Not from the UK but… the damage is already done right?
I mean rejoining was always going to be inevitable, the only question is whether it’s now or in 50 years, or incrementally over 50 years.
Point is, it will be on EUs terms.
It was utter stupidity. The only nation in the history of the world to impose economic sanctions on its self. The nation was lied to so a select few very rich people could make their lives easier.
Do you know what the most googled term was after the referendum? “What is the EU?”
The only nation in the history of the world to impose economic sanctions on its self
A very naïve view on how the world works. There are plenty of countries that have voted for secession, and secession will always have an economic impact.
It can only be considered stupid if there was enough information to understand the effects of the decision prior to taking it. Because of the lies and money spent on campaigns, the relevant information was tainted. Sitting on your high horse and calling people stupid is never going to convince people to change their minds.
The most googled search reference of 2016 was not “What is the EU?”. It did not even strike the top 10.
I agree Brexit was a bad decision, but two wrong don’t make a right. Attacking people for being misinformed is not an intelligent choice imo.
It is very disingenous of you to compare actual independence referendums to the brexit referendum. Those are all about national entities gaining indepence from other national entities. That is not what brexit is, and EU is not a national entity. So those events are not comparable in the slightest.
EU was a trade union, and it was objectively a net benefit for the UK (since it was the biggest market for the UK), and has nothing to do with national independence referendums, even though that is of course what brexit propagandists wanted brexit voters to think it was.
And this is exactly why this particular event is monumentally stupid and without historical precedence.
I would never argue it was not stupid. I am against calling the people stupid as it solves nothing.
As for the rest of your comments that is just down to definitions. The UK was most definitely part of a trading block and took part in the political structure. This is much akin to saying a town is not a city.
Sorry, just a bit angry about it. None of the lies have come true and the politicians refuse to talk about it like it hasn’t made things worse in the country.
I am with you all the way on that one.
C’mon man.
An article from The Times?
A magazine based in the US; with search terms involving the US election, hurricanes, and the Powerball?
These are obviously search terms exclusive to the US.
Here are the 2016 search results directly from The Goog, itself - but from the UK - y’know, where Brexit happened.
While not number 1 under the “What is” section, it does pop as #4, alongside “What is Brexit” at #2.
Do you know what the most googled term was after the referendum? “What is the EU?”
It was top in a sub category of a specific country. This is not what the poster said. All I am saying is keep the arguments for rejoining genuine. Don’t give the conmen ammunition to feed on.
I was with you until this comment, that’s intellectually dishonest to focus on the specific words instead of the intentEdit: I misread
It was top in a sub category of a specific country.
Read it again
You’re right, I misread. Sorry for the previous response.
It can only be considered stupid if there was enough information to understand the effects of the decision prior to taking it. Because of the lies and money spent on campaigns, the relevant information was tainted. Sitting on your high horse and calling people stupid is never going to convince people to change their minds.
Sorry but I find this naive. The information was there. We have a highly literate population and widespread technology that means the vast majority of the adult population have instant access to unparalleled levels information through a user-friendly device carried in their pockets. It is unacceptable for them to use ‘I don’t have a PhD in economics’ as an excuse for not bothering to inform themselves before voting, in this day and age.
I agree there were lies and disinformation, but for many Brexiters this isn’t what decided their vote. Indeed, many of them were crystal clear that they thought Brexit was a desirable outcome regardless of whether it would cause economic damage - 61% of Leave voters saying significant economic damage would be a price worth paying, 39% going further and saying they’d consider it acceptable if Brexit led to them or their family members losing their jobs.
We shouldn’t make excuses for these people. Call a fool a fool.
Sorry but I find this naive. The information was there. We have a highly literate population and widespread technology that means the vast majority of the adult population have instant access to unparalleled levels information through a user-friendly device carried in their pockets.
Typical gaslighting narrative. Everything was there right in front of your face.
I have a 70 year old living next door to me who was bragging about having her first email address last month. It is this sort of ignorance that you conmen rely on.
I’m relying on the fact that:
61% of Leave voters saying significant economic damage would be a price worth paying, 39% going further and saying they’d consider it acceptable if Brexit led to them or their family members losing their jobs.
