So, ten years of Brexit

[MsAmerica]

And according to what I heard on the morning news, a majority of Brits regret it.

Were most of you here originally for or against?

It seemed dumb to me, but I wasn't particularly well-informed.

I was very much against it.

My parents voted for it because they were upset that ‘the fishermen had to change their labels on their fish’.

Yes, indeed.

Ten years, and I still have no idea what the fuck they were on about. But I don’t really eat fish.

I am yet to see one benefit to it I am also yet to hear even one sensible reason people had who were for it, whether I agree or not

Excuse my ignorance, but would pro-Brexit be considered a "conservative" point of view?

I ask because your post puts me in mind of what I'm experiencing as a liberal in America, that Trump supporters tend to be unable to say anything rational/sensible.

It’s the moment we lose our minds (collectively).

I hate David Cameron. He didn’t create the division but he gave it a name and legitimacy.

Oh, but it hasn’t been done properly, don’ cha know? even though Boris campaigned on an oven ready deal that didn’t exist and an even harder Brexit (if it was even possible) could only ever make things worse.

Farage stood down over 300 of his candidates in the Brexit party to ensure a conservative win so Boris could deliver. It was quite clear that he was happy with the ‘deal’ that was going to pass. He’s only blaming others now because it’s convenient. It also meant that if he could get someone else to take the blame for it, then he could pop back up 5 years later unscathed, blame someone else and promise unicorns and rainbows.

It was only ever about enriching Farage, making us weaker and more vulnerable militarily and more dependent on countries outside the EU for trade.
Oh, and increasing immigration to manufacture a new scapegoat.

Cameron committed treason as far as I’m concerned, selfish prick.

I was an am against Brexit but I am blame the people they voted for it with what little brain cells they collectively had

To be fair, many of those in what used to be called the red wall seats who did vote for brexit have got exactly what they wanted. Which was less competition for jobs, and higher wages as a result.

Builders, electricians, plumbers, anyone on minimum wage is much better off post Brexit because they earn much more money as a direct result of supply of labour being squeezed. And that was their main complaint…huge numbers of people willing to work for less, driving wages down. In the case of the trades because there’s a shortage of skills which has continued those higher wages have remained. In the case of minimum wage jobs, post Brexit most retailers, factories, distribution centres, agricultural/horticultural businesses had to pay above minimum wage to attract staff. Unheard of for years. Of course, minimum/living wage has now caught up, and increased taxes have depressed growth so for them the premium and rate of increase has been eroded.

I think it’s a key reason why Labour was so unwilling to actively campaign for remain; they were then, as they are again now, torn between what they wanted to be which is fundamentally an elite, metropolitan middle class party, and where their support came from, which was from the lower paid and public sector workers. The trouble is, many of those lower paid jobs aren’t lower paid any more, and there are a lot of people who feel abandoned by Labour, disillusioned by Conservatives, disconnected from the Liberals…so Farage and his oiks have actively targeted them :(

i cannot know what life would be like if the vote had been to stay in, so I don't waste my time regretting the outcome of the referendum.
I don't think that I ever believe that there's only ever one person or circumstance which leads to an outcome. I have heard people blame Nigel Farage and David Cameron and I think that's simplistic. There was a complicated build-up of reasons why people voted for out.
It was a democratic vote. To my surprise the verdict was to come out, and whether you liked it or not that's what we had to do. Some MPs behaved appallingly because they didn't like the result.
I don't know to what extent the Suez Crisis or the 1944 Education Act changed things for every separate person in this country and I can't speak for each person's experience of life after the Brexit vote either.
If it's made a difference to my life I haven't time nor inclination to keep wondering why. People love to BLAME. Get over it and get on.

I don’t think the labels work the same way here as in the US, though because of US-led social media they are bleeding in over here in quite a confusing way (cf a post the other day describing MN as ‘absurdly liberal’, by which I think they meant left wing, only that doesn’t really exactly map over either).

