• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Brexit

England my lionheart

Rockerjahili Rebel
Premium Member
Perhaps. But I don't take that into consideration. At all. It is all make believe to me.

I am Brazilian. I am all too aware that we are the descendants of the killers of our own native people. Nationalism has no value whatsoever to me.

I support Scottish independence mainly because it protects the Scottish people from Brexit. Similarly for North Ireland.



Which is quite the wrong motivation far as I am concerned. In fact, it would be very contradictory for me to value nationalism in any way, shape or form.

“I support Scottish independence mainly because it protects the Scottish people from Brexit. Similarly for North Ireland.”

Brexit happened,the UK left so as a member of the union so did Scotland,how independence would protect Scotland and Northern Ireland from Brexit I have no idea.

Scotland would be far better off in the Union,independence would be a disaster for them and they are not in a position to join the EU either,you hate nationalism but support a nationalist party.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Our local realities. Our poverty, our suffering, out joblessness, our lack of mobility. We voted based on the social issues affecting us. Isn't that what everyone does?
That would be fair enough, but the jump to blaming EU membership is still hard to explain.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
“I support Scottish independence mainly because it protects the Scottish people from Brexit. Similarly for North Ireland.”

Brexit happened,the UK left so as a member of the union so did Scotland,how independence would protect Scotland and Northern Ireland from Brexit I have no idea.

By giving them a shot at access to the Single Market, for one.

Then there are Erasmus. Freedom of movement.


Scotland would be far better off in the Union, independence would be a disaster for them and they are not in a position to join the EU

I guess I just don't believe you here.

either,you hate nationalism but support a nationalist party.

Nationalism is no reason for me to support anything whatsoever. But if it happens that the available path for Scotland to defend itself from Brexit specifically and English exagerated self-interest more generally happens to be political autonomy, I'm all for it. I know that Scotland did not want Brexit and see no reason to saddle it with that odd decision.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
That would be fair enough, but the jump to blaming EU membership is still hard to explain.


It might be hard to explain, but it should be easy enough to understand; when people feel abandoned and you give them a vote, they’re probably going to vote against the status quo. It may not seem to be in their best interests to do so, but as a wise man once said, if you ain’t got nothing, you ain’t got nothing to lose.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Throughout the 70s and 80s, almost every bar in Boston and New York with a shamrock over the door had a NORAID collection tin sitting on the bar, so I don’t think it’s an overstatement to say private US citizens helped fund that conflict. NORAID was ostensibly raising money for charitable causes in Ireland, but it was widely known by everyone where that money was going.

NORAID - Wikipedia

I'm well-aware of NORAID, and it's history. I'm also aware of the approximate estimates of it's total contributions, as compared to the annual budget required to run the Provisional IRA, much less all Catholic paramilitaries. Did American money make it to IRA coffers? Absolutely. But...again...stating that the Americans funded a civil conflict is an overstatement. I suspect you know this. Libyan funding and weapons made it to the IRA coffers, Estonian, Palestinian...and mostly certainly a good amount of funding from Irish sources, as well as Catholic supporters throughout Britain.

While the US certainly helped persuade Sinn Fein to sign up to Good Friday Agreements, it’s no coincidence that the chair of the International Commitee on Decommissioning was the Canadian John de Chastelain; a US chairman would never have been acceptable as an honest broker, to certain parties to that agreement.

It might have been a non-American chairman, but there was an American member, with one being replaced by another when required. Given that the Committee was only 3 people in size, I again think you might be overstating things here. 'Certain parties' in that agreement might not be the most impartial of judges, I would imagine.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I am stating that outright, rather.

Clearly many a British person concluded that membership in the EU was harmful or at least reasonably suspicious.

On what grounds besides the ferocious smear campaign from the likes of the Sun, the Telegraph and the Spectator, that I just don't know. Part of it has to be lack of information about the reasons for EU membership and the benefits that came from that.

All my sources make it very clear that there is and never was a good rationale for expecting Brexit to be helpful for the UK. Unless you are a supporter of Irish unification or Scottish independente, I suppose. Or a Tory politician seeking visibility with no regard for the cost paid by the community. Or someone like Nigel Farage or whoever earns money from the average British newspaper. Or GB News...