Your point on a 70 year having less access to modern technology does not represent most of the population. It doesn’t even represent most 70 year olds - my parents are that age and they’ve both had email addresses since the 1990s and smart phones for over a decade, and use them very actively.
What does represent the wider population is that a majority of Leavers were pretty clear they wanted Brexit to happen regardless of any economic consequences. They didn’t vote based on empirical factors, they voted based on ideology. Brexit wasn’t science for them, it was religion.
Your point on a 70 year having less access to modern technology does not represent most of the population.
So you are saying that conning most of the population is perfectly acceptable. While ignoring the fact that the con was in the information given.
What does represent the wider population is that a majority of Leavers were pretty clear they wanted Brexit to happen regardless of any economic consequences.
Says who? Which moron broke with the traditional lies and told people there would be economic consequences?
People voted for Brexit because the lies were that things would be cheaper, there would be no change in access to Europe, and we would have more money for services. Didn’t you have a bus around your village?
Says who?
I literally linked to an example of polling on this matter. If you Google it you’ll find the were several more similar ones - e.g. there was one showing that many Leave voters considered the breakup of the UK a price worth paying too. They didn’t give a shit.
Attacking people for being misinformed
But, I was told people were not stupid and they knew what they were voting for. How dare I assume they didn’t understand the implication and how dare I think I know more about it than they did.
I understand your point that attacking people and calling them stupid wont “make them change their mind”. But they had the time to research and understand the implications before the referendum. They’ve had much more time now to go back over it.
Banging your head on the wall pretending it won’t hurt, doesn’t make you misinformed or need education. It makes you stupid and it needs to be called out. I don’t need to convince someone that banging their head on a wall will hurt.
Sadly, I do need them to stop banging their head on the wall. As it’s a shared house and we’ve all got to live here. Holes in the wall ain’t helping anyone.
Stupid is as stupid does. You have no evidence that people understood. There is plenty of evidence people are changing their mind now they are seeing the effects.
If they were misinformed then it was willful ignorance. Anyone with several functioning brain cells could see that it was an idiotic idea. And then they had an infinite number of opportunities to roll it back, but they decided to swim to the bottom of the boiling lake instead of just saying “maybe not.”
It is clear that the referendum result could not be repeated today. This in itself is very indicative. What exactly has changed?
The people who heard Gove say they’d “had enough of experts” and thought: “yup that’s me, I hate people who know what they’re talking about”.
It’s obviously condescending to say that it was stupid. But what’s the more generous read of it? A spiteful protest vote against social progress? There could conceivably be coherent arguments for independence, but certainly there weren’t any anywhere near the leave campaign.
agree with this but just to add that the assertion that “what is the eu” was the most googled term is wrong, but slightly less wrong if you refer to a uk source, it’s still not there but “what is brexit” and “what is article 50” did appear in the top tens by region. source: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/top-google-searches-trends-2016-uk
There was a top trending search within the UK for “Brexit”, which was also within a sub category. I am sorry but this is a far cry from what you said. I agree Brexit is bad, but using information that is not correct gets swooped up by the con artists that try and push the Brexit narrative.
I’m from the UK and from the North. Don’t try and understand the stupidity of these people from these areas as economically developed as the worst parts of former soviet states now in the EU. These areas received a lot of EU development funding and still voted for Brexit AND the Tories (in 2019) that imposed austerity that made their post 2008 lives worse.
They are thick as mince and deserve the ridicule as much as the lying brexit politicians deserve jail time.
The only hope to not repeating the mistakes is the best quality education for as many people as possible. This hopefully enough of the smart ones from these areas are politically aware and active enough to offset the manipulation of the morons.
I think conservatives voting against their own interests is a very well established trope. Certainly is in Australia.
Plenty of octogenarians who vote conservative while complaining their pension is too low and they can’t afford rent.
Maybe the EU’s terms will be better for UK workers and the climate.
The damage wasn’t a one time thing, it’s ongoing. The longer we’re out the more damage that will be done.
Diplomacy is all about concessions and what each country wants. The UK can sell security and an expansion to the EU market. The biggest thing the EU sells is standards.
The stuff that is coming into the UK atm is dogshit. This sums up exactly how things are going.
