I disagree a little bit. I think the leaveness of the country had been festering and waiting to express itself in an explicit way.

I’m not sure there’s any good argument that remain could have made that would have tipped the balance for people who had decided leave was for them.

So much food is not available on our tesco shop now. All Mushrooms, chilli's, garlic, and tomatoes have come up saying they're not available over the last few days.

I assume it's Brexit fucking everything up

But, it seems, the opposition to the question, as it were is more of a confluence, as Super Gran may attest. The monetary value of the topic is quite removed from the item in question because, if attested, is quite there for all to see. A quick glance at the latter, as a JFC may allow, can be just that.

mistercrayon wrote:

I disagree a little bit. I think the leaveness of the country had been festering and waiting to express itself in an explicit way.

I’m not sure there’s any good argument that remain could have made that would have tipped the balance for people who had decided leave was for them.

Ok then how about: the 30 year campaign to leave the EU (or EEC etc) won because people who understood its value to several layers of society never made a positive case.

It’s a bit rich for Cameron to suddenly campaign for remain when he’s been so anti EU / appeasing his party / blaming the others for so long before.

The positive case for staying in the eu was never properly made, and not really championed by any prominent remainers before the referendum or during

I stick to my view: remain lost, rather than leave won

If we were to rejoin in 20 years time I suspect the joiners would have it as equally easy.
Make you richer or some such promise.

poprock wrote:

The case for remain didn’t have to be complex though. The remain campaign dropped the ball by not crafting clear messages. (Always an essential problem for the left - determination to be honest and inclusive precludes hard-nosed marketing.)

At the same time, the leave campaign had a belter of a simple message, even if it was demonstrably stupid. Plus 30 years of groundwork.

In my opinion it did have to be complicated because every simple slogan can be countered with “but if so, why is my life so shit right now”.

Which, conversely, is why I think joining again in 20 years will be a relatively easy sell.
I.e. Stay out of the EU to keep brown people out. Totally I engaged soundbite prone average wit man - “My neighbour is brown - it’s not worked, maybe we should join “.

It’s all just cycles.

Funkstain wrote:

mistercrayon wrote:

I disagree a little bit. I think the leaveness of the country had been festering and waiting to express itself in an explicit way.

I’m not sure there’s any good argument that remain could have made that would have tipped the balance for people who had decided leave was for them.

Ok then how about: the 30 year campaign to leave the EU (or EEC etc) won because people who understood its value to several layers of society never made a positive case.

It’s a bit rich for Cameron to suddenly campaign for remain when he’s been so anti EU / appeasing his party / blaming the others for so long before.

The positive case for staying in the eu was never properly made, and not really championed by any prominent remainers before the referendum or during

I stick to my view: remain lost, rather than leave won

I find it ironic that the champions of leaving are often riddled with this “who do you think you are kidding mr hitler” Churchill bollocks don’t see the wood for the trees.

While Churchill was a hero (caveat caveat caveat) the very existence of him and the space for him to be a hero was an immeasurable tragedy. European nations have been under the thumb of dictatorship or ruining each other for millennia and the EU puts an end to that (for now) but I don’t know how you can somehow convey the pragmatism of no war to intellectually and psychologically fattened boomers.

How do you convey to people who are utterly comfortable and have known nothing else that a tragedy and disaster might be around the corner

I think another slight disaster for the EU was caused by Tony Blair and the pro Europeans. The EU tried to foist the EU constitution onto nations but some nations rejected it. They then forced a variation through.

Would have been funny to hear Cameron and co. excusing the EU in 2016 with "actually, that's shit because of Us. That will continue regardless of whether we are in the EU if you all vote Tory. So keep us in the EU and vote Tory!"

Unfortunately, the UK only followed part one of that advice and it was the worse of the two evils.

Yes.

Total electorate: 46,500,001

Turnout: 72.2%

Rejected ballots: 25,359

72.2% is pretty good going by UK standards, not sure how we measure up with other countries where voting isn't mandatory, although since 2000 we've been pretty shit.

