Not necessarily. Some of them just had different priorities - giving the political establishment a kicking - after a decade of unneccessary austerity. I strongly disagree with those priorities, and think they shot themslves in the foot in the most terrible way, but to characterise 52% of the people who voted as stupid is to miss the point.
It also wasn't entirely inappropriate as a way of giving the UK political establishment a good kicking, given that they'd been using the EU for decades as a way of pushing through laws they knew voters didn't want without that pesky business of having to publicly back them and get MPs to do the same. Remain supporters love to point to the fact that many unpopular EU laws were actually pushed for by the UK government as proof Leave supporters are stupid to blame the EU, but I don't think that argument flies.
It is pretty obvious that a large number of people disagree with the characterisation. Rather than hurling abuse, why not go a little further and explain what your objections are? Then maybe they'll change their minds instead of writing off opinions such as yours and the thread parent.
It is rare to persuade people by throwing in the towel on explaining. Add some reasons.
>change their minds instead of writing off opinions such as yours and the thread parent.
>It is rare to persuade people by throwing in the towel on explaining.
TBH, I don't think you can reason with people like that. If that's your cup of tea, please do. Maybe you will make the world a better place. In the meantime, I'll be definitely making my world better, by avoiding brexiters, antivaxers, flat-earthers and other crazies.
>Rather than hurling abuse
Technically, I don't think that that matters, as I am not going and I am not insulting anybody specifically (if somebody takes an offence about such a general statement on the internet, it's kinda their problem). But if anybody would ask me to support their stance on pro-brexit, I would gladly call them (brexiters) an idiot.
It really takes audacity to defend such a "move" where everybody loses.
I voted remain, but can understand your specific viewpoint despite not wanting what you do.
But I'm curious - did you think that was what you were voting for when you voted to leave? Vote Leave's campaign was so nebulous that it felt really hard to understand what they were actually campaigning for.
Also, political realities aside, would you (like Jacob Rees-Mogg did before the referendum) be interested in the results of a second referendum now that we know what the actual terms of the deal are?
First, I'm from Scotland and I also voted against independence, fwiw.
I don't watch the news, too stage-managed and depressing but I still seek out information when I need to as I still know what's going on at a high level: I just don't see all the death and daily politicking (sp?).
My issue with the EU (Now, I understand the nuances with the European Commission etc. but let's take it as "the EU" for the purposes of argument) is accountability.
We have 650 MP's here in the UK deciding our fate for us. We don't need any more.
The EU pact was originally about trade deals. I get governance from my locally elected MP's, I don't need anyone in Brussels deciding the fate of my country.
It wasn't xenophobia as many MP's painted it, it was about accountability and governance. For me, at least.
In terms of the deal we would get when we left? I didn't care and I still don't. We'll be fine.
The 350 million bullshit was just that... bullshit! I knew it at the time. Both sides would have probably lied through their teeth or stretched the truth way beyond reality: we saw that with the first Scottish independence referendum where the SNP figures were based on an oil price that hit a one-day high (I believe... it was a while back!).
If people trust their politicians to tell them the truth, or to put their interests at heart then that's the problem right there imo.
And as for the second referendum, I'm not sure I would. People get cold feet. Also, people are easily swayed. I'm not afraid to say that I wouldn't want another one as I may not get the result I wanted. But that aside... we voted. We took a legal vote and the result is in.
There would be the same shenanigans, lies and bullshit next time round anyway!
Edit: I forgot about something. Sir Tom Hunter commissioned a study on the effects of leaving the EU. It was from scholars and such. So it was based (hopefully) on data more than rhetoric, votes and soundbites. It didn't pick a side, it just gave all the info it could to allow an informed decision. I'd made my mind up by then but it was informative but, to be honest, still quite speculative as there very little actual data to go on. I trusted something like that far more than anything from a politician.
Edit2: Guys, the downvotes. C'mon! This isn't Reddit. By all means downvote but let's hear your argument. There are very few places you can go to get both sides of an argument where both parties don't resort to calling each other Nazi's. Even if you don't agree with me, tell me why please
Thanks, appreciate you taking the time to write out your thoughts (despite this item being flagged!)
