Why don't Brexiteers value the economy or peace above leaving?

[newnameyawn]

Although I firmly disagree, I can empathise with the reasons why some people voted Leave in the first referendum, but now we know more, WHY do they still support Brexit?

Every time the prospect of Brexit takes a tiny hit, the pound surges. We take a tiny step towards leaving and the pound crashes. Bank of England, CoC, and business all in agreement UK would be worse off outside EU. Why do Brexiteers want that?? I genuinely don't get why they would want their children and grand children to be worse off.

Also, why don't they care about peace in NI above leaving the EU? And why don't they care about the reasons the EU was formed after WW2 to prevent that ever happening again on the continent of Europe??

I suspect for most of them it is an emotional decision, not a practical one. I.e. would you stay with your millionaire husband for the money if you fell out of love?

Most people would divorce and live with less because we are ruled by out emotions and not practicalities.

Brexiteers know we will be financially screwed, but they believe the UK can cope on its own, and it's 'better in the long run' to be free and single. No amount of logic or rational argument about the consequences can change that.

Regarding peace in Europe, it really does strike me as fantastic nonsense that us leaving the EU could cause military conflict, considering we didn't even begin the process of joining the EC until 1975. NATO is a far bigger factor in maintaining peace.

Well there's a pretty immediate threat to peace in Northern Ireland? So I don't think it's that far fetched to be honest.

Because racism.

I honestly believe it all boils down to racism, whatever slant they put on it. Little Englander mentality, sadly.

Brexit is fuelled by nationalism. Some brexiteers cheer on the rise of nationalism in other EU countries. The last time nationalism ran amoke in Europe it didn’t end well.

Well there's a pretty immediate threat to peace in Northern Ireland? So I don't think it's that far fetched to be honest.

I believe that's a separate question. If you disagree, would you kindly provide a rough outline of how you see a dispute over the NI border resulting in armed conflict between nations in Europe?

Yes, also the delusion of empire and being better than everybody else.

The last time nationalism ran amoke in Europe it didn’t end well.

The other aspect to this is that the last time nationalism ran amok in Europe, it was fueled by the perception that a group of European nations collectively forced unfair policies upon other European nations.

Agree with ghost. We're "special" and Johnny Foreigner needs to jolly well kowtow to us.

Delusions of grandeur, ignorance and immaturity.

Brexit has strengthened the resolve of the EU (see how they backed Ireland over the backstop) so I wouldn’t worry about “unfair policies” or a brexit domino effect that brexiteers don’t even crow about anymore.

I'm not sure why you regard NI as a separate issue. It is a conflict between nations in Europe surely?

As others have suggested, I think the rise of nationalism in Europe and the shunning of supranational co-operative bodies has fairly clear historical parallels.

Beyond that no, I'm not sure I, or anyone else, is in a position to accurately predict what will cause WWIII. I'm not why that makes my concerns invalid.

I'd rather have highly qualified workers from India than the drop outs and unemployable of European countries.
Nothing to do with racism.
Anyway, Mercel will be out soon and Italy will stick the knife into the EU monetary straight jacket.
Fun and games if the European spring comes to pass.

It is a conflict between nations in Europe surely?

A military conflict between nations? If we're counting insurgent actions, there have been plenty of those in Europe, both before and after the formation of the EC.

Beyond that no, I'm not sure I, or anyone else, is in a position to accurately predict what will cause WWIII.

I'm not looking for a guaranteed sequence of events that will happen, just a possible way in which a military conflict between nations across Europe could arise that even partly matches the scale of WWII as a result of Britain leaving the EU.

I'm not why that makes my concerns invalid.

Currently there's a lack of at least one credible (prophetic isn't required) mechanism in which the proposed factor (Brexit) is at least partially contributory. As an example, you might claim that a particular London mayoral candidate will result in your car smelling of fish. This is, in itself, an unfounded (or, as you put it, invalid, a term I don't quite agree with) concern. However, if you could point to that candidate having historically opposed the Thames Barrier and calling for its destruction and then explain that you often park your car just off Savoy Street (near Embankment), which might result in your car being flooded and ending up smelling of fish, that would be a valid concern. The fact that you cannot accurately predict where you will park your car on a given day, or exactly when said candidate will smash the Thames Barrier if elected doesn't invalidate your concern.

