one out all out: a brexit from the modern world and every one of its problems please (we're all gonna die lol)

I've got pure Tinker DNA, so eat my post!

God of eternal love and power,

Save our parliamentary democracy;

Protect our High Court of Parliament and all its members

lol, some good ol' lamer Anglican Bishop babble is just what we need rn, yeah I'll say a prayer for Gove and Amber Rudd - but just one hoping that they die!

They don't want to be seen publicly expressing views they realize they might be judged harshly for, they might be embarrassed - is that being cowed? It's like the Shy Tory vote. That New Statesman thing is hideous btw. I'm voting Leave.

I dunno, I think this shy tory thing is overstated, and I don't think shy brexiteer exists. its a mania, why would they be manic but take care to hide this one aspect

"I support hanging, immediate nuclear war, workhouses, removal of all benefits but I'm too shy to say I want to reduce immigration"? The people who want immigration cut aren't shy about it in the least, I don't know why we're reluctant to believe peoples stated reasons for being pro-brexit

Maybe it's because immigration seemed like the only tangible reason to vote Leave (in the minds of those who did or nearly did) - something that decision can have a REAL impact on whereas the other reasons were more ideological or solely based on principle ('we' should make our own laws etc. whether or not 'we' notice any difference in practice).

Well this is the thing, many of the reasons seem existential rather than tangible

I'm not looking to downplay immigration as being a factor in all this, I just dont see it as being the primary factor and "well when they said it was xyz what they really meant was its immigration" doesn't hold enough water. The ones that do say its immigration aren't shy about it, and pro-leave people are across the political spectrum. We seem to be painting them as mainly EDL'rs and a few Dennis Skinners dotted around, I dont understand the reductionism

ian and chris def related - cousins, if not brothers

I'll probably always think of 'immigration concerns' as the primary factor but I've never thought of it as the dominant one. I could probably list six or seven that seem different enough from each other. I don't deny being in a bubble about it though - still never met anyone who's even said they voted Leave let alone why.

So, there's going to be a Brexit-betrayal march, headed by yax, I know because the BBC said. Are they going to cover it live? Laura kussenberg walking alongside? etc

I don't deny being in a bubble about it though - still never met anyone who's even said they voted Leave let alone why.

Could be a thread to collate these, I'm not going to say I know a load of people that voted leave, but or the ones that I know that did the reasons ranged from "I don't like the way the EU treats farm animals", through "they don't like us do they?" to plain old "couldn't get any worse so why not". Its tempting to attribute a coherent view down when I don't know how often there really even is one

I'll probably always think of 'immigration concerns' as the primary factor but I've never thought of it as the dominant one.

Aren't all of the reasons related to the idea that 'Britain' or 'Britishness' is being polluted and debased by external factors? It's typical right-wing 'declinism', whether manifested as anti-immigrant feeling, 'sovereignty' concerns, complaints about quasi-PC interference in British 'common sense' etc.

Yes but that stuff wouldn't resonate so much were it not for the visible and tangible signs of decline all over the place. Austerity and the ongoing economic trough may not have been many people's stated reasons for voting leave but they certainly provided the mood music.

We seem to be painting them as mainly EDL'rs and a few Dennis Skinners dotted around, I dont understand the reductionism

On the contrary, aren't you're the one who's doing that?

I don't think shy brexiteer exists. its a mania

"I support hanging, immediate nuclear war, workhouses, removal of all benefits but I'm too shy to say I want to reduce immigration"?

The people who want immigration cut aren't shy about it in the least

I don't agree with what you seem to be saying, that people who voted for Brexit because they want immigration cut are all Tommy Robinson fans.

yeah I don't think people with ~legitimate concerns~ about immigration are EDL'rs or dennis skinners (two poles of an anti-immigrant spectrum) so much as (lots of) people who have been misled about the effects of immigration on their prospects and have come to (misinformed) conclusions and (understandably) railed out against it

sorry don't think dennis skinner is _anti-immigrant_ that was poorly expressed. he is probably (I presume) (because I don't follow closely) anti-exploitation of immigrants (i.e. hates things like the posted workers directive.) I just assume that when e.g. corbyn talks about the adverse affects of immigration he's actually talking about the poor treatment of immigrant workers via the exploitation of the provisions of the PWD

Then i have expressed myself poorly. I was attempting to refute the idea that when people give reason x for being pro-brexit that they really mean immigration but are too frightened to say it. I think they really do mean reason x

Someone can be a hardcore brexiteer and not necessarily because of immigration and I dont think that makes them outliers.

I dont buy that they are letting the brexit flag fly but get all shy the minute immigration is mentioned. I think they are likely to say immigration is the reason (if it is the reason), and something else (if its something else). immigration is over-simplification

Well, we disagree, I can well believe that there are people who voted Brexit to cut immigration while at the same time realizing that going around saying, "The problem is all these immigrants taking jobs, not taking jobs, pushing down wages, getting houses, living 12 to a room, putting pressure on public services, sending all their money home etc etc" is nagl. Finish this sentence, "Taking back control..."