But it like she says in the video. The UK are frogs in the slow boil pot. We are going to have a bad incident before people wake up. The sad part is that having a bad incident like BSE etc has long term effects. The BSE crisis of the 90 in the UK took 15 years to reverse. Unfortunately a bad incident would be a large trigger point for removing the last of the Brexiteers.
The UK will certainly be on less favourable terms than they left if they rejoin. The pound will be a hot issue. This new system that Macron wants to create is an unknown quantity. We have to wait for a change of government before we find out what it entails. The EU have shown that they want to deal more with Starmer than they do with the Tories by mentioning it at a time Starmer was visiting. It also shows that the UK has something that the EU wants, or more specifically France and Germany wants.
I would go as far as to say we need a change of population. Which we’ll have in about 20/30 years once all the fuckwits from my era (I was born in 1957) have died off. Muppets in the flats where I live and my sister in law etc. are still convinced there are hundreds of thousand of immigrants queing up to rape them and take their jobs, Keir Starmer is going to turn UK into a communist annex of Russia and so on. The fact that they’re retired so dont have a job, and Russia hasn’t been communist for decades is neither here nor there. The Daily Mail and the like tell them so. So it must be true.
Well I can say a member of my family voted for Johnson because he has nice hair. I literally spat out food on hearing that remark.
We need a better education system for the population. With the education system we have currently, the population will never be savvy to the cons that the politicians are using. Better education is the only way to stop ignorance. Politics and critical thinking should be part of our main school curriculum.
I would argue that we also need a PR voting system. Currently those politicians only need to con a few thousand people to control 65m. They gear their campaigns to small areas while ignoring the rest. Even changing the population and education system will never eradicate this.
The UK can sell security
Please elaborate, because the last “security” thing I saw out of the UK was their stupid bill attempting to back door encryption as well as having vendors sit on zero days so they (and hackers out there) could exploit them. None of that would be good for the EU, let alone the world.
The whole point of the EU is to stop Europe from continuously going to war with each other.
The UK has a very credible military base. Germany and France have tried in the past to combine the military forces of Europe. This is not to undermine the French who also have a credible force. Germany does not and could not argue it was in the same league. The UK military has been diminished under the Tory government, but the expertise is still around.
Rejoining isn’t necessarily inevitable. Any damage is already done and any gain from attempting to rejoin the EU within the next decade or so will be undone by the show of political instability.
Now that the UK has left, it’s better to stay out and just make do with what they have. Maybe if the government was less incompetent or more forward thinking then the UK would be able to use the fact that London is the second most important city in the world and do something actually useful or innovative.
It is true that there is no evidence of rejoining just yet. If the Tories remain in power after the next GE then the con will continue. This will mean more divergence from EU standards, with the obvious result of making it harder to rejoin. Starmer has promised closer alignment. Convergence will make the case of rejoining so much clearer and more acceptable. As I have already said, our import processes have gapping holes. If we get an incident because of this, then the case to rejoin will be complete. An attack on a country’s health will change people opinions immediate effects.
To me all of this says that we need to educate previous Tory voters exactly what they are voting for, and convince more kids to vote.
Nah. When I say rejoining is inevitable, I mean “in all but name”. As in, the coming decades will be spent working towards all the advantages of being in the EU without joining the EU. Reduced tarrifs, immigration treaties, streamlined imports et cetera.
Well that would make Brexit a huge success would it not?
No, Britain could simply have remained and not had to endure the deleterious effects of leaving.
Having left, now they have to work on regaining the advantages they once had.
If Britain can manage to get back every benefit of being in the EU without actually being in the EU, that will be potentially the biggest success story that could possibly come from brexit.
Good lord. Obviously that’s not possible.
UK voted to leave the EU when obviously they would be worse off. Therefore, UK governance had to leave the EU, but of course they will spend the foreseeable future working to diminish the problems that leaving created.
For example, as part of the EU you have free trade. Leaving the EU no free trade. Therefore, they’ll spend the next n years developing agreements to cut tariffs and reduce red tape.
It’s not possible but your the one who said they would spend the next few years working to get every benefit of the EU like free trade without rejoining, if that was pulled off, then Brexit would definitely be a success.
And they don’t have to go back to the EU although it makes the most sense, they can really go anywhere else in the world and try to get a trade deal, it’s really a matter of pride as to who they go to trade with.