If the leave campaign had been explicitly about moving to a Norway-style arrangement, for example, I'd have had much more sympathy for it, despite not wanting it personally. There's a reasoned argument that the main benefit of the EU is trade, although I would add that this view is complicated by the link between things like free movement of goods and free movement of people.
I would arge that, while there would indeed be lies and bullshit in another referendum, they wouldn't be the same ones because they'd at least have to be largely based on the concrete reality of the deal.
The person I really blame in all of this is that intellectual lightweight David Cameron. The referendum was mainly called to stop infighting in his party. It was done with no clear terms - i.e. what did Leave really mean? - which meant that people were able to argue past each other rather than engage on substantive points. His pantomime "renegotiation" before the referendum was utter crap, and the threats of "third world war" were completely overdone. (Although I do think it's worth remembering the role of the EU in the longest period of peace in Europe in history).
I think the really sad thing in all of this is the culture war that it has provoked, which in my view is all to do with the nebulous idea of what "leave" meant. This leads to stupidities like a "Festival of Brexit", which celebrates something that almost half of voters explicitly voted against, and which will only deepen those fractures.
I'm English, but have studied and lived in Scotland for a number of years at different points, and it has a big place in my heart. I would have voted no in the independence referendum too, and I can't help but think there's only one way that is going to go now, sooner or later.
I must admit its going to be fun re-using the "Its not about the money" arguments for Brexit to argue for Scottish Independence - the "No" campaign then being the origin of the "Project Fear" strategy.
There is a 20% budget deficit on day one of independence: 8% from the "danger" of Brexit (SNP's own slides!) and 12% approximately from the Barnett formula.
I asked a panel of SNP MSP's what they were going to do about the deficit since we'll technically be worse off than Greece on day one of independence and they wouldn't commit to an answer as they were waiting for George Osborne (the chancellor at the time) to provide them with exact figures... this was in a room full of Entrepreneurs in Ayrshire in 2016 (might have been 2017, can't quite remember the date). They got heckled for that answer.
I maintain that if they can come up with something plausible to answer the question of what we do on day one when we are bankrupt, I will look at the rest of the evidence. Until then, there's no point. I will vote no.
So the money angle is perfectly valid in the case of independence.
You make some interesting points, particularly about the culture war and the split within the people.
It was always going to bring out the xenophobes as they now had a somewhat legit platform for their views.
It's something I see up here in Scotland around the independence debate: It's a "them and us" thing.
Although the SNP would never come out and say it themselves, they are happily stoking the anti-English fires knowing that people will vote (or not) based solely on that.
Pisses me off to be honest since it means we can't get an actual debate going about the massive issues that independence will cause... it's basically all about "Fk the English" and that's all people see.
No it isn't. The money argument isn't a valid argument for the vast majority of people that voted to Leave. The people that voted leave just didn't think the economic argument is as important as you think it is. That doesn't make them stupid it simply means they have different priorities then you do.
"No it isn't. The money argument isn't a valid argument for the vast majority of people that voted to Leave."
The 350 million a week message was a vital part of the Vote Leave strategy - and given that it was Dominic Cummings in charge there would have been hard data to support its appeal.
It's the Dictator Problem from game theory; in general, if humans feel like you're not getting an fair slice of the pie, they would rather destroy the whole pie and make sure nobody gets anything, than to accept their unreasonably small share, even though logic dictates that you should always accept whatever small amount you're offered, because the alternative is getting nothing at all.
Brexit is analogous to this, where a fair share of the population felt their slice of the pie was so offensively small that they'd rather destroy the system than to put up with it anymore.
> even though logic dictates that you should always accept whatever small amount you're offered
I think this conclusion is invalid since it could be reasoned that by destroying the pie, a new one could prosper. So the logic is reductive because the model is.
I realise that it can be tempting to try and wave this around as proof that leavers are silly and us remainers are so much cleverer than them.
However, if you haven't realised by now that people who want to leave the EU want it for reasons other than budget contributions then you are the silly one. Not every political decision is based only on economics.
