Brexit - The UK leaves the EU

[Famine]

Gotcha, so rude placards are just as bad as racism.

Treating people like lesser humans is just as bad as treating people like lesser humans, yes.

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve with the second section of your post. I don't see anywhere in the second quote where pro-Brexit individuals are reassuring people we're not going to run out of medicines.

Evidence to the contrary;
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018...e-referendum-even-allowing-for-other-factors/

Not only is it not evidence to the contrary - it notes that the June 2016 spike was larger than the June spike in the previous two years, which is fine, but ignores the long-term trend that the 2017-2018 numbers he didn't have at the time; it's statistically likely for the spikes in an increasing trend to be larger later in the trend - the conclusion suggests that "negative framing" (in part down to the media) is to blame.

"Negative framing". Like... the insulting people who don't agree with you kind of negative framing?


I still don't understand why anyone pro-Remain would think it's acceptable to insult anyone pro-Leave. It's certainly not productive - you can't convince anyone to change their mind by starting out calling them names.

 

[baldgye]

Not only is it not evidence to the contrary

However, even controlling for these and other events, the evidence strongly supports the conclusion that the referendum led to an increase in hate crimes – potentially even more than the terrorist attacks in Manchester and London did.

And I’ll never understand why you think rude signs are the same as racism/shrug

 

[Famine]

And I’ll never understand why you think rude signs are the same as racism/shrug

Perhaps if you read whole sentences you'd have a better chance of understanding the points raised:

it notes that the June 2016 spike was larger than the June spike in the previous two years, which is fine, but ignores the long-term trend that the 2017-2018 numbers he didn't have at the time; it's statistically likely for the spikes in an increasing trend to be larger later in the trend

He didn't have the 2017-18 numbers. The spike he observed in July 2016 was indeed higher than the spikes in previous years' July. However the spike in July 2017 was much higher - more than 10% - than the July 2016 spike. The numbers after the June 2016 spike returned to pre-referendum levels by January 2017, but have never been that low since. In February 2018 (February being the traditional low in the year; apparently we don't like being racist in snow), they were still higher than in June 2016, during the referendum. March 2018 - the last month the Home Office gives available figures for - is among the 10 highest of all, and actually higher than July 2016.

The trend from 2012-2018 is of an overall increase. Spikes in an upwards trend are statistically likely to be higher later in the trend. They were higher in July 2017 (~6,200) than in July 2016 (~5,700), higher in July 2016 than in July 2015 (~3,900), higher in July 2015 than in July 2014 (~3,500), and higher in July 2014 than in July 2013 (~3,300).

Hate crime has been on an unrelenting rise. Absolutely there was an increase in July 2016 after the referendum. There's an increase every July, referendum or not. The increase in July 2016 was larger than in any previous July... but it was smaller than in July 2017, which your source did not have access to at the time.


Your source notes "negative framing" as a driver.

Perhaps if everyone stopped insulting each other and treated each other with basic human respect, no-one would feel like people who don't share their point of view are less than human and feel quite so justified in denying them human rights?

 

[baldgye]

Perhaps if you read whole sentences you'd have a better chance of understanding the points raised

Interesting turn of phrase

 

[Famine]

Interesting turn of phrase

Yet, given that you often choose to respond only to handful of words in each post, apt. You even cropped the semi-colon off that one!

I explained why the conclusion wasn't apt in the rest of the sentence you cropped off the previous post - it didn't have the most recent data (it can't have done; it was written six months before it was released) which would have shown the previously excessive spike in context of an upwards long-term trend.

And the fact that this trend is so much upwards over such a long term is more worrying than "the referendum made a spike in hate crimes". It suggests something more cultural at work.

It seems that the author and I agree on what that might be. He terms it "negative framing", but the concept is the same - dehumanising those who don't agree with you (by insulting them, or racism), so you can continue not to treat them as humans.

 

[Tired Tyres]

It’s to point out that prior to the vote, Leave campaigners and politicians where making the 350m claim. Pushing the idea that the NHS would be better off with us outside the EU. It’s gone from that, to reassuring people we won’t run out of medicines...




The extremist Remainers being people with rude placards? These people are as bad as the racist propaganda spread by the Leavers?*

Maybe I’m missing something?

*I guess it’s also worth reminding people of the huge spike in racist attacks and hate crimes following the result of the referendum. Racists felt empowered.

It wasn't a claim. The bus pointed out how much we pay the EU. It ASKED if it wouldn't be better to spend it on the NHS. It didn't promise it or anything else.