Well, again, when you define what may be helpful or hurtful, are you referring only to the upper classes and their wealth, or to the nation and its people as a whole?
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
It might be hard to explain, but it should be easy enough to understand; when people feel abandoned and you give them a vote, they’re probably going to vote against the status quo. It may not seem to be in their best interests to do so, but as a wise man once said, if you ain’t got nothing, you ain’t got nothing to lose.
A wiser man might point out that there was a lot indeed to lose. There is still.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Well, again, when you define what may be helpful or hurtful, are you referring only to the upper classes and their wealth, or to the nation and its people as a whole?
The community as a whole. I am not fond of pomp and circunstance at the expense of the viability of the masses.
 

England my lionheart

Rockerjahili Rebel
Premium Member
By giving them a shot at access to the Single Market, for one.

Then there are Erasmus. Freedom of movement.




I guess I just don't believe you here.



Nationalism is no reason for me to support anything whatsoever. But if it happens that the available path for Scotland to defend itself from Brexit specifically and English exagerated self-interest more generally happens to be political autonomy, I'm all for it. I know that Scotland did not want Brexit and see no reason to saddle it with that odd decision.

Rejoining the EU is pie in the sky,their deficit is too high,after failing that part of entry then there’s Spain who would veto its membership because it denied Catalan independence,so Scotland has no chance just on the entry requirements,ironically the Shetland isles want to cede from Scotland.

Even if by some financial miracle they applied it would take years,Ukraine is being fast tracked and that’s a 7 year wait.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Would make a difference if you knew John Cleese was for Brexit? The little bit I've heard of his views on it did have some similarities to what Rival has been saying.
It's unfortunate, but Monty Python's humour - and its cast - haven't aged well in a lot of ways (and not just because of this issue).
 

Mock Turtle

Trump: The USA Brexit!
Premium Member
Our local realities. Our poverty, our suffering, out joblessness, our lack of mobility. We voted based on the social issues affecting us. Isn't that what everyone does?
I'm sure probably most do but many seem to vote for what they think is better for the country as a whole, and hence why they will always tend to vote for one particular party over another rather than changing sides when it simply suits them - even if this might be a little idealistic. :oops:
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Sorry - should have made this one post with the other quote, but here you go.

And when you think of it, why wouldn't many in England feel England is better off outside of the Eurozone? They've been exceedingly better off throughout most of their history, so much better that the sun never set on their Empire.
Britain largely gave up the last official remnants of its empire in 1932 with the Treaty of Westminster, which finally gave full (or almost-full) sovereignty to its colonial possessions. The UK had already been on a downswing in terms of international power and prestige well before then.

And even in its colonial era, the UK regularly had serious economic problems: depressions, bubbles, etc.

Leaving the Eurozone wouldn't mean going back to an era of Empire and ruling the high seas, it means going back to the UK of the 1950s: small and economically vulnerable.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Rejoining the EU is pie in the sky,their deficit is too high,after failing that part of entry then there’s Spain who would veto its membership because it denied Catalan independence,so Scotland has no chance just on the entry requirements,ironically the Shetland isles want to cede from Scotland.

Even if by some financial miracle they applied it would take years,Ukraine is being fast tracked and that’s a 7 year wait.
All those problems aside, I think a fair chunk of people who voted "no" to independence in the last referendum did so because they wanted to stay in the EU and saw staying in the UK as the best way to achieve that. These people have lost their reason to vote against independence, regardless of how difficult Scottish entry to the EU would be.
 

Flankerl

Well-Known Member
We didn't want to be either of those, though. We wanted to form our own trade deals with India, Japan, Australia, South Africa etc. Nobody, as far as I know, was talking about isolationism; if anything, there was a desire to expand our trade where we'd felt hemmed in by EU protectionist policies. Whatever you think about that isn't pertinent here; but certainly I don't recall anyone talking about isolationism or nationalistic policies to the exclusion of other countries. We wanted to work with the Commonwealth, Anglophone regions, the Continent and Asia, and made efforts to do as much :shrug:

You had all of that in the EU.
The UK was among the leading nations when it came to forming trade deals within the EU with far away countries for the entire EU.
Most regulation regarding trade, including the ones that have since leaving annoyed the British go back to British incentives within the EU.

This is so incredibly stupid.

Meanwhile the EU will work closer together with your Anglophone countries, the Commonwealth etc under far better conditions.
You meanwhile are being taken apart by exactly those countries.
The Australians are still laughing about the trade deal you made with them that kills your meat production.
India is a far bigger market than the UK. You aren't the master anymore. They want free trade with the UK and they will get it.
Same with the rest of the Commonwealth, especially all those pesky brown/black areas that the Tories hate so much.

