Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[Gazglum]

I'm looking at the situation and I'm becoming increasingly convinced that a lot of the leading brexit Tory MPs don't actually want to leave the EU. For them going against Cameron was simply a cynical jockeying for power within the party.

I agree. The trouble is, if we go to an election (which the leadership contenders are trying to avoid now), the party has to either split, or actually come out in favour of one thing or the other. Honestly, I think the MPs in parliament need to reshuffle themselves, the current party affiliations make no sense on this question.

[Mr. Cairo]

I've found myself becoming quite split on Brexit, because although I think it was a bad decision for the UK, it may just be exactly what the EU needed to happen. Not because it gets rid of a whiny member, but for two other reasons:

1: It might give the rest of the EU leaders, esp. Hollande and Merkel, the shot in the arm they need to get around to making the European dream a reality, and further integrating. Especially the Eurozone, which desperately needs a common economic policy, and some mechanism of transferring money from the rich parts to the poor that doesn't involve crippling debt.

2: The immediate consequences of the vote will turn centrists and non-political voters in Europe off of the Eurosceptic far-right/left parties. In the days after that vote, the pound plummeted, the PM resigned, the stocks dropped, the two main political parties are tearing themselves apart, the union itself is in danger, and the country has never been more divided. Nothing of any actual substance has happened except for the vote itself, but the consequences of just that are pretty grim. I can't see a majority of French or Dutch voters watching what is happening in the UK and deciding to do the exact same thing to their own country.

[Nicolae Carpathia]

I really cannot see the far right ever conceding that their own economic decisions can lead to negative outcomes. They've spent the last two decades blaming the nebulous concept of immigrants and foreigners and liberals for all their economic woes, and they're going to blame any economic downturn on the jews on a shadowy conspiracy of globalists.

[Commodore]

Why on earth would the middle-and-working classes think they were hated?

I don't know if it's anti-intellectualism, but it's certainly anti-intellectuals. And the antipathy is pretty mutual.

[T-hawk]

The worst thing about the referendum is that almost nobody with a media platform actually made the positive case for Europe.

What exactly is this positive case?

Sure, it's positive from Europe's point of view. A remaining Britain is a market for goods, a place for refugees to go, a strong functioning economy to help prop up the weaker EU states.

But what is positive about remaining for the UK, and particularly its voters? Sure, academics like you benefit from a freer exchange of people and ideas. And businesses don't mind immigrants as a source of labor. Politicians like the appearance of being open and fair and receptive. But none of this does any good for the average UK voter, or at least anything positive is too vague and abstract to bear meaning for them.

And I still think the same will happen for Trump in the US. Voters will protest the establishment, and will do so orthogonally to whether they have anything to gain from the outcome either way.

[Commodore]

To amplify that a bit, there is a lot of anti-colonialism in the current wave of populist revolts (although again, astonishingly peaceful from a historical perspective). Can you argue that many colonized peoples were materially better off when ruled by far-off elites? Certainly. But people want to be ruled by their own, and that's a broadly acknowledged right (or at least it used to be). I love me some Kipling, but "White Man's Burden" is paternalistic as all hell, and colonialism is morally corrosive for everyone involved.

Likewise, I'd say some roughly 52% of the British (larger numbers of English and Welsh, smaller Scottish) feel frankly colonized, ruled by a people not their own who hold them in contempt. Telling them "but look all around here in Rhodesia, can't you see all this delicious economy" won't gain much traction. And as a Zimbabwean trillionaire, I know what I'm speaking about.

[Mr. Cairo]

But what is positive about remaining for the UK, and particularly its voters? Sure, academics like you benefit from a freer exchange of people and ideas. And businesses don't mind immigrants as a source of labor. Politicians like the appearance of being open and fair and receptive. But none of this does any good for the average UK voter, or at least anything positive is too vague and abstract to bear meaning for them.

Take a walk around Cornwall and Wales and count the number of signs outside recent public developments that say "funded in part by the EU". Go to your local NHS hospital and ask how many of its already overworked staff are from the EU. Take a look at the figures for the UK's resurgent car industry, where more than half of all exports go to the EU, and very few of the car companies are actually British. How about the the many thousands of Brits who work in the tourism industry who benefit from the ease by which millions of Europeans visit every year. Ask the many many British business owners who employ immigrants whether they have any positive, tangible, effects on their community.
As for the academics, well, the UK universities that receive billions of pounds of EU funding produce the experts and bureaucrats that are so derided by the general public. But those same people are still relied upon to run everything. Even a loon like Farage isn't going to suggest that we don't need a governor of The Bank of England, no matter the contempt he holds for Carney himself.