On both sides you have people that blame the other side, as if they did something wrong, for voting they way they did. That is fundamentally wrong. You vote for what you believe to be right.

The debate in this thread is not indicative of what happens out there in the wonderfully toxic anti social media world.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It wasn't a claim. The bus pointed out how much we pay the EU. It ASKED if it wouldn't be better to spend it on the NHS. It didn't promise it or anything else.

Some people feel it was definitely a claim that was made, and that it was a mistake to make it. And the claim was made, make no mistake about that.

 

[baldgye]

It seems that the author and I agree on what that might be. He terms it "negative framing", but the concept is the same - dehumanising those who don't agree with you (by insulting them, or racism), so you can continue not to treat them as humans.

I don’t disagree with this, but while there’s is a general increase in those types of crimes and has been for a little while. The referendum did see the rate of those crimes increase.
So perhaps surge rather than spike would have been more accurate.

Apologies for cutting off your semi-colon.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Also the future of a country is for its citizens to decide, not foreign workers. Funny how people take issue with foreign intervention in a countries politics when it doesn't go their way (such as the foreign intervention being touted as occurring in swaying the US presidency) but are totally fine with it trying to bring down a democratic vote in another.

I fail to see how a foreign government utilising their intelligence capabilities to influence an election in order to further their own national interest is at all comparable to the immigrant resident of a nation who is legally registered to vote taking part in the democratic process and voting and exercising their right to assembly.

For instance, I moved to the UK 5 years ago and voted in the referendum. Does that mean that I am an agent of foreign intervention with regards to Brexit?

Brexit will affect all residents of this country as well as our citizens abroad, future immigrants, and tourists. The effects may be positive, negative, or neither, but I think it's hard to argue that there won't be some small effects on everyone. Why should people living here legally, working and paying tax, and who are legally eligible to vote not have a say in what goes on in what has become their home country?

 

[MatskiMonk]

 

[baldgye]

This is the response to a video of things he has said in public...

 

[Famine]

I don't speak London - what's the relevance?

I'd have put the green circle around Sadiq Khan

 

[TenEightyOne]

I don't speak London - what's the relevance?

I'd have put the green circle around Sadiq Khan

Google suggests it's Churchill, so it's (apparently) very very funny. Because that kind of figurehead is so Remain.

 

[Famine]

Google suggests it's Churchill, so it's (apparently) very very funny. Because that kind of figurehead is so Remain.

I can never keep up with Churchill. Is he our saviour from the Nazis or as bad as a Nazi this week?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Is he our saviour from the Nazis or as bad as a Nazi this week?

He was at the top of the command chain that starved 2 or 3 million British subjects to death, not as bad as a Nazi but no saint. It's also hard to argue that he saved us from the Nazis either, that was Keynes, Vinson and Roosevelt... with a bit of invasion mis-management from Hitler. Churchill's real skill (as shown at Sidney Street and through his later career) was propaganda management.

 

[baldgye]

He was at the top of the command chain that starved 2 or 3 million British subjects to death, not as bad as a Nazi but no saint. It's also hard to argue that he saved us from the Nazis either, that was Keynes, Vinson and Roosevelt... with a bit of invasion mis-management from Hitler. Churchill's real skill (as shown at Sidney Street and through his later career) was propaganda management.

Please, I can’t cope with people who aren’t 2 dimensional. Was he evil or not?

This is sarcasm

 

[Famine]

Please, I can’t cope with people who aren’t 2 dimensional. Was he evil or not?

This is sarcasm

White, male, dead. Evil.

Edit: Forgot the fourth rule - Not Robin Williams.

 

[UKMikey]

White, male, dead. Evil.

Sounds like bad news for the Christians, then. (Or at least those Christians that believe Jesus was white.)

 

[baldgye]

Sounds like bad news for the Christians, then. (Or at least those Christians that believe Jesus was white.)

When will the persecution of the white males end!?

 

[gokartman78]

Um, we elect them to represent the constituencies views, not to have views of their own or ones that differ from the electorate that put them there. If they didn't agree with views of who they represent they should have either stood down or not voted to trigger article 50 in the first place, which plenty of them did.

Apart from Cameron, which other MP's stood down because of a differing views over brexit to their constituents?

Why should MP's have stood down if they had differing view to their constituents?