I think populist is a better description of the Leave vote. Even though populism was originally a US term as well… I still think populist versus ?managerial is a better way of thinking about it.

So though I’m pretty Remain, I can see as per the pp above that a lot of Leave voters were voting for upward pressure on wages, which has happened. That group perhaps saw the EU as a bosses/managerial project (so more a left wing drive if anything - there is definitely a longstanding anti EU Lexit opinion, the Labour Party were anti EU a few decades ago). That was a populist element too.

That’s mixed in with a lot of anti immigration fervour, some of which has a rational element, some of which is straightforwardly racist, and all of which IMO is populist. The outcome of Brexit initially has been huge surges in nonEU immigration due partly to global events we don’t control, partly due to global events we participate in, and partly because visas were one of the few things people wanted that we could offer in new trade agreements.

Governments in Europe (not just ours) have spent decades blaming the EU for everything they could while taking the credit for anything good. Now the UK government is nakedly exposed as actually responsible for things (despite efforts of Daily Express headline writers still attempting to blame the EU), hence the slide deck of revolving prime ministers.

I heard on the Not Another One Podcast that though financial organisations were Remain at the time, they would now not wish to return to the EU. I didn’t know that and it surprised me: I have no way of verifying this.

I was, am and probably always will be a Remainer. I know opinionated people who are Leavers. Several are very bright. Their arguments seem to be symptomatic of a particular conspiracy theory type of mentality

I also know some highly intelligent people who voted Leave and who have not changed their minds.

There seems to have no agreed objective assessment of the effects on different aspect of work in business, the economy and society as a whole.

I’ve listened to Steve Richard’s talk about the referendum on his Rock Island Roll Politics podcast and it does seem to have been a massive and complacent error of judgment and of strategy.

However, I also vividly remember that in the years leading up to the referendum, journalists always went on and on and on at various Prime Ministers, asking if we were going to have a referendum about remaining in the EU. No one seems to remember that this but it was such a repetitive and predictable question interviews.

It should’ve been handled and planned for much better. You can’t go on having referendums every 10 years or so, but there was a solid groundswell of public opinion that first, kept going on about “we never voted for the EU we just voted for an economic union, the EEC”, untrue img, and, secondly, “the people should have their say“.

It seemed dumb to me - I was particularly well informed.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2662474-To-wish-we-could-get-some-decent-advice-on-whether-to-vote-to-Brexit-or-Bremain?page=7

Ten years ago. In answer to
I want to vote, and vote with conviction.

I posted the following response

RedToothBrush · 16/06/2016 13:41
I think if you are Leave its probably more clear cut.

If you are Remain I think it tends to be an on-balance argument.

Which I think is making it hard for some people as they aren't in the later camp, but they are struggling with the on-balance argument with lots of confusing information. They are not 'YAY GO EU!!! WWWWOOOO!'. Its difficult to muster that excitement. In true I think its disingenuous to suggest you can be that excited about the EU.

The EU is flawed. Its a big monster. But there are big friendly monsters and big horrible monsters.

Leave is not an argument based on 'facts'. Its more of an 'outlook' based more on belief. Its stupid to try and look for them. There is no plan. There is no argument really apart from the propaganda slogan of 'Take Back Control' which in fairness is a very strong and positive one, especially when it sits next to the shitty weakness of the Remain camp's propaganda. What does it actually mean in reality though?

The truth: Not a lot. Its left deliberately open to interpretation, as that means people attach their own meaning to it - and therefore convictions and beliefs. Its to empower the person reading it. But there is little real substance behind it.

'To take back control', in life requires a detailed clear vision and strategy. Yet its nowhere to be seen, and Leave are quite happy to do this as it offers them the opportunity to promise the world (or glittering generalities as the technique is know). What how many times the phrase 'Take Back Control' is going to be repeated in the next week. Its an interesting game for Question Time Viewing!

