I meant the politicians, who do typically sit at the capital. Of course there might be a xenophobic sentiment in the population, but the political elites can somewhat steer the popular sentiment. The current political meta (not only in the UK, but unfortunately pretty much worldwide) is to reinforce xenophobic tendencies in order to have an easy scapegoat in “them evil foreigners™” for things going wrong due to the political establishment and their benefactors in “the economy™” benefiting from things going wrong for ordinary people.
I don’t think xenophobia is motivating Labour to stay clear of the EU at the moment… I think it’s just political reality, unfortunately. There are quite a few working class people who traditionally vote for Labour, but they also backed Brexit, and Labour doesn’t want to lose those voters to the Conservatives or Reform.
It’s a positive feedback loop. Some voters are xenophobes, party caters to the xenophobes by perpetuating xenophobe fairy tales, more voters become xenophobes from hearing those fairy tales.
Do you think Labour are catering to xenophobes? I don’t think they’re saying much that is xenophobic. I think it’s just that they know many people voted for Brexit and Labour doesn’t want to upset those voters.
True to an extent. Also though I guess there are people who felt like Brussels told Britain what to do. I don’t agree with that, because Britain was part of the decision making process, in the EU parliament. But I guess in a democracy the majority view wins out, even if you don’t agree with that view. If we ignore democratic views then voters get very angry and more extreme.
However I’m definitely not someone who thinks democracy ended in 2016 regarding the Brexit question. Democracy obviously continues, so I think it would be completely legitimate if the UK had another EU membership referendum at some point.
It’s quite a stupid move to tie such a consequential decision as leaving the EU to a non binding referendum with a 51 to 49 outcome. Something with such massive consequences should require a 2/3 majority.
Especially if there is as much foreign interference as with the Brexit campaign.
Blame David Cameron I guess. The result was 52-48 by the way although I guess that’s an insignificant difference.
In principle I think a majority should count… but maybe there should have been a second referendum to clarify what type of Brexit people wanted. The UK could have remained in the EU single market and/or customs union while fulfilling the mandate of the first referendum to leave the EU. Norway, Switzerland, and Iceland all participate in the EU single market to some degree, without being EU members.
I meant the politicians, who do typically sit at the capital. Of course there might be a xenophobic sentiment in the population, but the political elites can somewhat steer the popular sentiment. The current political meta (not only in the UK, but unfortunately pretty much worldwide) is to reinforce xenophobic tendencies in order to have an easy scapegoat in “them evil foreigners™” for things going wrong due to the political establishment and their benefactors in “the economy™” benefiting from things going wrong for ordinary people.
I don’t think xenophobia is motivating Labour to stay clear of the EU at the moment… I think it’s just political reality, unfortunately. There are quite a few working class people who traditionally vote for Labour, but they also backed Brexit, and Labour doesn’t want to lose those voters to the Conservatives or Reform.
Maybe I’m wrong but that’s my perception.
It’s a positive feedback loop. Some voters are xenophobes, party caters to the xenophobes by perpetuating xenophobe fairy tales, more voters become xenophobes from hearing those fairy tales.
Do you think Labour are catering to xenophobes? I don’t think they’re saying much that is xenophobic. I think it’s just that they know many people voted for Brexit and Labour doesn’t want to upset those voters.
Brexit was largely fuelled by xenophobic fairy tales. Blaming the EU and immigration for pretty much everything that went badly.
True to an extent. Also though I guess there are people who felt like Brussels told Britain what to do. I don’t agree with that, because Britain was part of the decision making process, in the EU parliament. But I guess in a democracy the majority view wins out, even if you don’t agree with that view. If we ignore democratic views then voters get very angry and more extreme.
However I’m definitely not someone who thinks democracy ended in 2016 regarding the Brexit question. Democracy obviously continues, so I think it would be completely legitimate if the UK had another EU membership referendum at some point.
It’s quite a stupid move to tie such a consequential decision as leaving the EU to a non binding referendum with a 51 to 49 outcome. Something with such massive consequences should require a 2/3 majority.
Especially if there is as much foreign interference as with the Brexit campaign.
Blame David Cameron I guess. The result was 52-48 by the way although I guess that’s an insignificant difference.
In principle I think a majority should count… but maybe there should have been a second referendum to clarify what type of Brexit people wanted. The UK could have remained in the EU single market and/or customs union while fulfilling the mandate of the first referendum to leave the EU. Norway, Switzerland, and Iceland all participate in the EU single market to some degree, without being EU members.
The thing is, you only get the single market proper if you accept freedom of movement. It’s a package deal.
Also, in order to get access to the single market, you have to accept and implement regulations.
Of course, you’ll have to pay for access to the single market, as well, but as a non member have no say on regulations.
Neither of those implications was wanted by the UK.