As for Commodore's point that people don't like to be ruled from somewhere else, maybe it's because I've moved between Canada and the UK so often that nationality plays basically no role in my identity, but I really don't see the difference between bureaucrats in Brussels or bureaucrats in Whitehall. And despite the uproar people make about "sovereignty" no-one is suggesting we also leave NATO, or the IMF, or the World Bank, or Interpol, or the UN, or any number of intergovernmental organizations that "take away" sovereignty. (Note that should not be considered as me supporting all these organisations, especially the financial ones. Neo-colonialism is very real, but it is not perpetrated by the EU.)


We have reached a point where no country can stand on its own. Only one country in the world even tries any more, and the North Koreans are starving. The populist anti-globalisation movements are worrying to me not because they might succeed in reversing globalisation, but because of the damage they'll do trying. We should be looking forward into a future where globalisation can benefit everyone, instead of looking to an idealised past full of patriotic fervor where "Britain could stand on its own two feet." Right now, the future is being hijacked by banks and monopolizing corporations, and the only successful political movements fighting that are doing so in the worst way possible, be looking for a return to the past.

[Commodore]

As for Commodore's point that people don't like to be ruled from somewhere else, maybe it's because I've moved between Canada and the UK so often that nationality plays basically no role in my identity, but I really don't see the difference between bureaucrats in Brussels or bureaucrats in Whitehall.

I'm pretty sure it's exactly that.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not somebody who identifies reflexively as "American", I lack national sentiments too. But I like people who have them, and those people are the bulk of mankind.

[Gazglum]

To amplify that a bit, there is a lot of anti-colonialism in the current wave of populist revolts (although again, astonishingly peaceful from a historical perspective). Can you argue that many colonized peoples were materially better off when ruled by far-off elites? Certainly. But people want to be ruled by their own, and that's a broadly acknowledged right (or at least it used to be). I love me some Kipling, but "White Man's Burden" is paternalistic as all hell, and colonialism is morally corrosive for everyone involved.

I think this nails it. Everyone is supposed to have a voice in democracy, but in practise for a lot of people, their voice is never heard. Internal colonialism is an interesting way of looking at it.

As for what is positive about the EU, you can go into all sorts of details about specific decisions on environmental protection or workers rights or whatever, but people can debate all of that. What I think is unarguably positive is that so many (not all, I know) people in Europe genuinely do think of their neighbours as part of the 'In Tribe'. That it brings a situation where people can travel and make friends and get to know each other, and that there has been war within the EU's borders since its inception. And its often people from countries that have had the worst experiences in the 20th century that most easily see the good in that, whereas Britons, who have had it relatively easier the last century, seem more willing to discount the 'peace and prosperity' angle.

Not that the EU is perfect, and its financial policy has certainly brought a lot of pain to people. But its a genuine ideal of a better world, achieved through negotiation instead of violence, and I think that counts for a lot.

But yeah, I know that's a bit abstract when your problems are how to find a job, or afford a house. I just wish it had been discussed a bit more.

[MJW (ya that one)]

And I still think the same will happen for Trump in the US. Voters will protest the establishment, and will do so orthogonally to whether they have anything to gain from the outcome either way.

No. Minorities are already big enough to carry the Democrats--against Trump. He'll have to do better than Nixon did with whites against George McGovern. This really should have happened in the 90s but didn't because Clinton liked to punt on minority rights (DOMA) then 9/11 and then GWB (making Obama win easily twice) happened.

I predict that conservatives won't be able to successfully build bridges to minorities for a very long time and will be stuck getting feed people getting kicked out of the Democrats tent (Blue dogs, unions). They will also be able to drop millstones like abortion because they don't need them to turn out the base (transgender). This will go on until minorities become big enough to become the core of the party--not movement liberals.

It was just a referendum and completely elite-opposed; over-under for anything actually happening practically?

Very unlikely the EU allows them to backpedal. They're already pushing hard for the UK to expedite beginning the formal process of withdraw. They have to make an example of them, lest these events (and attendant market panics) become semi-regular occurrences. Plus it'd be incredibly politically risky for UK "elites" to ignore the referendum, the measure passed with a convincing level of public support and high voter turnout. Nigel Farage would reap an incredible amount of capital.

A less than 4% differential isn't all that convincing, especially when there's good evidence that a lot of voters didn't fully understand the issues at hand, and also that the protest vote against the government was also likely to be high.

Ignoring the result would cause enough bad blood to cause the country to spilt into leave and remain camps. Liberals and minorities tend to cluster together hard which would make the map look like this:

   
Red has less votes. So I predict the government will fold.