Then there's the reality. Article 50, which is the mechanism to leave the EU, is heavily weighed against anyone leaving (its therefore not anti-UK). It puts us in a difficult position to make good on the promises of taking control, especially since there are French and German elections in the same period. Us leaving is likely to be met with hostility, even at cost to themselves, to try and prevent others leaving and getting similar 'concessions'. We will, instead of being in control, be the political football of the Germans and French. Who have no obligation to agree anything. If after two years there is no agreement, then we get thrown back into poor terms.

Then you have to consider the implications of politics domestically. I don't think there is any consensus on what the UK actually wants. Its very vague. Before we even get to the negotiation table we will have to settle this. I can't see there being much will to do this or much agreement.

Oh, and as for taking control. We'll get control of Sangatte alright. Only in Folkestone.

I might feel differently if there was a plan either within the Brexit camp or the Remain camp. Instead we have lots of competing and contradictory arguments.

If you are looking for facts over outlook, then I would go Remain. Lots of facts (of varying quality and bias and propaganda) but there are facts. Whether you choose to trust them - and their sources - is another matter. There is a definite split along these lines.

I think Remain are doing a shit campaign. They don't get it. They haven't been honest, and they have tried to scare people instead of just going with what the EU is.

On balance the EU offer us security and stability. Boring as hell but undervalued. If the EU did go tits up, then we would be sucked in regardless. Better to do it with others, in those circumstances. Its more likely to be controlled then. Movement of people is going to be a problem in or out due to a global population that is growing. We are better dealing with those problems on an international basis with people we are on good terms with rather than have just pissed off. Likewise, trying to get back tax from international corporation and tax havens - otherwise it will encourage an every man for himself mentality in the finance world which we have been chipping away at, albeit slowly. Then there's works and human rights. Deregulation will chip away at these. Its not a good thing. It seems to be fair game to talk about the EU in twenty or thirty years. I think its fair game to talk about workers and human rights in twenty or thirty years too.

Then there's this: The referendum looks set to be cut along age lines with the young wanting to stay in. If Brexit win, we loose a generation to political engagement as they feel they have not been listened to. The implications of this are wide ranging. It means few will take up the much needed call to get involved themselves locally. That means they don't get head. It means career politicians will dominate even more. I fear this perhaps more than anything.

Brexit is about trying to draw lines of division to me. Its about trying to other, and trying to use the word 'I' a lot. Rather than looking at what shared grievances we have and what we are all pissed off at, and using that to try and find solutions.

Even in terms of immigration, the them and us thing in terms of integration, requires both sides of the fence to reach out to each other. That's those who identify as White British making a positive effort as much as those coming over here and taking on British culture. Instead Brexit is driving a massive wedge in that. I'm scared some of the strength of negative feeling, so why would anyone from a none white British background feel better about it? It only adds more fuel to the fire.

Finally, there's Scotland and NI and the issues of their sovereignty and safety. I grew up fearing NI terrorism. I don't want to go back to that. I don't want to loose Scotland. I didn't want them to go last year. I still don't. I don't see how England is stronger without either NI and Scotland. I don't want to see friends who are Irish and NI and work across the border area have to make huge decisions.

I am PROUD to be British. I am starting the resent the fact that, I can not be British European and still be proud. Cultures do not disappear with the redrawing of lines on maps. Cultures flourish with trade and the bonds that brings. What makes someone proud to be Welsh? They have managed to maintain and indeed extend that in recent years, whilst still being part of the union. Ditto, Scotland and NI.

I have friends who are European and I see them as every bit as equal. The Little England nationalism is tiresome, and inaccurate anyway. I reject it.

Anyway, MY decision, is not anyone else's decision. But that's where I am. That's why I'm frustrated. I do have certain concerns but they are not going to get fixed in the way people think. Nor is it a decision from being scared.

It boils down to this to me. You can't just overthrown the government - domestic or the EU - with two fingers up, unless you have a credible alternative waiting in the wings with a credible alternative to fill the void.

Where is that? Where is that really?

