Brexit: The fallout

18,285 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, cb6dba said:

Farage spent years on the fisheries committee, he should have had an idea what could happen, maybe he didn't (incompetence of a very high order) or he did (was a risk he thought was worth taking). 

 

During his time on said committee, Farage attended only one of 42 meetings. On the three major votes on the common fisheries policy, he failed to vote in favour of improving the legislation. Nuff said.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/12/2021, 3:08:33, murphaph said:

anybody that was warned about the violence that would inevitably return to Northern Ireland and still went ahead and voted for it would have blood on their hands. 

This is the language of the wife-beater and the serial rapist. She was warned. She was asking for it.

 

It's called victim-blaming.

 

Nobody in a democracy is morally responsible for complying with the demands of terrorists, no matter how predictable the response.

Any blood is on the hands of the terrorists and perhaps at a push those who enable them by victim-blaming.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, penchanski said:

This is the language of the wife-beater and the serial rapist. She was warned. She was asking for it.

 

It's called victim-blaming.

 

Nobody in a democracy is morally responsible for complying with the demands of terrorists, no matter how predictable the response.

Any blood is on the hands of the terrorists and perhaps at a push those who enable them by victim-blaming.

 

Well, that comparison is reprehensible. How embarrassing for you. 

 

@cb6dba You hit the nail on the head. Penchanski speaks the language of the colonizers well. 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, cb6dba said:

That's part of the point, they are allowed to vote for it as a given risk will not hit them. Anyone can say 'that won't bother me so I don't care', also fine but also says something about the person saying that to themselves. Imagine being in a pub and someone says they want to remove sexual harassment laws because they've never been sexually harassed. 

 

So, I think for me, whilst I follow and agree with the logic, I struggle with the extremes being applied. In your example above, the logic is agreeable but I find it an extreme comparison. There is, for the sake of argument, nothing to be gained by not having sexual harassment laws. But, people believed there were major gains to be had by Brexit, and although violence in NI was a possible occurrence, it was by no means a definite outcome at the time of the vote. People were sold a very different narrative.

 

The liars and con artists who downplayed those risks and then, after the vote, seemingly orchestrated that those risks will indeed end up playing out...well...they are complicit*. Everyone else? Foolhardy naive victims of con artists? Maybe. Or maybe they just thought their lives would be better by voting for Brexit and that's what they did.

 

22 hours ago, cb6dba said:

People who campaigned for it and knew the risks, I would say, as I did, are complicit in what is happening, they may not have set out to cause it, but then again no one ever went out with the thought of hitting another car.

To me, if you knew the risks and did it anyway, you are complicit.

 

Again, for the sake of argument. People who voted for Biden knew there was a risk he would continue with the plans to withdraw US troops out of Afghanistan. That now seems set to happen and there is the very real possibility of there being deaths (possibly even full on civil war) as a result. Will those who voted and/or campaign for Biden complicit in those deaths? Will they have blood on their hands?

 

* Just a reminder,

complicit: involved with others in an activity that is unlawful or morally wrong

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why was anyone in the UK morally obligated to consider the potential for strife in Ireland as the most important factor when voting on the Brexit issue  rather than just one of many issues?   

 

Perhaps those stoking the sectarian violence can recognize that Brexit voters may not be interested to ignore their other interests forever.    People may move on.  

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, theGman said:

 

So, I think for me, whilst I follow and agree with the logic, I struggle with the extremes being applied. In your example above, the logic is agreeable but I find it an extreme comparison. There is, for the sake of argument, nothing to be gained by not having sexual harassment laws. But, people believed there were major gains to be had by Brexit, and although violence in NI was a possible occurrence, it was by no means a definite outcome at the time of the vote. People were sold a very different narrative.

 

The liars and con artists who downplayed those risks and then, after the vote, seemingly orchestrated that those risks will indeed end up playing out...well...they are complicit*. Everyone else? Foolhardy naive victims of con artists? Maybe. Or maybe they just thought their lives would be better by voting for Brexit and that's what they did.

 

 

Again, for the sake of argument. People who voted for Biden knew there was a risk he would continue with the plans to withdraw US troops out of Afghanistan. That now seems set to happen and there is the very real possibility of there being deaths (possibly even full on civil war) as a result. Will those who voted and/or campaign for Biden complicit in those deaths? Will they have blood on their hands?

 

* Just a reminder,

complicit: involved with others in an activity that is unlawful or morally wrong

I'd say there is a difference between voting for Biden as a package and bexit which is a single issue. Voting for a package is like the box of chocolates, you may get the few you really like, the few you are kind of ok with and the odd one you never eat, like those [inset colour] quality street things that are always left in the tin way into new year.