Definitely don't dispute that some people fall into that category!. Seems like the disagreement is probably more around what percentage of people fall into that category. I think there are outnumbered by both a) people who voted for immigration and dont care if saying so is nagl or not, and b) people who voted for non-immigration reasons

I guess ultimately I figure - without having looked at the polling - that the majority of _leavers_ vote that way due to immgration

sovereignty and taking back control were only ever
ex post facto motivations. albeit taking back control was a central plank of leave’s campaign what am I saying

... of our borders.

it was part of leave campaigns 2016 campaign, but the anti-EU campaign is decades long encompassing everything from bendy bananas to health and safety regulations. A lot of work was put into all that over a long period of time

Reasons people voted to leave as stated by leave voters
http://csi.nuff.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Stated-Reasons-Fig-1.png

Reasons people voted to leave as stated by remain voters
http://csi.nuff.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Stated-Reasons-Fig-2.png

I mean obviously these polls have their flaws , eg "punishing British politicians" is obviously something that is likely to be a subconscious rather than stated reason

one from 2016

54% take back power from Brussels, 24% reduce immigration

https://www.statista.com/statistics/664121/reasons-for-voting-leave-in-eu-referendum/

Yes but that stuff wouldn't resonate so much were it not for the visible and tangible signs of decline all over the place

For sure - the declinism narrative will use real examples of conflict, impoverishment, etc. But the difference is in how it's understood. So, uninterestingly, it's an ideological position. It's the fact that it's posed as an outside-sourced corruption of a natural and superior 'britishness' that make it right-wing.

Bad or unclear descriptions of reasons there though and the more I think about this the more I just end up feeling that things like 'to take power back from Brussels' are just the first part of a sentence to which xenophobic or racist sentiments are the ultimate follow up. We take or try to take a certain ideological distance from this mindset and from that distance 'too many foreigns' and 'too much foreign power' just er...look alike to us.

xp

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46494465

another public services behemoth deeply in the shit, good job brexit is the only show in town!

Twenty-four asylum seekers who claimed they were children after being sent to Liverpool were found to be adults, the city's council has said.

The authority said another 15 asylum seekers "should have been identified as children" by the government and accommodated in London instead.

Guess what got the headline.

I mean, conflating 'brexiteer' with 'voted to leave on 23 June 2016' is helping exactly no-one.

If there's one thing that could make No Deal happen it is May simultaneously refusing to believe her vote won't win and postponing and postponing it until it seems like it will. Brinksmanship is not a sane course here.

Well it’s not the Leibniz Clarke correspondence no

Who could have seen this coming?

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/foreign-office-funds-2m-infowars-13707574

ban the term "infowars" from URLs stat

fucking shady bastards won't be held to account for anything they do as long as this interminable fucking brexit show is the only thing that is happening.

Be interesting to see if anyone else picks up on that story b/c surely the civil service running domestic covert ops against the leader of the opposition is a major scandal?

Still fucking hell I don't think you need to spend £2m of public funds on this, it's not like there's any shortage of people willing to be pissy about Jeremy Corbyn on social media for free. And they claim there's no money...

There might be reticence as some of the info seems to have some from a hack but the core seems absolutely solid from the Institute For Statecraft’s statement on said hack - they were initially privately funded but received a major grant from the Foreign Office in 2017/18. They’ve subsequently deleted some of the tweets and retweets but there are plenty of receipts online.

As you say, though, that didn’t cost £2m so it would be interesting to know what did.

It's probably quite likely just to be a couple of employees ranting on the internet rather than the core aim of the organisation, right?

It appears to be Chris Williamson making a lot of noise about the revelations to I give it five minutes before some prick pops up with a comment about how this is proof of an organised conspiracy and how there has never been any antisemitism on the left.

i wonder which one of Corbyn's many allies in the UK media will choose to pursue this

well true, why spend £2mill on bots when there is some billionaire author operating from a huge sprawling estate in Aberfeldy, openly undermining the LOTO on a daily basis just for love!

fuck and die CW!

JK is actually a gay space communist, she just left it out of the books

The core aim of the organisation seems to be to ‘combat Russian disinformation and promote democracy’ - though, as always, this is so loosely defined as to make anyone you dislike a vehicle for one and an enemy of the other. A bunch of ex-spies and military being given money under the table to attack anyone they want without any accountability is always going to run this risk.

not so much a risk as a design feature

Yeah I mean it was clearly tolerated or encouraged - tacitly or otherwise - within the organisation. It's one of those things where as soon as someone points out that this might make them look bad it's immediately blamed on some graduate going rogue on Twitter or whatever.

Be interesting to see if anyone else picks up on that story b/c surely the civil service running domestic covert ops against the leader of the opposition is a major scandal?

No sign of it anywhere but the Daily Ranger Record. We've got some strange ideas of what constitutes a charity in this country.

Someone ought to check if Craig Murray is ok.

Carole Cadwalladr now wondering why Emily Thornberry’s suddenly complaining about this when ahe’s never once mentioned Arron Banks etc. SIGH

european court of justice, go on chapo

The European Court of Justice has ruled the UK can cancel Brexit without the permission of the other 27 EU members.

The ECJ judges ruled this could be done without altering the terms of Britain's membership.

A group of anti-Brexit politicians argued the UK should be able to unilaterally halt Brexit, but they were opposed by the government and EU.

The decision comes a day before MPs are due to vote on Theresa May's deal for leaving the EU.

MPs are already widely expected to reject the proposals during a vote in the House of Commons on Tuesday night.

BBC Brussels correspondent Adam Fleming said the ruling made staying in the EU "a real, viable option" and that may "sway a few MPs" in the way they vote.

But he said "a lot would have to change in British politics" to see the UK remain in the EU, with Mrs May and the government having to change its mind to make it a "political reality".

This is huge but I guess it's worth a fair few votes to May in Parliament later. Admittedly that means closer to 50 rebel votes than 100.

in any case it looks possible that May is going to do the old reverse ferret on actually holding the Commons vote