I did initially write a long winded response/rant to your post. However, upon reflection didn’t see the value in posting it
All I ask for is a balanced perspective, the importance of people respecting and honouring someone else’s vote, which was part of a democratic process. Even if it does not aligning with your own.
If Remain supporters want to generalise Leave Voters as Old, Media influenced and organised Racists then it clearly displays the traits of embitterment, 10 years of sourness, resentment, etc, it ticks all the boxes.
Brexit hasn’t been managed well and that is on Us All.
If you genuinely believe that Remain voters have no accountability for their part in post Brexit UK then i will respect your and other posters views and will try to never discuss this again. Maybe, in exchange remain supporters will do the same and respect why people decided to vote leave. It would be nice to draw a line under the past and discuss how we can make the UK better for us all going forward.
To be clear, I am not British. I am however an economist. Ten years ago it was absolutely clear to me that the 2016 vote would engage enormous adjustment costs for very unclear benefit. Leaving one of the world’s largest free trade areas for some indefinite arrangement was going to have economic consequences. As it has turned out, the costs have been significant but not the worst case scenario.
I completely understand that for non-economic reasons, many Britons might have been and may indeed remain willing to bear those costs. It was possible that Britain could negotiate other trade relationships to offset that, but it has not turned out that way - and assuming it would was at best naive, and for some Leave figures, probably simply dishonest.
The problem with the ‘respect the vote’ argument is that unlike most votes, this one was close to permanent. Thatcher and Blair both won majority governments, they are now probably the two most hated prime ministers of the last 100 years - those choices were not permanent and yet both are spoken of with bitterness. I don’t think it is surprising that some of those who voted Remain are bitter - ‘drawing a line under the past’ is another way of saying that those responsible for what now looks quite simply like a history-altering error should not face any accountability.
I know, I also am aware you have written papers on similar subjects. I think we recently discussed the pension scheme.
I always try and remember my interactions with posters both positive and negative.
You have always been very fair in your interactions and I respect that.
I think we both agree in that a large percentage of the voters did not completely understand what they were voting for. It was easier for Remain to state the case because it was the norm - although there may have been some changes with Cameron’s ‘improved deal’.
I stand by my comment in that I did not expect the hostility towards my vote, I consider (although others may suggest otherwise) my views to be fair and reflective. I have mentioned it before, that one of the most saddening negatives of the Brexit referendum, is that my Dad voted to Leave but could only confide in me. I still don’t know if my Mom knows. To make people feel shamed because of their voting intention is wrong.
This is why I try to push back on the narrative. My Dad was mid 60s, parents Irish immigrants and reads the I-Paper. Genuinely one of the nicest blokes you would ever meet, yet as a statistic for the Remain he is a Racist.
There were always going to be consequences and I stand by it being too early to judge. Anyone that expected it to be smooth was wrong but additionally if we know it was not going to be smooth then remain voters should know better than to condemn it in its infancy. Especially considering the current climate.
When the UK Joined in 73 we ended up taking out a loan from the IMF, I don’t think we used it all but it took us a while to gain value in the Sterling. It was the discontent of the Austerity the led to fractures in the Labour Government which resulted in Thatcher. Infact I am sure it took until 82/83 before the UK’s economy started showing sustained growth.
I am in no way trying to disrespect you but the Remain campaign through the Tory Government also had Economists - probably not as balanced - and they were suggesting Recession/emergency Budgets, etc.
I accept that the Leave campaign was misleading and at times bordering on dishonesty because there was no mandate it was speculative, it had to be agreed and voted on and this was a massive faux pas on the Remains behalf. The issue is the Leave campaign sold the idea of Leave where as the Remain campaign didn’t sell the idea of staying.
It was close to permanent but this was for both sides of the argument. I went to bed expecting us to vote Remain. I accepted that, I voted for my choice and that’s all I could do. I didn’t expect my life to change and guess what it didn’t. I appreciate that I am looking at it from my own perspective but isn’t that what we are all doing?
