Who else sees the parallels between "nasty right wing GC" slurs and "nasty right wing Brexiter" slurs?

[ConsiderTheLobster]

If you're GC, you know that a vocal majority within certain liberal left circles will denounce you as a right wing bigot. You know that you're actually GC because you've looked into this deeply and are trying to protect vulnerable people (women, non-conforming children, and trans people).

If you voted Brexit, you know that a vocal majority within certain liberal left circles will denounce you as a right wing bigot. You know that you're sceptical of the EU because it constitutes a corporate-favouring trading block, poses barriers to nationalisation of services such as railways, has deeply racist immigration policies (permitting free movement of predominantly white Europeans whilst restricting the movement of others), keeps people in many non-EU (e.g., African) countries locked into unfavourable trade deals, and reduces the influence of genuine democracy.

If you're GC and you work at a university, in the NHS or in left-leaning media, you're scared to say so. If you voted Brexit and you work at a university, in the NHS or in left-leaning media, you're scared to say so.

There are of course some genuine bigots who oppose self ID because they're transphobic. And there are genuine bigots who voted Brexit because they are racist. In each case, these are the narratives peddled by certain media about, respectively, all GCs, and all Brexit-supporters.

So - how many of us GCs still berate the nasty fascist Brexiters?

If you want to discuss your pro-Brexit views, there are plenty of welcoming forums - eg the Daily Mail and Yahoo message pages.

If you want to discuss your pro-Brexit views, there are plenty of welcoming forums - eg the Daily Mail and Yahoo message pages.

If you want to discuss your anti Brexit views go on the Westminsters thread in the Brexit column. No one will disagree with you there.

Oh but @slitheringsnakes, we all want to talk to you about the EU, because you're so up for open-minded discussion.

PutYourBackIntoit complained that she was finding it hard to find like-minded people to discuss her anti-EU views with. Personally, I come across pro-Brexit ranting all the time, and I'm not even looking for Brexiters.
We've spent the last 4.5+ years discussing and trying to understand the views of Brexiters. I've been on the Westministenders thread that long. There has been a huge degree of patience towards Brexiters, a lot of effort put in to trying to understand their motives and problems. They've been asked to explain their views over and over again. It's very rare for any of them to offer up anything beyond nationalism, racism and a great willingness to be taken in by the lies of obviously unscrupulous characters such as Farage and Johnson - based on a sense of entitlement.
Even if you genuinely believed that Brexit would be better for the UK in some ways, why didn't you weigh up the pros and cons as a whole, and take into account the risk of getting an unscrupulous government? You saw who was behind Brexit. You had no right to lose the UK in a fun round of poker.

Slitheringsnakes I think the way in which you are choosing to have a conversation is proving my point quite well.

I will answer your questions though. No I do not regret my vote although I feel huge regret for the divisiveness the referendum caused.
Yes I would vote the same.
I justify taking a massive risk in voting leave as I think it was outweighed by the risks of remaining. For me accountability is everything. I perceive that I have more political empowerment now we are outside the EU.

The govt have nowhere to hide now, every issue we experience lies squarely at their doorstep, and since they rely on our votes they will have to work harder for us, rather than quite usefully be able to hide behind EU/UK smoke in mirrors.

I also saw first hand the devasting impact a developing country experienced by having cheap goods dumped on them from the EU, although I believe this is improving now.

Many make the argument that we would be better making changes from inside the EU, and I really respect this point of view, but even this was a risk. A vote in the hope that it would reform.

Both votes had risks and its disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
Can't you see that after this week?

I did not know the daily mail had threads but I'd like to offer you a cup of tea and a biscuit for your kind recommendation.

I'll answer your questions too, @slitheringsnakes.

Even if you genuinely believed that Brexit would be better for the UK in some ways, why didn't you weigh up the pros and cons as a whole, and take into account the risk of getting an unscrupulous government?

First, I didn't want to use my vote only on the basis of what would be "better for the UK". As I've said above, I was influenced by the trade deals the EU had with non-EU countries (notably in Africa). I was also mindful of the contrast between free movement within the EU and movement into the EU from, e.g., Syria. And the EU's treatment of Greece. I could go on, but we're all busy and I hope you get the gist: this is not just about the UK.