The fact that leave voters were motivated by non-economic factors (xenophobia, nationalism, sovereignty, etc.) doesn't detract from the fact that their vote was irrational in terms of its effect on their wellbeing.
Anecdotally, from watching shows like Question Time on the BBC, I strongly believe that leave voters are thick and we needn't tip toe around this issue. Here are two studies showing the correlation between votes and education level.
This is a smear to demonise leave voters and dismiss any valid concerns they may have. The UK is generally not xenophobic.
> Anecdotally, from watching shows like Question Time on the BBC, I strongly believe that leave voters are thick and we needn't tip toe around this issue.
I've watched plenty of question time and tbh the people that appear the stupidest are usually the politicians. So it is completely subjective.
> Here are two studies showing the correlation between votes and education level.
This is outright fallacious. I know plenty of people that have a PhD that can barely function outside of academia. Having a higher education level really doesn't mean much once you leave academia and doesn't mean you are any more or less informed on a particular issue.
Remember that the UK's contributions weren't just going into a black hole, so this isn't a zero-sum game. The UK also received an enormous amount back for those contributions despite being a net contributor, such as EU project funding in deprived areas, access to the single market, a strong position in global trade deals as part of the EU negotiating team and so on. The sums are much, much worse if you take that into account.
What people keep on forgetting is that Leaving the EU was never about money. Micheal Caine said it best "I'd rather be a poor master than a rich slave".
> This report includes several different surveys and opinion polls asking Britons why they voted the way they did in the EU referendum. It identifies that the two main reasons people voted Leave were ‘immigration’ and ‘sovereignty’, whereas the main reason people voted Remain was ‘the economy’.
I agree, and I've said that elsewhere in the comments. Thing is, this is going to come back and bite many of the people who think they're voting for more freedom. Poverty doesn't make you free.
Incredibly true. People who have the fortune to believe that ‘personal choice’ reigns supreme can’t imagine what it’s like when you only have one choice.
The UK isn't going to turn into a 3rd world country anytime soon and the Economy at the moment is still growing faster than Germany and is projected to continue after the 31st.
These are just the figures so far. This doesn't take into account things that are yet to happen like losing access to the single market (proximity is a far better predictor of economic exchange than culture, so talk of trade deals with Australia and New Zealand need to be taken with a huge pinch of salt), withdrawal from EU trade deals which are going to take a long time to renegotiate piecemeal (and which we're unlikely to get on the same terms as a separate entity), etc. The UK government has recently made noises to the effect that they're not interested in regulatory alignment with the EU, which is harmful because they're our biggest trading partner. To be clear, the EU is going to suffer too, but nothing like as much as the UK.
The narrative I've seen from the people I know who supported it is basically split 50/50 between not wanting to take orders from Brussels (even if we were at the table, making those rules) and just straight-up xenophobia.
I think the common thing about Brexit is that voting to leave is quite likely not based in any actual reason, but is a purely emotional reaction.
An emotional reaction that's certainly already screwed up my own future plans, so take that as my bias for remain.
This is tiring to keep seeing this constant smear repeated. Sure immigration was mentioned but having control over immigration isn't the same as xenophobia. I've lived in a few different countries and the UK generally isn't xenophobic.
> I think the common thing about Brexit is that voting to leave is quite likely not based in any actual reason, but is a purely emotional reaction.
Well I would disagree. There are plenty of reasons why (not taking orders from Brussels is a really good reason, especially after Article 11 and 13 were drafted and forced through the Parliament).
I don't classify it as a smear - it's true: control on immigration is, on varying levels, direct xenophobia. Most border policy is straight up prejudice against people based solely on the fact they aren't a citizen here, to different amounts based on the location they're coming from and the nature of their business in the receiving country.
Labelling people who voted to restrict border controls prejudiced against those who come from abroad isn't some horrific smear insult, it's merely stating the facts: they don't like "immigrant type X" and have acted accordingly.
I was also explicitly referencing my experience with those who I know who are outwardly Leave. Not once has any specific policy come up within their reasoning - broad feelings have been far and away the driver.