The discussion with a politician comes after the vote, they won the vote. if that is useful, depends on the majority said politician holds in parliament. With a single issue referendum the discussion comes before, the plus/minus, risks, mitigation all happen before, to sway the vote one way or another. 

If Brexit was tin of quality street, the contents are unknown, all wrapped the same, two sweets have nuts in them and one or more family members are really, really, really, seriously allergic to nuts.   

 

NI had many possible outcomes, the one we are seeing was a definite risk, if politicians were complicit (morally wrong) to ignore it, sweep it under the table or to just say 'who cares, we won't get shot and hey, who knows, maybe the EU will give us what we want' is a matter of opinion. Although, the amount of lies told would seem to push it towards morally wrong if people think it is actually wrong that politicians lie to us. We all know they do, in a way we just accept it. Today people are spilt into some kind of football politics where as long as it's your guy (or girl) doing it, it's fine.

 

I don't think the leave campaign really cared about NI (as a whole) beyond any leverage it could have bright. Some may have thought the EU would not risk the GFA, some may have thought the whole thing would have put an end to it and loosened ties with the south and due to that, killed off any chance of united Ireland at some point. I guess we'll never know the motivation as they are not going to tell us. 

 

We are where we are, this outcome was mentioned, pointed out and it's happened. It could be worse, I wouldn't want to have seen this if all this happened just a few years after GFA was signed.  

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cb6dba said:

Can someone explain to me how BJ is the victim here?

The UK would be the victim. I never mentioned BJ.

 

2 hours ago, cb6dba said:

Or are you just accusing a member of the TT community of thinking like a serial rapist  to try and draw them in to an argument? 

Nope, accused him of the using the same victim-blaming language.

That doesn't make him a serial rapist any more than voting for Brexit means "blood on their hands". 

 

I also mentioned wife beaters and in fact, victims of domestic abuse commonly blame themselves as well.
I could perhaps have been more gentle and and said he was using the language of the battered wife, however, he wasn't exactly blaming himself now, was he?

 

2 hours ago, cb6dba said:

No one is indeed morally responsible for complying with the demands of terrorists

Thank you. And no-one has "blood on their hands" for voting.

 

2 hours ago, cb6dba said:

See that white line you just crossed, that is in the parking lot, own goal, out of the stadium and on your way to who knows where.

No I don't.
Are you saying that accusing someone of victim blaming is worse than accusing them of being responsible for terrorism and having "blood on their hands"? 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As we are just picking bits out of stuff..

 

1 minute ago, penchanski said:

The UK would be the victim. I never mentioned BJ.

You are mixing a lot of stuff up there. You say people, then mention the UK as a victim. Those are two totally different things, the UK didn't vote for this, people voted, people who live in the UK. Now I don't see myself as the UK, and I don't see any insults thrown my way as anyone insulting the UK. Same with any assault etc. Likewise, I don't see any insults or criticism of the UK as being pointed at me. I can't understand why anyone would fell that, maybe my sense of identity is just more with me that for some people. 

 

 

13 minutes ago, penchanski said:

I also mentioned wife beaters and in fact, victims of domestic abuse commonly blame themselves as well.
I could perhaps have been more gentle and and said he was using the language of the battered wife, however, he wasn't exactly blaming himself now, was he?

You've gone from saying it is the language of a serial rapist (she was asking for it) to saying you could have said he was using the language of a battered wife. Two very different uses of the language, one is the language if entitlement, the other is used by a victim. That the victim has resigned themselves and internalized the situation to that extent, pushes them even further apart. Saying the language is the same infers that the victim is as much to blame as the rapist.

No what would that be called?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not going to get involved in all the shit slinging going on in these last couple of pages (yer unusual for me I know.)

It does show though that the problem with the Brexit vote was that it was never really explained to many people a lot of the consequences of voting to opt out or stay in.

I´m pretty sure if you asked many of the people who voted for it about NI and what is happening that many of them wouldn´t have had an inkling that this could be one of the consequences.

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, cb6dba said:
42 minutes ago, penchanski said:

The UK would be the victim. I never mentioned BJ.

You are mixing a lot of stuff up there. You say people, then mention the UK as a victim.

No, I never said people either. I think it might be you that is getting mixed up.

 

If the high-level concept is troubling for you, try this little scenario:

One of the 44% of NI voters that voted Leave is murdered by a terrorist in a direct reprisal for Brexit.

 

Who is the victim?

Who has "blood on their hands" according to your man?

 

Now, let's agree that in reality there is no 1:1 relationship between Leave voters and victims. Granted.

 

 

But the principle is still blame the victim.

 

In the broader scheme of things, in a reality where nobody knows who voted for what, it's simply the UK that is being attacked for implementing the Leave vote. And your man is saying that it is at fault for that.