As much as we love a good conspiracy centered around the BBC:
- Are they also ignoring pro Brexit rallies?
- What other outlets comparable to the BBC have covered the rally?
- Was it this rally or all pro remain rallies?
Ultimately the BBC needs to be free to make editorial decisions on its own and unless people have actual evidence of bias I’m going to say this is just Twitter conspiracy crap. But each to their own 😅.
The BBC has always fundementally been state controlled media. BBC world, which isn’t readily available within the UK, has in the past done a good job of keeping up the pretence of being neutral for obvious reasons.
The current set of cunts in power have been really hamfisted and crass in their steering of the narrative. One recent example being Lineker showing the most basic level of humanity nearly getting him fired because it went against these cunts narrative. Lineker is not someone I’d count as a radical…
Many massive protests on workers rights, police brutality, climate change have got no coverage on the BBC. I think they’ve been pretty free in their editorial decisions, at this point it’s just a dry version of gbeebies.
Thinking this is some twitter conspiracy crap is either disingenuous or you need to touch grass.
One recent example being Lineker showing the most basic level of humanity nearly getting him fired because it went against these cunts narrative. Lineker is not someone I’d count as a radical…
Lineker expressed an opinion that was political in nature. This goes against BBC rules for presenters specifically created so that all presenters can be seen to be impartial. You can argue the rule is stupid (probably correct for a sports presenter that is not involved in news) and you can argue that his opinion was correct (the HomeOffice policy is utterly shit) but if you’re arguing that by applying their own impartiality rules as they were written they are somehow in hock with the government is laughably reaching into conspiracy theory land.
Thinking this is some twitter conspiracy crap is either disingenuous or you need to touch grass.
Feel free to provide some evidence that isn’t “the BBC don’t cover things I am interested in therefore they must be biased”.
Nah, I’m not going to bother providing a lit review. You’re whole response is bad faith or I’ll ill-informed given you don’t seem to know that they were specifically called out for being very selective in there enforcement of said impartially rule, or you are also being selective… c:
Obviously your burden of proof seems very low. Everything is wrong and bad faith if it disagrees with your point of view: there’s absolutely no room for explanation I must be ill informed. Fair enough. I don’t think we’ll agree here. Have a great day 🌷.
You only have to mention Lineker to show the BBC bias or the many, many other instances. As for other media, it was covered under the left wing bias.
https://leftfootforward.org/2023/09/thousands-gather-in-london-for-national-rejoin-march/
Lineker the far left radical lol, definitely the most surreal one that came to mind for me as well!
Every single protest in the entire UK complains they weren’t on the news (usually to try and get on the news).
If the BBC had to report on every protest, that’s all the news would be, especially as people would game the system to get themselves on the news.
So, for the BBC to report on it, it has to be newsworthy: so more than 100,000 people and for it to be about something currently affective and effective. For example, if 20,000 people marched in solidarity with Palestine, is that truly newsworthy? There’s protests about Palestine all the time — how would this one be new… …s.
Typically it takes more than 3,000 people protesting to make BBC News. And I speak as someone who previously marched through central London to remain.
You are going to have to back that up with a source. It sounds pathetically weak to me. The BBC did not even turn up. How would they know in advance how many are attending?
If you can find me a BBC News report on a march on a national issue that had 3,000 marchers I’ll. concede. I had a bit of a Google before posting and found nout.
What’s your source for the BBC not turning up?
There are three sources quoted in the article who were there. It is the whole point of the article.
Sarah Everard vigil: Hundreds at central London event despite Priti Patel plea Wasn’t exactly hard was it, and that was from memory.
Good work on finding an example from lockdown when gatherings were illegal. Clearly normal rules applied then 🤦 For context, that demo tooll place on March 21. On March 29 restrictions were relaxed to allow outdoor gatherings (including in private gardens) of either 6 people (the Rule of 6) or 2 households will also be allowed.
So yes, on March 21 2021 a gathering of several hundred people was newsworthy.
So what you are saying is that they will cover it if the story suits? however with a little effort here is another. 20 people out to defend Assange..
I have heard it mentioned on R4 in a headline so not really
O well that must be true then.