Using the hyper-partisan guardian opinion piece as evidence of anything is laughable. It is quite clear that many here don't want to understand those that voted Leave. Instead they are quite happy to build a straw-man.
I'm not really trying to use it as evidence of anything. You picked a citation, I picked another one. Furthermore, as mentioned, I agree with you on the reason not being money.
Regarding your other point, I honestly think there's nothing profound to understand but feel free to prove me wrong with concrete examples and no hand-waving or out-of-context citations.
Demagogues with agendas have existed for a long time, they are nothing new. So has scapegoating.
No-one in their right mind will claim that the EU is perfect, but the result of simplistically asking people to make a black-and-white decision about something so incredibly complex, and with so many unknowns, that almost no-one is in a position of fully understanding had the consequence of throwing the baby out with the water. And all because of a razor-thin-basically-within-uncertainty margin in the results.
Obviously, as laughable as this may be, it is a valid choice - and we will all have to live with its consequences.
I - for one - can't wait to get Scotland back in the EU.
If nobody can truly understand the EU how can you hold anyone or anything accountable? You've just made half of the sovereignty argument for me.
As for Scotland joining the EU. Even if Scotland does become independent (it won't), the EU wouldn't let an independent Scotland in.
> In order to join the EU you've got to have a budget deficit of 3% of GDP or less or be obviously (which allows for some fudging) moving in that direction. And Scotland, now that oil has plummeted, simply is not there. It's difficult, given the intertwining of British and Scottish accounts to get it exactly right but reasonable estimates have the Scottish alone budget deficit at 8 to 10% of GDP.
Scotland cannot sustain itself at all on its own. The SNP run Scotland poorly (and it is in their interest to do so) so it would have to go under massive austerity the moment they go independent.
> If nobody can truly understand the EU how can you hold anyone or anything accountable? You've just made half of the sovereignty argument for me.
Hmm that's not really what I wrote: the decision was about leaving the EU, so the not understanding part referred to "leaving the EU", not to the EU itself. You are still at square one, argument-wise.
As for Scotland, everyone knows that countries that want to join has to comply with common rules. Other countries had to go through the same problems. If they want to comply, I am sure they will find a way. When that happens, they will be welcome back in the EU.
True, but also if you ask those people what 'EU' laws they want to revert after Brexit, all you will hear back is 'Its matter of principles and not exact examples'.
Yep, and now those deprived areas, which mostly voted for Brexit are yelling and screaming that London should cover what they lose in EU contributions.
They were literally raking up some of the most valuable return contributions, specifically those in research. From the perspective of science and high tech investment, there could be no worse long term move than Brexit.
I have quite a few friends doing scientific research in the UK, many of them highly regarded in their fields, who were already being dropped from EU-funded projects more than a year ago. Research in the UK is going to become a real shitshow over the next few years.
I came away with a very negative reaction to this infographic. I mean visually, not the data. Some how I come away feeling very underwhelmed. The embedded flags, which are at the same height, draw my eye and make it harder to gauge the relative heights of the bars. Also, there is too little white space between the subheading and the graphic. Same for the footnote. I'm far from a competent graphic designer, but I think Statista could have done better with this one.
There are already comments on this post about leave voting people having no brain or being stupid. This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that only makes the situation worse! Let’s not forget that over half the country voted for it, calling these voters stupid only makes the divisions in what has become a divided country worse.
We have to except the decision has been made and move forward. Continuing to argue about who was right and wrong only holds us back, and I say that as a passionate remain voter. Let’s make the best of the new direction the country has taken!
I hold the Remain campaign in as much contempt as the Leave one personally. You don't get anywhere by complacent insults, and what did we get - people rebelled against complacency and being insulted. In record numbers.
"Making the best of it" though is a bitter-sweet pill. There are a lot of futures that have been made much more difficult/impossible. You can't "make the most" of something you're no longer allowed to do. Humans don't tend to like regression to a shittier state, that's one of the reasons climate change is such a tough nut to crack too.
Brexit isn't about economics, macro-economics rarely has an influence at the individual level. It's the story that wraps around the numbers and emotion that's important.
