Remainer 'moral superiority'

[coffeeaddict]

I voted Remain but I dithered and I can see both sides of the argument. (Am I the only one?! Everyone else seems to be so polarised.)

What gets me, especially when I've read discussions on here, is all the very vociferous Remainers who talk as though they have a claim to the moral high ground.

I find the accusation that Brexiteers are 'racist' particularly weird. Europe is mostly white like us. How does race play a card? If anything, letting our borders open to all and every European (majority white) means necessarily less room for other people from different countries and therefore different races.

In fact, what is the EU? A band of rich, predominantly white countries banding together to be more powerful. Fine, this might be best for our trade and prosperity. It might be pragmatic. We might like feeling we could go and live in Spain one day. But that's not the same as being morally 'better'.

But a lot of Remainers behave as though they are inherently 'virtuous' and Brexit is inherently 'evil.'

I don't get it.

butterflysugarbaby you aren't helping your case at all - it was quiet an interesting, calm and respectful thread until you rocked up armed with your insults and smiley faces - no need to attack people - maybe calmy join in and share your ideas?

"I wouldn't say that the vast majority of the electorate supported the Iraq war,"

They certainly did. This is one of the most revisionist things ever. There was a majority in support of the war, despite big opposition.

People certainly did vote on a whole host of other issues other than Europe at the referendum.

Op, I know that it was not an easy decision and that Leave did have useful arguments. But I concluded that they were more useful to make in the EU and not by leaving the EU.
And the racist shit is something I could never get into bed with.
All this silly tantrumming and blaming Remain supporters when it doesn't go the way that was planned is something I wouldn't tolerate from a toddler.

@bellinisurge I'm enjoying the irony though

I meant at the time the chance was given to vote against the party who put it into action.

yougov.co.uk/news/2015/06/03/remembering-iraq/

2005 - believing that the war was wrong - about 42%.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4519869.stm

Green Party vote share - 1.07%.

" I just do not agree with you at all that because of the Referendum Party's only getting 2-3% of the vote, it follows that the rest of the voters supported closer types with the EU. "

Despite both main parties at the 1997 having this clearly stated as part of their manifestos and the Tories having signed up to Maastricht?

Special the EEC was and is a great concept Had it remained purely as a trading bloc, rather than morphed into the behemoth it has become, with its own foreign policy, embassies, civil service, military staff, parliament etc, then perhaps the referendum would never have arisen.

The direction of travel of the EU in its current form is not one I wish to be part of, hence I voted Leave.

Tbh I think remainers have the moral high ground because they aren't the ones who caused the shitstorm we're in right now.

@Pause3FuhFuh . I am as well .

"2005 - believing that the war was wrong - about 42%."

Two years into the war.

In 2003 the same article says that 54% thought it was right and only 38% thought it was wrong.

Thats a majority and the article clearly agrees with my point about revisionism. People don't remember that the support for the Iraq war PRIOR to invasion was far larger. Even in 2005 it was still backed more than against.

Now its the other way round.

It will be the same for brexit.

The moral high-ground is useless, isn't it, when you're trying to get cancer meds.

So many brexitteers here, but not one has solutions to the problems ahead, or good news to share? It's hard to understand.

It doesn't matter what the support for the Iraq War was in 2003. There was no election that year.

What matters is the level of support in 2005, when there was an election. The level of opposition to the Iraq War is massive compared to the minuscule voting support for the party whose manifesto proposed pulling U.K. troops out.

It is therefore wrong to suggest that there's a link between how people voted and how they felt about that issue. So it's disingenuous to claim that because the support for the referendum Party was so little, that there was massive support for closer ties with Europe.

And, sorry, I misquoted my own link.

In 2005, 42% believed the war was RIGHT. The figure for believing it was wrong was higher.

In 2005 there was an election.

And the majority of voters STILL supported the Iraq war.

Its worth noting that the Lib dems won 11 more seats and 3.7% of the vote having opposed it.

Despite both main parties at the 1997 having this clearly stated as part of their manifestos and the Tories having signed up to Maastricht?

I feel that you are proving my point here - that there was no realistic alternative to vote for.

This thread, really, is another squirrel.

The country is essentially in a state of headless-chicken-esque unpreparedness and hurtling towards god-only-knows-what chaos (or, as we now call it, the Sunlit Uplands).

So the thing we really want everyone to focus on is, um, grumpy words?

And the majority of voters STILL supported the Iraq war.

It's your turn to cite a link.

"that there was no realistic alternative to vote for."

But if people had felt that strongly about it the Referendum party would have done better.

Your first point was who could you vote for. There was a party that stood, campaigned and had candidates in the vast majority of seats on that very issue at the time you were identifying.

I was using your quoted data back at you.

However you are correct.

But there was a party that people could vote for against the war, and they did in 2005. the Lib dems gained 3.7% of the vote, far more than the referendum party did in 97

Brexitters must still believe wonderful things are coming our way - despite Ireland/despite job-losses/ financial services/despite food rotting/despite the threat to cancer supplies etc, etc.

Why won't they tell us? It must be pretty special to be worth all that.

Your first point was that if people had disapproved of closer ties with the EU, they had the chance to vote that way. They didn't, so we can take it that they agreed.

My point is that this is disingenuous because there was no party to vote for that had a cat in hell's chance of getting into government.

And I can see that, as with every single issue on every single political thread, there's going to be no changing of anyone's mind. So now that we're back to square one, I'm going to leave it there.

No referendum party in my constituency. If there had been, I would've voted for it.

Sorry, my bad - I mistyped when I described my data.