You shot yourself into the head and then celebrated.


There seems to be a longing to get back to those (mythical) good old days wherein the expropriated and otherwise exploited were pretty much kept outside the borders. We want the Walmarts, not the Bangladeshis.

If you want to see it in action just watch James O'Brien excerpts from his Brexit call-ins.

One included: We used to sell our fish and chips in old newspapers, it was so quaint and had a nice "aroma", the pesky EU made us stop doing that.

In reality: British food safety forbid the sale in 1990 in the Food Safety Act.
No EU involvement whatsoever.


And at the end of the day they all come down to one reason and one reason alone: Immigrants. Pesky bloody foreigners. "They took our jobs!!"
Meanwhile Brits see it as their god given right to freely move to other countries and just live there. Speaking English of course without any integration.
There's even a James O'Brien call about exactly that.



You can't see how people living in economically depressed areas would develop a negative attitude towards their government and tend to not believe what their government says is good or bad for a country?

But that's the joke: That didn't happen.
Instead they believed their Government that there are unelected Bureaucrats in Brussels who are taking away their rights and rule over them.
And that literally had nothing to do with reality.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
The community as a whole. I am not fond of pomp and circunstance at the expense of the viability of the masses.

Well, that's the whole point. If the community as a whole is suffering, then that's sufficient cause to rethink the policies which caused it and the theoretical assumptions which brought about such policies in the first place.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
It might be hard to explain, but it should be easy enough to understand; when people feel abandoned and you give them a vote, they’re probably going to vote against the status quo. It may not seem to be in their best interests to do so, but as a wise man once said, if you ain’t got nothing, you ain’t got nothing to lose.

It is intriguing how easily people can become blinded by their own privileges, isn't it?
As someone that doesn't live in a first world country let me tell you I was smirking by the end of your post.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
I debated making this thread. I think it will go badly but I've become tired enough of some accusations thrown around on RF about Brexit and Brexiteers.

This is the idea that we voted because of a campaign; because of Farage, or Boris Johnson, or because we couldn't stand the sight of Guy Verhofstadt. While the last one might be half true, these aren't generally why anyone I know (in Northern England) voted for Brexit. We voted because we'd always been of the mindset that we wanted to disunite from the EU. I'd been raised with the idea since before the idea of Britain leaving was even seriously floated. I'd since evaluated my views on that and made up my own mind based on other factors, but none, or almost none, of those factors were Brexit 2016 related.

I voted for Labour when Corbyn was in, even after voting Brexit I didn't vote for May's government.

My Brexit voting family mostly voted Labour, too.

We didn't care for bus campaigns or vapid slogans. These aren't why we voted. As far as we were concerned, long before 2016 we'd needed no more reason to want to leave the EU.

Blaming us for the current government is unfair and uninformed. Many Brexiteers are disenfranchised Labour voters who felt let down by Champagne Socialism. Social right-wingers who find no room now in either party.

But the bottom line is, even if there were no Brexit campaign at all, everyone I know who voted for Brexit would still have voted for it and voted Labour at the same time.

This is not a simple issue.

For one, I'm glad you made the thread. I agree it probably won't go well for you, assuming by that you mean you'll get pushback, etc. But having read through most of the thread, I think there is also some honest discussion happening, and it has helped me learn a little more about the motivations from your point of view.

I might miss the mark here, since my upbringing and life are different to yours, and the lessons I have learnt may not apply to you. Who the heck knows trying to work this stuff out over the internet? But I'll throw them up here. You took a risk with the OP, thinking you might get some negative feedback or misunderstanding. I'll do the same now, I guess...lol

I grew up working class. Suburban, rather than rural, but some of what you say resonates with the politics of my family when I was growing up. My Grandad was English (from the midlands) and was a soldier. Dad was a union member (tradesman working in a factory), mum was a stay at home mum until my sister and I went to secondary school. She went back to work as a teacher's aide at that point, and ended up working for the trade union that included non-teaching staff at schools, cleaners, etc. Dad was racist, in an everyday kinda way, although he was fine with immigrants he knew. Mum was too polite to be racist in any way I saw when I was young, although either she's drifted in that direction over the years, or I'm better at picking up subtle cues these days.