That's why Leave won. Not about net contributions, billions for science experiments most people don't understand. It won on the back of "money for more nurses to take care of your nan", "control of our borders to stop illegals taking your mate Dan's job".
So for an anecdote: if the UK pulls out of the EU data-roaming regulations, I'd have spent more on mobile data in just one holiday last year than my yearly total EU contribution from my tax (and that's with a very fair operator travel plan).
62 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 138 ms ] threadIt is rare to persuade people by throwing in the towel on explaining. Add some reasons.
TBH, I don't think you can reason with people like that. If that's your cup of tea, please do. Maybe you will make the world a better place. In the meantime, I'll be definitely making my world better, by avoiding brexiters, antivaxers, flat-earthers and other crazies.
>Rather than hurling abuse
Technically, I don't think that that matters, as I am not going and I am not insulting anybody specifically (if somebody takes an offence about such a general statement on the internet, it's kinda their problem). But if anybody would ask me to support their stance on pro-brexit, I would gladly call them (brexiters) an idiot.
It really takes audacity to defend such a "move" where everybody loses.
It's not an accurate description. Far from it.
I consider myself to be smart. I sought out as much data as I could before deciding to vote leave and I am sure I was not the only one.
The EU pact was originally trade-related. It wasn't about governance.
That's all I want.
Edit: To the person or people that downvoted me, any chance of an explanation?
But I'm curious - did you think that was what you were voting for when you voted to leave? Vote Leave's campaign was so nebulous that it felt really hard to understand what they were actually campaigning for.
Also, political realities aside, would you (like Jacob Rees-Mogg did before the referendum) be interested in the results of a second referendum now that we know what the actual terms of the deal are?
Edit: the downvote didn't come from me.
I don't watch the news, too stage-managed and depressing but I still seek out information when I need to as I still know what's going on at a high level: I just don't see all the death and daily politicking (sp?).
My issue with the EU (Now, I understand the nuances with the European Commission etc. but let's take it as "the EU" for the purposes of argument) is accountability.
We have 650 MP's here in the UK deciding our fate for us. We don't need any more.
The EU pact was originally about trade deals. I get governance from my locally elected MP's, I don't need anyone in Brussels deciding the fate of my country.
It wasn't xenophobia as many MP's painted it, it was about accountability and governance. For me, at least.
In terms of the deal we would get when we left? I didn't care and I still don't. We'll be fine.
The 350 million bullshit was just that... bullshit! I knew it at the time. Both sides would have probably lied through their teeth or stretched the truth way beyond reality: we saw that with the first Scottish independence referendum where the SNP figures were based on an oil price that hit a one-day high (I believe... it was a while back!).
If people trust their politicians to tell them the truth, or to put their interests at heart then that's the problem right there imo.
And as for the second referendum, I'm not sure I would. People get cold feet. Also, people are easily swayed. I'm not afraid to say that I wouldn't want another one as I may not get the result I wanted. But that aside... we voted. We took a legal vote and the result is in.
There would be the same shenanigans, lies and bullshit next time round anyway!
Edit: I forgot about something. Sir Tom Hunter commissioned a study on the effects of leaving the EU. It was from scholars and such. So it was based (hopefully) on data more than rhetoric, votes and soundbites. It didn't pick a side, it just gave all the info it could to allow an informed decision. I'd made my mind up by then but it was informative but, to be honest, still quite speculative as there very little actual data to go on. I trusted something like that far more than anything from a politician.
Edit2: Guys, the downvotes. C'mon! This isn't Reddit. By all means downvote but let's hear your argument. There are very few places you can go to get both sides of an argument where both parties don't resort to calling each other Nazi's. Even if you don't agree with me, tell me why please
If the leave campaign had been explicitly about moving to a Norway-style arrangement, for example, I'd have had much more sympathy for it, despite not wanting it personally. There's a reasoned argument that the main benefit of the EU is trade, although I would add that this view is complicated by the link between things like free movement of goods and free movement of people.
I would arge that, while there would indeed be lies and bullshit in another referendum, they wouldn't be the same ones because they'd at least have to be largely based on the concrete reality of the deal.