I just hear a loud echoing silence to that question

And then as a follow up:

RedToothBrush · 16/06/2016 14:51
BOTH sides are using quite black propaganda. I think that Leave is being a little more clever and positive in the way they are doing it.

Historically, studies tend to show that the public favour positive messages so I'm not surprised its going down better. It may well win it for them.

It is detracting from what people really have to choose between though.

I don't find that terribly democratic in approach to be honest.

To me democracy is not just about layers of civil service and our ability to vote. Its also about how politicians decide to manipulate voters. Democratic debate should rest on getting to the heart of issues and coming up with policies as potential solutions to problems so that the public can make an educated and informed decision.

Do you think that's what we are getting?

And we are all whinging about the EU? And some see Leave as some sort of saviour from this?

Ten years on, I think both posts hold up well. They aren't completely right, but I certainly saw the political vacuum and instability incoming!

The whole thing was a nonsense. Politics in the last ten years hasn't been about management of problems. We haven't sorted to identify problems and then think of solutions. We've sort to think of an ideological solution and then framed a political debate around the solution and personality politics rather than looking at the problem properly. And then we've wondered why problems haven't got fixed.

This is where Andy Burnham enters.

Ironically anyone who was paying attention a few years back in 2019 will have noticed that Boris Johnson election manifesto was a total rip off of Andy Burnhams Greater Manchester plan. And it was hugely popular in the North of England in the red wall/blue wall seats. But Johnson didn't understand the problems and didn't actually follow through. He had just copied Burnham's plan because he knew it was popular so didn't 'get it' and that was a major problem - political out of touchness continues to a major on going theme.

And here we stand ten years after Brexit with Burnham almost certainly likely to be PM. It's very ironic given the course of politics.

Will Burnham be the one to turn it around? I don't know. He is popular but he hasn't delivered on everything he said either. But he has delivered a number of significant political goals which are hugely popular too which has given him more time and space than most politicians are afforded. This is a huge asset to have behind him.

He will have to have policies and new ideas. I saw an interview with him a couple of days ago and it's was refreshing. No blame game politicking. It was heavily focused on discussing policy ideas and there was a certain level of detail which frankly I've not seen uttered by a politician in far too long.

I'm not sure Burnham is the solution. I don't agree with him on everything. HOWEVER, there's a number of significant points here, which stem directly from the vacuum created by Brexit which form a pattern and look like they vaguely align.

The population is looking now for solutions to problems, not hot air and rhetoric. They want stability not personality problems. They want politicians in touch with what's happening in their neighborhood. Burnham coming in directly from local politics in this sense is very much a refreshing thing in its own right because he is completely outside the Westminster Bubble and when I was out talking to people, including many strangers, between 2016 - 2018 about Brexit this was a universal theme that I felt came up from both leavers and remainders, both rejoiners, second referendumer and hard stay outers. This is your pot hole voters. This is your twice weekly bin issues. This is your local planning and services. Etc etc.

Burnhams track record is patchy if you are impartial. But he arguably has a much better insight into these type of issues and inward looking voters which is absolutely crucial. Voters actually don't really care too much about Brexit on a fundamental level as long as their day to day lives aren't affected too much. Brexit happened because of a decline in areas and living standards for a sizable portion of the country - this is reflected in real life reasons people voted for Brexit (only 7% of the electorate voted either leave or remain based on actual issues relating to the EU - most voted based on wider political issues or a lack of understanding about the EU. This figure is the most astonishing of all the ones I saw throughout the long running Brexit Threads on MN). Unless we actively recognise this crucial point now, we will be massively distracted by new political propaganda narratives. This point is the ONLY point that really matters. Focus on it.

A clear majority don't give a fuck about the other stuff as long as Burnham stays focused and on point with these type of on the ground issues which need workable solutions rather than stupid political fudges. It's not about Brussels. And I'd argue it never really was in the first place.

I will wish Burnham good luck. He's going to bloody need it and I don't think it will be remotely easy for him even given the above.