Whether, it was obvious that leaving the EU was going to have economic consequences or not, whether there were alternative motives like Racism for people voting, we voted Leave. This was further supported by the local elections soon afterwards and one of the reasons behind Reforms popularity. For me to ask for us to draw a line under the matter is not dismissing people’s concerns, it is because we will never come to an agreement about this. If Remain succeeded what would you say to Leave voters who shared the same concerns???
We are 10 years in, I cannot forsee another vote in the near future so why waste energy negatively?
Out of interest, what were your forecasts for the EU on the back of Brexit?
I couldn’t read the whole thing. I got as far as “Stuart Campbell”. He’s a nasty piece of work, so I honestly couldn’t care less what he has to say. Unless it’s libellous again and he gets the financial kicking that he so richly deserves.
The issue wasn’t the word. The issue was putting it in inverted commas, which (and only Bonus will know the true intent) is an often used grammatical technique to devalue the thing you are talking about.
It’s understandable that people don’t like being called racist, and I do appreciate that it feels like the word gets thrown around a bit casually. However it feels to me quite obvious that society has lurched towards intolerance over the last decade, and people seem increasingly prepared to own opinions that are racist - there is just no other word for it. We have to be able to call racism out, and if we can’t do so because people are offended at that, we risk valuing the feelings of the person doing the racism more than the person on the end of the racism. Which feels a bit…erm…racist?
That’s called empathy. If we, as a society, lose the ability to see things from another person’s point of view and allow ourselves to imagine feeling what they would feel, then we are in deep, deep shit.
And it’s especially important when it comes to refugees and asylum seekers, because these people traditionally don’t have the voice within society to express their offence for themselves. Society is not weighted equally, all progressive causes that we’d all now uncontroversially agree with required people who were not directly affected to show offence in solidarity with those directly affected.
In a conversation if in English someone says ‘Ahem ‘people’’, the intention of that would be evident.
My immediate interpretation was that of @Bekloppt however I did pause and accept it was more ambiguous than that.
If I were you I’d just drop it. Unless you really do want to explain yourself rather than falling back on other posters who are not English.
Best to let this one go lads. I can often get the tone of text wrong, especially when it’s an emotional or controversial subject. I apologise to Bonus for thinking that way about him, meaning it in that sense would be despicable and he obviously isn’t. Learn and move on, YNWA as we say.
I believe in empathy and standing up for people, however, there is a fine line between that and taking offence for something they have no experience of and also sometimes it devalues the person.
For example, I remember having a conversation with a few lady friends and one of them had an issue where her Boyfriend took offence on her behalf and made a situation out of it. The incident hadn’t offended her but instead of being able to shrug it off, her partners interaction, all be it genuine made it an issue. There were other similar situations raised by the other lady’s.
It’s a fine line and on social media it has at times become a tool to gain attention, likes, etc. People can sometimes be clumsy with their words or use of quotations and are then defined by them.
just to make clear what i meant by the inverted comma’s in an earlier post,
i wrote the PM below to Bekloppt around 5 hrs after he posted his “this is genuinely the most shocking thing” post (excuse some of the spelling and grammar, i was still half asleep)
in the post i made it clear what i meant by the inverted comma’s
this PM was sent around 36 hrs before Magnus gave his correct opinion on the post, around 37 hrs before Bekloppt again tore into me for a 2nd time
thank you to the forum members who saw what i meant by the use of inverted comma’s, (your support is appreciated) and thank you to the forum members who PM’ed me to apologise to me for misinterpreting what i wrote.
For the record, and an attempt to draw a line under this, my initial reaction to reading ‘people’ was a negative one due to the way single inverted commas are most commonly used. However, as Bonus is a member of good standing, a known quantity if you will, I assumed my interpretation must be incorrect.
However, I’m going to delete the allusions to people deliberately misreading it due to some personal agenda as I think those are incredibly unfair in this circumstance, and would ask people to bear in mind that often how you say something is as important as what you say.
Good grief. This thread has turned into the most tedious exchange since I attended a three hour meeting discussing the rights and wrongs of using the word “outwith”.
I nearly caused a stramash with an English minister by describing it as a stooshie.
and are then defined by them.