The person I really blame in all of this is that intellectual lightweight David Cameron. The referendum was mainly called to stop infighting in his party. It was done with no clear terms - i.e. what did Leave really mean? - which meant that people were able to argue past each other rather than engage on substantive points. His pantomime "renegotiation" before the referendum was utter crap, and the threats of "third world war" were completely overdone. (Although I do think it's worth remembering the role of the EU in the longest period of peace in Europe in history).
I think the really sad thing in all of this is the culture war that it has provoked, which in my view is all to do with the nebulous idea of what "leave" meant. This leads to stupidities like a "Festival of Brexit", which celebrates something that almost half of voters explicitly voted against, and which will only deepen those fractures.
I'm English, but have studied and lived in Scotland for a number of years at different points, and it has a big place in my heart. I would have voted no in the independence referendum too, and I can't help but think there's only one way that is going to go now, sooner or later.
There is a 20% budget deficit on day one of independence: 8% from the "danger" of Brexit (SNP's own slides!) and 12% approximately from the Barnett formula.
I asked a panel of SNP MSP's what they were going to do about the deficit since we'll technically be worse off than Greece on day one of independence and they wouldn't commit to an answer as they were waiting for George Osborne (the chancellor at the time) to provide them with exact figures... this was in a room full of Entrepreneurs in Ayrshire in 2016 (might have been 2017, can't quite remember the date). They got heckled for that answer.
I maintain that if they can come up with something plausible to answer the question of what we do on day one when we are bankrupt, I will look at the rest of the evidence. Until then, there's no point. I will vote no.
So the money angle is perfectly valid in the case of independence.
It was always going to bring out the xenophobes as they now had a somewhat legit platform for their views.
It's something I see up here in Scotland around the independence debate: It's a "them and us" thing.
Although the SNP would never come out and say it themselves, they are happily stoking the anti-English fires knowing that people will vote (or not) based solely on that.
Pisses me off to be honest since it means we can't get an actual debate going about the massive issues that independence will cause... it's basically all about "Fk the English" and that's all people see.
The 350 million a week message was a vital part of the Vote Leave strategy - and given that it was Dominic Cummings in charge there would have been hard data to support its appeal.
David Starky actually does some really good lectures about it. It is part of the Zeitgeist of this country.
There are no facts there about brexit costs only speculation by Bloomberg about potential lost economic growth.
Brexit is analogous to this, where a fair share of the population felt their slice of the pie was so offensively small that they'd rather destroy the system than to put up with it anymore.
I think this conclusion is invalid since it could be reasoned that by destroying the pie, a new one could prosper. So the logic is reductive because the model is.
I wouldn't want to apply this here though.
However, if you haven't realised by now that people who want to leave the EU want it for reasons other than budget contributions then you are the silly one. Not every political decision is based only on economics.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/0...
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-201...
This is a smear to demonise leave voters and dismiss any valid concerns they may have. The UK is generally not xenophobic.
> Anecdotally, from watching shows like Question Time on the BBC, I strongly believe that leave voters are thick and we needn't tip toe around this issue.
I've watched plenty of question time and tbh the people that appear the stupidest are usually the politicians. So it is completely subjective.
> Here are two studies showing the correlation between votes and education level.
This is outright fallacious. I know plenty of people that have a PhD that can barely function outside of academia. Having a higher education level really doesn't mean much once you leave academia and doesn't mean you are any more or less informed on a particular issue.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/10/the-350m-line-on-the-b...
> This report includes several different surveys and opinion polls asking Britons why they voted the way they did in the EU referendum. It identifies that the two main reasons people voted Leave were ‘immigration’ and ‘sovereignty’, whereas the main reason people voted Remain was ‘the economy’.
No mention of the Bus anywhere or the NHS. So no.
Incredibly true. People who have the fortune to believe that ‘personal choice’ reigns supreme can’t imagine what it’s like when you only have one choice.
By leaving the EU, where we were a net contributor, how is that going to make us poor?
Genuine question, I only ever saw that argument (with no data, I might add) from hardcore remainers like SNP.
