped the scales enough to not be talking about this now.

Brexit basically came down to hubris. Cameron thought there was no way british people are this stupid. You might say the same for us.

 

[mikeymikec]

Brexit basically came down to hubris. Cameron thought there was no way british people are this stupid. You might say the same for us.

In that case, he should have milked (what would have been) the easy victory for what it was worth by putting all of his energy into dismantling the leave campaign's arguments. The same goes for other high-ranking remainers, such as the current PM.

If the tory party's position was pro-EU, then surely the leave campaign could have easily been sabotaged leaving only the loon Farage at the wheel of a sinking ship.

To assert that it came down to hubris is to basically label the tories as being so mind-bogglingly stupid that they couldn't see the momentum that the leave campaign was generating, while the remain campaign didn't make any headway, nor did it change tactics at any point. While I don't think much of the tory party, I don't think they're that stupid. They've been the government in the UK for a good portion of my life.

I also think that the tory party are scared out of their wits of UKIP because UKIP threatens to take a way a chunk of the crusty tory supporters' support, the nostalgic types who yearn for the pre-EU days where everyone in the UK laughed and played with gumdrop smiles. It's why the tories have been increasingly anti-immigrant in the years leading up to the referendum. It makes no sense for them to suddenly think that the remain result was going to be an easy slam dunk after all that.

While I think there are striking similarities in brexit, the US election and the upcoming French election (being faith in mainstream politics that has been pushed almost to its limit, then comes along an "anti-establishment" voting position), I think that Clinton's difficulty with the US election was nothing like the tories with the referendum.

 

[agent00f]

In that case, he should have milked (what would have been) the easy victory for what it was worth by putting all of his energy into dismantling the leave campaign's arguments. The same goes for other high-ranking remainers, such as the current PM.

If the tory party's position was pro-EU, then surely the leave campaign could have easily been sabotaged leaving only the loon Farage at the wheel of a sinking ship.

To assert that it came down to hubris is to basically label the tories as being so mind-bogglingly stupid that they couldn't see the momentum that the leave campaign was generating, while the remain campaign didn't make any headway, nor did it change tactics at any point. While I don't think much of the tory party, I don't think they're that stupid. They've been the government in the UK for a good portion of my life.

I also think that the tory party are scared out of their wits of UKIP because UKIP threatens to take a way a chunk of the crusty tory supporters' support, the nostalgic types who yearn for the pre-EU days where everyone in the UK laughed and played with gumdrop smiles. It's why the tories have been increasingly anti-immigrant in the years leading up to the referendum. It makes no sense for them to suddenly think that the remain result was going to be an easy slam dunk after all that.

Hubris clouds the mind. At the time of Cameron's decision brexit seemed impossible. UKIP was still a relatively small movement, and a failed vote was supposed to shut them up.

I also don't get the sense that Cameron is a particularly charismatic politician. Consider how effective Clinton was at shutting down populist demagoguery.

 

[mikeymikec]

Hubris clouds the mind. At the time of Cameron's decision brexit seemed impossible. UKIP was still a relatively small movement, and a failed vote was supposed to shut them up.

UKIP picked up ten million votes in the last election. If the intention of the referendum was to shut UKIP up, then the lack of anything in the remain campaign still makes no sense. To liken it to the US election for the moment, it would be like thinking that it didn't occur to Clinton at any point of her campaign that Trump posed a formidable threat. While I'm sure that some stereotypical tin-pot dictator who is high on coke most of the time could make such a howling error, I don't think it's even vaguely plausible that the tories or Clinton could have made such a mistake. A politician almost by definition regards power and influence as currency.

I also don't get the sense that Cameron is a particularly charismatic politician.

I don't think charisma is the problem: he won 1.5 - 2 elections before the referendum. Farage is similar to Trump in that the shit that comes out of his mouth is hair-raising at times, but Farage lacks the utter obliviousness of Trump and his "bull in a china shop" approach. Farage is a wannabe politician, complete with the typical weak spine. Trump is in many ways the opposite of Farage. I don't think Cameron would have any problems shutting down Farage's stupid ideas, but once Farage has been made a fool of on one topic, he tends to run with his tail between his legs rather than doubling-down and shouting it louder like Trump typically would. For example, Farage once advocated, as a means of addressing government debt (in billions) by saving "£10m" on barring immigrants with HIV from NHS treatment. Nicola Sturgeon figuratively put one between his eyes by likening his proposal to leaving HIV sufferers to die in the streets, and Farage promptly dropped openly advocating the idea like a hot potato. Admittedly I don't think Cameron would have gone for that kind of emotional response, but there's probably half a dozen legitimate ways of pissing all over an idea like that.

 

[agent00f]

UKIP picked up ten million votes in the last election. If the intention of the referendum was to shut UKIP up, then the lack of anything in the remain campaign still makes no sense.

I don't think charisma is the problem; he won 1.5 - 2 elections before the referendum. Farage is similar to Trump in that the shit that comes out of his mouth is hair-raising at times, but Farage lacks the utter obliviousness of Trump and his "bull in a china shop" approach. Farage is a wannabe politician, complete with the typical weak spine. Trump is in many ways the opposite of Farage. I don't think Cameron would have any problems shutting down Farage's stupid ideas, but once Farage has been made a fool of on one topic, he tends to run with his tail between his legs rather than doubling-down and shouting it louder like Trump typically would. For example, Farage once advocated, as a means of addressing government debt (in billions) by saving "£10m" on barring immigrants with HIV from NHS treatment. Nicola Sturgeon figuratively put one between his eyes by likening his proposal to leaving HIV sufferers to die in the streets, and Farage promptly dropped openly advocating the idea like a hot potato. Admittedly I don't think Cameron would have gone for that kind of emotional response, but there's probably half a dozen legitimate ways of pissing all over an idea like that.

I'm just pointing out what their intention was. Seemingly, much like you, they were reasoning about the situation in informed rational terms. If we've learned anything from these elections, that's the opposite of some of the consequential electorate.

 

[mikeymikec]

Gah! How come you're responding when AT thinks you're offline! It makes editing my posts problematic

(I probably should get out of that habit - ps - this is an edit)

 

[agent00f]

Gah! How come you're responding when AT thinks you're offline! It makes editing my posts problematic

(I probably should get out of that habit - ps - this is an edit)

Libtard conspiracy.