*Cameron's constituency didn't voted to leave, witney was 53.7 % remain, but he was the only resignation that sprung to mind over initial brexit aftermath*

 

[Tired Tyres]

Apart from Cameron, which other MP's stood down because of a differing views over brexit to their constituents?

Why should MP's have stood down if they had differing view to their constituents?



*Cameron's constituency didn't voted to leave, witney was 53.7 % remain, but he was the only resignation that sprung to mind over initial brexit aftermath*

Cameron stood down as PM because he supported Remain and they lost. He stayed on as an MP until May made some public school changes that he'd not allowed when he was PM so he stood down when he realised not being in charge when you used to be sucks.

 

[Robin]

I fail to see how a foreign government utilising their intelligence capabilities to influence an election in order to further their own national interest is at all comparable to the immigrant resident of a nation who is legally registered to vote taking part in the democratic process and voting and exercising their right to assembly.

For instance, I moved to the UK 5 years ago and voted in the referendum. Does that mean that I am an agent of foreign intervention with regards to Brexit?

Brexit will affect all residents of this country as well as our citizens abroad, future immigrants, and tourists. The effects may be positive, negative, or neither, but I think it's hard to argue that there won't be some small effects on everyone. Why should people living here legally, working and paying tax, and who are legally eligible to vote not have a say in what goes on in what has become their home country?

I wasn't talking about people who are registered to vote! I was talking about foreign nationals (migrant workers etc) who live here but are not (or not yet) British citizens, not people who have gained citizenship... because they are British!

EU citizens living in the UK were not allowed to vote in the referendum, they aren't allowed to vote in general elections and therefore they shouldn't have a right to sway article 50. If you take issue with that then ask the government.

Why should MP's have stood down if they had differing view to their constituents?

Because their job is to be a mouthpiece for their constituents. They can hold their own views but when representing others your personal opinion is irrelevant. It's pretty much like being a lawyer.

If they have a problem with it they should resign but some don't because it's a cushy job. Either way the electorate will remove them through a vote in the end if they feel their views or issues were not put forward.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

I wasn't talking about people who are registered to vote! I was talking about foreign nationals (migrant workers etc) who live here but are not (or not yet) British citizens, not people who have gained citizenship... because they are British!

EU citizens living in the UK were not allowed to vote in the referendum, they aren't allowed to vote in general elections and therefore they shouldn't have a right to sway article 50. If you take issue with that then ask the government.

Except that's not entirely true. Irish, Maltese, and Cypriot citizens can vote in general elections (as well as qualifying commonwealth citizens). What's your problem with them?

It's also worth noting EU citizens are eligible to vote in MEP and local elections, so the government clearly recongnises that residents of this country should, for the most part, have a say in what goes on.

I still don't see why a resident of this country should be restricted from taking part in our democratic institution, and having a say in how the country is run. After all, it affects them as much as it does any other resident, citizen or not. For instance, I have a friend who owns and operates a veterinary practice. She employs roughly 20 people IIRC, pays taxes, and generally is a positive contributor to our country. She's also an EU citizen and could not vote in the referendum, which means that her business will be affected by a policy she had no say in. How is that fair on her?

 

[gokartman78]

Because their job is to be a mouthpiece for their constituents. They can hold their own views but when representing others your personal opinion is irrelevant. It's pretty much like being a lawyer.

If they have a problem with it they should resign but some don't because it's a cushy job. Either way the electorate will remove them through a vote in the end if they feel their views or issues were not put forward.

Do you think MP's on both sides of the fence should follow this logic? Remainers in Leave constituencies and Leavers in remain constituencies?

 

[Robin]

Except that's not entirely true. Irish, Maltese, and Cypriot citizens can vote in general elections (as well as qualifying commonwealth citizens). What's your problem with them?

I am aware of those exceptions though they are hardly the majority of Europe or the majority of the UK electorate. They had a right to vote in the referendum as do many other special case groups of people yet your insinuating I have a problem with them?

It's also worth noting EU citizens are eligible to vote in MEP and local elections, so the government clearly recongnises that residents of this country should, for the most part, have a say in what goes on.

Again, I know, but this is about Brexit. The same people that didn't get a say on Brexit shouldn't suddenly get a say on Brexit imo. Having a say on what is going on in the community they live (local elections) is a totally different thing which is why the government sets it apart from general elections and referendums.

I still don't see why a resident of this country should be restricted from taking part in our democratic institution, and having a say in how the country is run. After all, it affects them as much as it does any other resident, citizen or not. For instance, I have a friend who owns and operates a veterinary practice. She employs roughly 20 people IIRC, pays taxes, and generally is a positive contributor to our country. She's also an EU citizen and could not vote in the referendum, which means that her business will be affected by a policy she had no say in. How is that fair on her?