1 in every 7 German cars is bought in the UK. I couldn't find a price tag for that but it will be £Billions. Easily.
There will still be deals made across the EU with the UK... there is too much money at stake not to.
350 Million£ a week for the NHS bus the Brexiters were so proud of displaying?
If that's not about money I'm not sure what is.
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/research-papers/peoples-stated-reasons...
Note the Bus or the NHS isn't mentioned.
I think the common thing about Brexit is that voting to leave is quite likely not based in any actual reason, but is a purely emotional reaction.
An emotional reaction that's certainly already screwed up my own future plans, so take that as my bias for remain.
This is tiring to keep seeing this constant smear repeated. Sure immigration was mentioned but having control over immigration isn't the same as xenophobia. I've lived in a few different countries and the UK generally isn't xenophobic.
> I think the common thing about Brexit is that voting to leave is quite likely not based in any actual reason, but is a purely emotional reaction.
Well I would disagree. There are plenty of reasons why (not taking orders from Brussels is a really good reason, especially after Article 11 and 13 were drafted and forced through the Parliament).
Both the UK Labour and Conservative Parties supported those.
Labelling people who voted to restrict border controls prejudiced against those who come from abroad isn't some horrific smear insult, it's merely stating the facts: they don't like "immigrant type X" and have acted accordingly.
I was also explicitly referencing my experience with those who I know who are outwardly Leave. Not once has any specific policy come up within their reasoning - broad feelings have been far and away the driver.
So I agree with you, it was never about money.
Regarding your other point, I honestly think there's nothing profound to understand but feel free to prove me wrong with concrete examples and no hand-waving or out-of-context citations.
Demagogues with agendas have existed for a long time, they are nothing new. So has scapegoating.
No-one in their right mind will claim that the EU is perfect, but the result of simplistically asking people to make a black-and-white decision about something so incredibly complex, and with so many unknowns, that almost no-one is in a position of fully understanding had the consequence of throwing the baby out with the water. And all because of a razor-thin-basically-within-uncertainty margin in the results.
Obviously, as laughable as this may be, it is a valid choice - and we will all have to live with its consequences.
I - for one - can't wait to get Scotland back in the EU.
As for Scotland joining the EU. Even if Scotland does become independent (it won't), the EU wouldn't let an independent Scotland in.
> In order to join the EU you've got to have a budget deficit of 3% of GDP or less or be obviously (which allows for some fudging) moving in that direction. And Scotland, now that oil has plummeted, simply is not there. It's difficult, given the intertwining of British and Scottish accounts to get it exactly right but reasonable estimates have the Scottish alone budget deficit at 8 to 10% of GDP.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/06/26/the-prob...
Scotland cannot sustain itself at all on its own. The SNP run Scotland poorly (and it is in their interest to do so) so it would have to go under massive austerity the moment they go independent.
Hmm that's not really what I wrote: the decision was about leaving the EU, so the not understanding part referred to "leaving the EU", not to the EU itself. You are still at square one, argument-wise.
As for Scotland, everyone knows that countries that want to join has to comply with common rules. Other countries had to go through the same problems. If they want to comply, I am sure they will find a way. When that happens, they will be welcome back in the EU.
Best of luck with that one.
We have to except the decision has been made and move forward. Continuing to argue about who was right and wrong only holds us back, and I say that as a passionate remain voter. Let’s make the best of the new direction the country has taken!
"Making the best of it" though is a bitter-sweet pill. There are a lot of futures that have been made much more difficult/impossible. You can't "make the most" of something you're no longer allowed to do. Humans don't tend to like regression to a shittier state, that's one of the reasons climate change is such a tough nut to crack too.
"Let's not bicker and argue about who killed whom: this is supposed to be a happy celebration!" ;)
That's why Leave won. Not about net contributions, billions for science experiments most people don't understand. It won on the back of "money for more nurses to take care of your nan", "control of our borders to stop illegals taking your mate Dan's job".
So for an anecdote: if the UK pulls out of the EU data-roaming regulations, I'd have spent more on mobile data in just one holiday last year than my yearly total EU contribution from my tax (and that's with a very fair operator travel plan).