Second: yes, we have an unscrupulous government. But this was the only government we had the opportunity to leave under: this was a one-off opportunity to leave. I hate the current government, have never voted Tory and can never imagine voting Tory, and have almost zero political overlap with Johnson. I wish this could have been a Lexit, but at present it isn't. But outside the EU, there's at least the potential for more local reform.

This doesn't mean I can't see the problems with leaving, too. To be honest, I'm not and have never been fully convinced either way, and nearly spoiled my ballot. The only thing that surprises me is when people see this as clear cut.

This isn't just about the UK, and it isn't just about the next few years. It's bigger than that and, either way, it's uncertain and it's risky and it's complicated.

PutYourBackIntoit

Well said in all your posts. I come from a Labour background, applaud their early triumphs such as the welfare state, NHS. Under Blair and Brown they went on a different path, colluding with the ultra right wing Bush administration, going to war in Afghanistan, Iraq. There were a few Labour politicians I really had time for - Tony Benn, Bob Marshall Andrews, Dennis Skinner, Shirley Williams (before and after her Lib Dem days) and in a strange way, Ed Miliband. Now, I cannot think of any, amybe Rosie Duffield.
The EU is a kind of interfering super state, which has overstepped its remit. Why should it be able to dictate economic policy in individual countries? Why should it be able to sanction individual countries which refuse to introduce austerity measure budgets?
The following is an article on the possible causes of the referendum and the result.

www.euractiv.com/section/uk-europe/opinion/brexit-has-exposed-junckers-democratic-unaccountability/

*@CayrolBaaaskin, I really don't understand your points here. You may think other factors outweigh what I've said, and that is of course fine. But the points in the post are well established.

For instance, it's well established that the EU's restrictions on state intervention can pose barriers to nationalising of services by effectively forcing elements of privatisation. In terms of railways, what do you make of the Fourth Rail Package?

And are you denying that the EU permits free movement of (predominantly white) Europeans whilst imposing more restrictions on the movement of others into the EU?

Are you denying that trade deals involving the EU and non-EU states can be more beneficial to the EU than to the other (e.g., African) states?

Are you really saying that the EU is democratic?*

In response to your above questions:

The EU is democratic, yes. It has a democratically elected parliament and also its main decision making body is the democratically elected government of each member state.

There are no EU regulations which force privatisation. There are state aid rules which restrict state aid in certain circumstances. These are generally a good thing and ensure that competition across the EU is fair.

Trade deals by the EU and developing countries are mutually beneficial. That's why they are done - because they are better for both parties than the alternative.

As I said, the EU has no immigration policy at all. The citizens of each countries are permitted to move from one member state to another in certain circumstances (workers, professionals, etc). The immigration policy of each member state is a matter for that member state. Immigration from third countries is outside the scope of the EU treaties.

So yes, if you voted for Brexit on the basis of any of the things you claim above, you were misinformed. There are plenty of places you can share these misinformed views but yes, other places will be less tolerant of them.

also, op, the idea that Brexit is benefitting anyone else is dubious. Although there will likely be some trade diversion which will negatively affect the UK (that is goods and services that were produced in the UK will have their production moved to the EU) because of the affect of Brexit. So a small benefit to other member states which may or may not be offset by the disadvantage of the loss of the UK market.

EU member states (not all but some) lent Greece a substantial amount of money they could not borrow on the open market at rates they would not have got on the open market. Not sure why you think that's an issue.

of course, the EU is not perfect. But it is not a government at all. It is a group of countries, a super national organisation. If the reasons you give for voting for Brexit are untrue, is it really surprising that others think you are misinformed or that they are not the actual reasons you voted the way you did?

"As I said, the EU has no immigration policy at all"

Incorrect, the EU has article 45, which allows freedom of movement for all EU nationals, which means individual EU states can be sanctioned if they go against this.

ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=457

The EU is not democratic, Cameron knew this in 2014.

www.politico.eu/article/no-one-voted-for-mr-juncker/

Germany invited in ONE MILLION Syrian immigrants. While in the EU.

@andyoldlabour - the EU is democratic. Please provide any evidence of the contrary. Just saying you agree with David Cameron, is not evidence.

Free movement of people is not immigration policy. It is a right for each EU citizen to move to other member states. As to who actually becomes an EU citizen, that is entirely up to the member states. If any member state wished to have an entirely free system of immigration that is up to them. Or alternatively, if any member state has a very restrictive immigration policy, that is also up to them.