In any case, we were a Labour family. There was never any question who they were voting for. The working class were seen as the real workers, and the main issue my parents had with Labour policy would have been that they'd prefer them to be harder on security and policing issues, etc. Basically, they were the type of socially conservative labour-voters I suspect are common in your area too.

By the time I was 15, my Dad and I were butting heads about a lot of things. Not politics, incidentally. Without false modesty, I was better educated than he was, and smarter than he was. By the time I was 19 or 20 I think I was also more worldly than he was in many ways. By 25, in most ways. That's not to denigrate him, or my mum. They did the best for me they knew, most of the time. Not many people are lucky enough to have parents who honestly try to do the best they can. Sometimes that was pretty severely flawed and unhelpful. I had to effectively 'break up' with them (I moved overseas for a while) so we could re-invent our relationship.

Why is all this relevant? Kinda two things I thought of when reading your posts through this thread;
1) My parents, in their retirement, have moved to a rural town of a bit under 8000 people. It's not hillbilly country or anything, but all of a sudden they are staunch supporters of the National Party (which is traditionally a Rural party, and long term coalition partners with the Liberal Party, which is more the Conservative Party here). It's not so much that they've changed allegiances that I find strange (although because of how they vote, it's like a Man U fan turning up in powder blue, but whatever...) It's more like their voting past doesn't exist. My mum was denigrating unions in her own polite fashion, and seemed almost confused when I made a joke about her time working for one. However they justified their voting to themselves, and to me, it's pretty clear that it had almost no basis in analyzing issues, or assessing likely impacts. Instead, they put their trust in strong local voices, had it reinforced at the local pub/sports club/shopping centre, and cast their vote.

2) I had to sort the wheat from the chaff with a lot of what my working class upbringing gave me. Personal responsibility? A strong work ethic? I'll keep those. The thought that change was bad? That authority shouldn't be challenged? That I should conform to those around me. Hmm...not so much. (The authority thing is truly interesting, given that they both advocated strongly for unionism, but perhaps a separate thread. Still, I think it's a common working class dichotomy). It took me a little while to challenge their political views, though. I suspect it's because I lived in a Labour-voting area, was a Uni student, then a teacher, and whilst I was more progressive socially, I was pretty economically conservative, so sticking to the centre-left made sense. That is still my natural lean, I guess. Ultimately, what I realised is that I had to TRULY become an independent voter. I couldn't conform just because that's how I was raised. And I couldn't be a reactionary, and vote some other way. So I decided I had to attack the issues on merit, and vote whichever way that lead me. It lead me to some mistakes, honestly, but it also served me well in the long run. As I grew, my ability to judge the issues at hand did too. The thought, now (as a 47 year old) that I would vote because that's how the people around me would vote (whether my parents, my friends, my drinking buddies, or whomever else) is kinda laughable. The arguments I generally hear from people about issues are almost a parody, in terms of their lack of depth. Bad as that can be amongst the oat-milk latte sipping crowd (as someone in this thread tried to frame urban liberals) it was even more ridiculous in my working class roots. There are people around who are worth discussing issues with, and where I have lost access to them, I've felt the loss keenly. But it's not common, nor do I have the least desire to submit to group think.

I guess my point, long-winded as I have been in reaching it, is that what's done is done. You cast your vote, you live with the outcome of the election. But we've talked, and you've posted enough here for me to know you're smart. And I know you don't subscribe to the same thoughts and patterns as everyone around you. My advice would be to also not conform with your voting. Either educate yourself on the issues to a level you are satisfactory with, or don't vote.
 
Last edited:

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
It is intriguing how easily people can become blinded by their own privileges, isn't it?
As someone that doesn't live in a first world country let me tell you I was smirking by the end of your post.

It's all relative, though. I've lived in a poor country, and been through an election cycle. There was the relatively wealthy and the relatively poor even there. And the wealthy, well-educated local candidate would come and eat with the company managers, before taking off his Western suit to go and campaign as a man of the people.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
It's all relative, though. I've lived in a poor country, and been through an election cycle. There was the relatively wealthy and the relatively poor even there. And the wealthy, well-educated local candidate would come and eat with the company managers, before taking off his Western suit to go and campaign as a man of the people.

There are relatively welthy and poor everywhere. I was merely pointing out how people might become oblivious to what they have to the extent they might think of themselves as having nothing to lose.
 
Top