Parliament website says:

the lowest turnout in a general election was recorded in 1918 at 57.2%, due to the end of the first world war. between 1922 and 1997 turnout remained above 71%. at the 2001 general election the turnout was 59.4%; in 2005 it was 61.4%; in 2010 it was 65.1%; and in 2015 it was 66.1%.

nick_md wrote:

Do you work nights Escape?

Not for a long time, I just seem to habitually fall back into this pattern when I've no work, which is common in winter.

regmcfly wrote:

This might sound like the fucked up lefty that I am, but why not just use the name he prefers to be called?

Would if I met him, but I think Keith's found popularity because it's petty, as shorthand for centre-right politics occupying the centre-left's ground. There's also Keir Stalin, but that comes up mostly when he fires a lefty.

mistercrayon wrote:

Escape: I like your contributions. There’s a rough line between the forum being a place we go to and a place that comes to us - the latter feels horrible to me and I think the argument format is a sign of it.

No, I totally agree; it's only because it was Rouj in this case and I knew we wouldn't fall out over it. (And he started it! Known Birdie.)

And I realise I've a big old working-class chip on my shoulder, and how my outlook might be very different with a more affluent background. And I suppose it's that class camaraderie I feel that makes me more sympathetic to those who used Brexit to exercise their forgotten voices. Had we a fairer society I think remain would've won with a comfortable margin. Possibly in the '90s, also.

The reasons for our rising inequality are open to argument, as per the last few pages, and I certainly don't believe EU membership made us any worse-off overall.

Roujin wrote:

Where I ultimately disagree is that you and your friends had a valid reason for either not voting, or not bothering to look up what the EU actually does (which takes minutes, the information is just a google away), or to think that weighed up against the risk of a leave vote into a conservative continuation of government that leaving and hoping for a left wing UK government in 2019 was a serious option.

I've always agreed that remaining under the Tories was our best option, but I didn't vote for Clegg in 2010 against them, and very much doubt I'll vote for Starmer in 2024. All we disagree on is political pragmatism, but push me far enough and I'll recant. Like if I'm eating out of Sainsbo's bins in '24, I'll vote Labour again.

mistercrayon wrote:

I disagree a little bit. I think the leaveness of the country had been festering and waiting to express itself in an explicit way.

An expression deserving of being listened to, shouted at a Tory-installed totem for the bulk of their disenfranchisement, yeah. So as to pretend to listen while not.

Funkstain wrote:

The positive case for staying in the eu was never properly made, and not really championed by any prominent remainers before the referendum or during

I generally agree with this, but it would've been exceptionally hard (on account of our media's rightwing complicity) for them not to come across as supercilious. Many of those who spoke in favour did and do, IMO.

Unfortunately, I think it revolves around class again, where the vast majority of the people working-class voters would've listened to weren't sufficiently invested. Somewhat related, I remember thinking how much more effective Julie Hesmondhalgh would've been to Corbyn had Hayley not been a few years in her past.

I also agree with Panty that rejoining's likely a much easier sell in future. What was really missing for me was seeing the pros and cons played out on council telly in intelligent roundtables. Gammon walls had a visible cohesion that pro-EU advocates, usually kept apart or thrown to the wolves on their own, weren't afforded (or occasionally were for a smug-off). And Johnson was always beating Cameron, who initially feared his PM chance had gone upon the result.

He beat Corbyn with waffle! Because between these two men from wealthy families, Corbyn's intelligence made him the less relatable to the masses. And that's without our media's boot.

The only silver lining is that some of my Facebook friends have completely turned on Johnson over Covid.

mistercrayon wrote:

I think another slight disaster for the EU was caused by Tony Blair and the pro Europeans. The EU tried to foist the EU constitution onto nations but some nations rejected it. They then forced a variation through.

In hindsight, us not getting that confirmatory vote might be seen as teeing up our withdrawal, with Blair ultimately aiding the Tories' sovrinty attack by letting our ref stew until austerity had hit. Blair was a prick, either way.

Glorious.

Sadly, you’re spot-on there.

A bit prety maybe.