You can only become an EU citizen by becoming a citizen of a member state and the rules for that are entirely up to each member state. Even if you move as an EU citizen, any rights to take up citizenship in each member state are vastly different from one state to another. So again, the EU has no immigration policy. But there is a right of free movement for workers, etc based on the economic rationale of the treaties.

I have to say, slithering that your reference to pro-Brexit ranting made me smile, although possibly not in a way you intended.

www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/28/the-european-union-is-an-ongoing-disaster-for-africa

This is just a start, @CayrolBaaaskin. Reading around this (look further into the effects of the tariffs) shows how complicated it is. I don't pretend to understand all the complexities of the trade relations and their effects (I would be very surprised if you do, either). But you really don't have to look far to find some disturbing elements to the EU.

Your post, like all our posts, is full of opinion and interpretation. It would just be great if we could all be honest about that and respectful of each other's perspectives.

Good answers to my question thank you Zinco.

For example, for whether he EU is democratic... For me, the nature of the European Commission is not compatible with what we generally mean by democracy. There are democratic elements (e.g. elected MEPs). To me, that's not enough. To you, perhaps it is. For me, it's also fine that we disagree.

Free movement of people is not immigration policy. It is a right for each EU citizen to move to other member states. As to who actually becomes an EU citizen, that is entirely up to the member states. If any member state wished to have an entirely free system of immigration that is up to them. Or alternatively, if any member state has a very restrictive immigration policy, that is also up to them.

Which is to say, what used to be a question of immigration (say from Luxembourg to Poland) has been redefined so that now it is seen as a basic right of movement to be able to live and work in what are other nations. That is to say, these nations no longer have the ability to control that kind of movement. The fact that you've redefined immigration so it's not national but about the union notwithstanding.

This will also have a knock on effect to other types of immigration. If you have large numbers of migrant workers from other EU countries, that will affect how many you can take from elsewhere, so there is absolutely a sense of "preferring" the former, and some people really object to that. It's especially important to consider that one of the main purposes of this kind of easy movement is economic - it is good for capitalists as it keeps labour relatively cheap. It can also be a way for national governments and business to avoid investing in training.

It's problematic when you have movement of labour (or capital) but at the same time national governments are limited in what they can do in terms of fiscal policy to try and balance that.

The EU parliamentary election system that we had was more democratic than our own system for elections to Westminster, being a form of proportional representation rather than the ridiculous constituency-based FPTP that render most people's votes meaningless.

The net effect of Leaving is therefore to make our society less democratic, not more.

I used to thing PR would be better, but I'm much less sure that is the case now. I don't see particularly better outcomes from it where it is used, and I think it can actually reduce elections to a kind of referendum which is not a particularly good thing.

It would be better to look at the way that representatives are beholden to party affiliations.

This will also have a knock on effect to other types of immigration. If you have large numbers of migrant workers from other EU countries, that will affect how many you can take from elsewhere, so there is absolutely a sense of "preferring" the former, and some people really object to that. It's especially important to consider that one of the main purposes of this kind of easy movement is economic - it is good for capitalists as it keeps labour relatively cheap. It can also be a way for national governments and business to avoid investing in training.

Yes, @ChestnutStuffing

I keep coming back to this.

@ChestnutStuffing

I used to thing PR would be better, but I'm much less sure that is the case now. I don't see particularly better outcomes from it where it is used, and I think it can actually reduce elections to a kind of referendum which is not a particularly good thing.

It would be better to look at the way that representatives are beholden to party affiliations.

No, sorry but that one's a no brainer. Again like Labour and Tories, it comes down to what you're comparing it to. There are many forms of PR and obiously they're not all perfect, but our current system is an anti-democratic travesty. Leading parties usually need somewhere between 30-40% of the vote to have a "majority", and three times since world war 2 the party with the most votes has actually come second in terms of seats and the party that came second has governed instead! MOST of the country goes to the polls each election (or doesn't bother) knowing that their vote cannot possibly make any difference, because they're in a safe constituency one way or other, and each election is then decided by the same small minority of swing seats.

I don't know what you mean about outcomes but it's been extensively studied and found that countries with FPTP systems tend to return governments significantly to the right on most issues to the average opinion of the population.

This is what makes me laugh when people complain about the EU being undemocratic. At least they have actual real elections in which peoples' votes actually count.

I agree in one way, @FifteenToes. But we weren't given the option to vote out of the current ridiculous voting system. And as well as the democratic elements of the EU, there are some very opaque and undemocratic elements.