What is the point in everyone endlessly banging on about how shit the other side is?

Because it's more important "to give the establishment a kicking."
:( Plenty voted Leave for that reason.

@Gronky it's not a separate question. I directly asked about peace in NI. It's highly pertinent.

Because it's more important "to give the establishment a kicking."
:( Plenty voted Leave for that reason.

Yes exactly. This I empathise with. Millions of communities (in England outside London) forgotten and underinvested in and the first chance to stick two fingers up to Cameron and his Etonian cronies they did it. I get that impulse. But how, after all the facts have emerged do they think it's still a good idea?

So - a question for the Brexiteers. Hypothetically, if there was a choice between these two options:

A: billions of pounds ringfenced and pumped into underinvested leave voting English towns, into industry, employment opportunities, community services, youth and elderly services, infrastructure, transport and culture. But we remain in the EU.

Or

B: no extra investment. We leave the EU. Economy crashes.

which would you choose and why??

it's not a separate question. I directly asked about peace in NI.

Also, why don't they care about peace in NI above leaving the EU?

And why don't they care about the reasons the EU was formed after WW2 to prevent that ever happening again on the continent of Europe??

These look like two separate questions to me. The insurgent actions of non-state actors are a very different issue from entire nations battling other nations. Additionally, the Troubles continued long after Britain joined the EEC.

I'd rather have highly qualified workers from India than the drop outs and unemployable of European countries

Oh ffs, way to sound like an idiot.

EU immigrants are net contributors to the economy and contribute, on average, more than immigrants from elsewhere.

Just a possible way in which a military conflict between nations across Europe could arise that even partly matches the scale of WWII as a result of Britain leaving the EU

UK leaving EU weakens the institutions of europe and does scupper any form of EU defence force, if Trump wins a 2nd term (likely) and carries out his threats to tone down US involvement in NATO, then given the swing to the right by the UK and as we also always support the USA, we will standby if europe then becomes prey to a resurgent Russia, who won't directly invade but will interfere, either directly as they did in Georgia/Ukraine or via cyber warfare.

Europe has rivalries that have been held back by trade and the political institutions of the EU,
To see how wars in europe form, pick any century in the last 2000 years and have read up?

Putin wants Brexit, indeed may well have helped to fund it....why?

In 1988, this happened in NI, oh how short our memories are.

www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/priest-reveals-details-of-soldiers-murders-1.1321655

Is it a "very different issue" for the civilians caught up in the violence?

And I don't think think anyone is linking entry into the EEC with the end of the Troubles, merely recognising that the open borders essential to the Good Friday Agreements were predicated upon EU membership and the real threat to stability posed by a hard border.

The other aspect to this is that the last time nationalism ran amok in Europe, it was fueled by the perception that a group of European nations collectively forced unfair policies upon other European nations

Jesus Christ! how the fuck can any anyone draw a parallel to the Treaty of Versailles and being members of the EEC/EU??? which has seen us go from the Sick Man of Europe to the worlds 5th or 6th richest economy?

{Regarding peace in Europe, it really does strike me as fantastic nonsense that us leaving the EU could cause military conflict,}

It doesn't and wouldn't. Churchill was one of the architects of a 'united Europe' principally through trade so that be default heads of governments would be talking between themselves. An acceptance that some countries 'specialised' in their activities was probably another consideration. Germany known for heavy and precision engineering. France less engineering but food production and so on.
There will probably be a form of WW3 at some point, but between European countries is very unlikely as there are far more serious reasons for conflict elsewhere.

{*Because it's more important "to give the establishment a kicking."}
Many countries try this but few succeed by a frontal attack.
Membership of the EU is hardly relevant to the case. If a government wished to disadvantage it's citizens there is only a limited amount that the EP can do as all members are sovereign. For countries aspiring to join the EU it has to meet certain standards. Turkey would fail on human rights for example. Greece got in but the financial details were 'cooked' a bit so it has struggled, although it is recovering a bit at the moment but it was hit very hard.