As I said you have to ask the government why, that's the way they do it.

Do you think MP's on both sides of the fence should follow this logic? Remainers in Leave constituencies and Leavers in remain constituencies?

Absolutely, they are there to do a job, not go against the people who put them there. Actually they campaign on the basis of working for their constituents views so it's really poor form when they decide to go rogue.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

I am aware of those exceptions though they are hardly the majority of Europe or the majority of the UK electorate. They had a right to vote in the referendum as do many other special case groups of people yet your insinuating I have a problem with them?

Also the future of a country is for its citizens to decide, not foreign workers.

Again, I know, but this is about Brexit. The same people that didn't get a say on Brexit shouldn't suddenly get a say on Brexit imo. Having a say on what is going on in the community they live (local elections) is a totally different thing which is why the government sets it apart from general elections and referendums.

What about UK citizens who were under 18 at the time of the referendum but are now legally allowed to vote? Should they have a say in the future of the country?

I see where you're coming from here, but I disagree about who should have been allowed to vote in the referendum in the first place. The referendum was a decision which will affect residents of this country as well as our citizens abroad for decades to come, and it's my opinion that they should have been given a say in the future of this country.

As I said you have to ask the government why, that's the way they do it.

If whatever the government does is the way it should be done then why did the government ask the people whether or not to leave the EU?

 

[Robin]

What about UK citizens who were under 18 at the time of the referendum but are now legally allowed to vote? Should they have a say in the future of the country?

No because the same can be said for all democratic votes in history. There was always someone too young or not yet eligible to vote on something and it would be impossible to run a country re running voting every month, week, day to include that person who just turned 18. The line has to be drawn somewhere and a date has to be set. Even if they lowered the voting age there would still be people who just missed the vote.

I see where you're coming from here, but I disagree about who should have been allowed to vote in the referendum in the first place. The referendum was a decision which will affect residents of this country as well as our citizens abroad for decades to come, and it's my opinion that they should have been given a say in the future of this country.

And I completely see where your coming from but I don't make the rules. The governments stance does have some logic to it but it can't always fit everyone's sentiment.

If whatever the government does is the way it should be done then why did the government ask the people whether or not to leave the EU?

I cannot answer WHY the government specifically asked, but them asking is in essence the government 'doing something the way it should be done'. They felt it should be asked so they asked it.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Do you think MP's on both sides of the fence should follow this logic?

Yes. That's how it's worked since the first þings, the people send their representative to speaker on behalf of the body they constitute as a hundred, wapentake or borough (burgh). The representative should speak on their behalf, no logic about it. Whether or not that works under the whip is a different matter of course.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I'd never considered it before, but if there were 3.5 million EU citizens here, not allowed to vote, I can imagine the result being somewhat different if they had.

On the subject of MP's, Theresa May's constituency voted remain, she voted to trigger A50... so at least in the case of one MP I agree they should stand down!

 

[Touring Mars]

I'd never considered it before, but if there were 3.5 million EU citizens here, not allowed to vote, I can imagine the result being somewhat different if they had.

Erm, yeh - just a bit different.

My friend (and former boss) has lived in the UK for over 20 years, but has done so quite legally with a Dutch passport. He is married to a Scottish woman and they have a child who was born in Scotland and has lived here his whole life. And yet, my friend didn't get a vote in the EU referendum. Meanwhile, an Indian guy he hired in 2014 (and who went back to India permanently in 2017) was allowed to vote (though I don't think he actually did).

Ironically, my friend (my boss at the time) was eligible to vote in the Scottish independence referendum, and I managed to persuade him (and several others) against voting in favour of Scottish independence, largely based on the fact that independence would have seen Scotland ejected from the EU by default and that staying in the UK was the wiser move for an EU national.... to be fair, that was correct at the time, but now that major reason for voting against Scottish independence has been turned on its head. If there is another Scottish independence referendum, I expect Scexit to win by a huge majority.

edit: Incidentally, if the UK leaves the EU without a deal, or with a deal that disadvantages Scotland (which the Backstop pretty much will), I expect the SNP to call a second referendum within hours. No Deal would make this a certainty, and it would also make the timeline much clearer... UK leaves the EU with No Deal at midnight on April 11/12th, SNP call a second independence referendum in the morning.