 

2 hours ago, cb6dba said:

Saying the language is the same infers that the victim is as much to blame as the rapist.

No, it doesn't.

 

And I wouldn't normally be so pedantic but 'it implies, you infer'. It's a good little parallel to our discussion. 

 

You accused me of wanting to start an argument but I really don't, I don't have the time. So I'll leave it there. It's all a bit too "Mhussus Bunfield" round here anyway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEsFtiruIok

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, someone is a bit...

 

3 hours ago, penchanski said:

In the broader scheme of things, in a reality where nobody knows who voted for what, it's simply the UK that is being attacked for implementing the Leave vote. And your man is saying that it is at fault for that.

We are what?

heli_atack.JPG.a0413adcc55dda1adb2649369

 

You call for help, the rest of us will sit here as we understand that criticism of the UK is not a personal attack as we have integrated personalities and developed sense of self worth.

 

3 hours ago, penchanski said:

In the broader scheme of things, in a reality where nobody knows who voted for what

 

And there we have it, someone, somewhere finally admits nobody knew what they were voting for.

 

If Murph is my man, do I have to do that whole fist bump ghetto thing if I ever meet him?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, cb6dba said:

I'd say there is a difference between voting for Biden as a package and bexit which is a single issue. Voting for a package is like the box of chocolates, you may get the few you really like, the few you are kind of ok with and the odd one you never eat, like those [inset colour] quality street things that are always left in the tin way into new year.

The discussion with a politician comes after the vote, they won the vote. if that is useful, depends on the majority said politician holds in parliament. With a single issue referendum the discussion comes before, the plus/minus, risks, mitigation all happen before, to sway the vote one way or another. 

 

Ah, okay, so that's where we disagree. For me Brexit was totally what you describe as a package. It could have meant any number of things. There was a huge range of possible Brexits. That was to be decided by the politicians after the vote and that's what happened. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but it was in no way obvious what was going to actually happen in NI. A possibility, yes, but what eventually happened with Cameron quitting, Theresa coming in and then her red lines, the ERG, Johnson.  There was only a single question on the ballot, yes or no, Trump or Biden, BJ or Corbyn. People campaigned and voted for the UK to leave a political and economic union, that was it.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, theGman said:

 

Ah, okay, so that's where we disagree. For me Brexit was totally what you describe as a package. It could have meant any number of things. There was a huge range of possible Brexits. That was to be decided by the politicians after the vote and that's what happened. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but it was in no way obvious what was going to actually happen in NI. A possibility, yes, but what eventually happened with Cameron quitting, Theresa coming in and then her red lines, the ERG, Johnson.  There was only a single question on the ballot, yes or no, Trump or Biden, BJ or Corbyn. People campaigned and voted for the UK to leave a political and economic union, that was it.

Not obvious, but highlighted. A risk seen and accepted.

It's a scenario that is the mainstay of a lot of disaster movies. Someone highlights the risk, people ignore it (or don't care) and shit happens. I work in IT in an area that deals with data protection, data protection laws and we go through SOX audits.

 Any mistake in those areas and it big fine day. I have a lot do to with risk, if we do that, what will happen, how can we mitigate it. A developer that takes down a system didn't set out to do that, we kind of expect that they are capable of looking at the risks (they should have tested, but even then, testing in a non live environment is no guarantee it will work in the live environment) and if any are known, mitigation can be looked at and we can can plan for any issues. If the risk is big enough, we don't go forward until it isn't big. Someone 'voted' for the new package (application) but we don't just push it through and hope for the best.

 

The risk here was obvious from the start of the discussions in 2016 and I would agree with you that it wasn't obvious if it wasn't for the fact that the risk was not only ignored, it was attacked by others, People campaigning for leave went out of their way to label it as project fear, to try to lessen the risk in people's eyes. It not going to happen, no one wants that, it can't happen, the EU will back down, the deal covers this, the deal that seems to not have been read by the conservatives and has been accepted and rejected by, well, us.

I guess we could put it down to just incompetence but I don't thin that makes it any better.  

 

"People campaigned and voted for the UK to leave a political and economic union, that was it." - While being made aware of the risk and ignoring it or having it lessened in their eyes to the point it seemed very unlikely. If we had stayed in the customs union I think this all would not be an issue. Same if we had stayed in the single market.

 

However, that was actually said often, no one is talking about coming out of the single market, no one is coming out of the customers union, said by politics during the campaign.

Is lying about that to get the vote across the line a complicit act? 

The risks we out there, people made decisions, and we are where we are, weather it is due to incompetence or an active (and successful) attempt to  sweep problem under the rug, who knows, both are not great. I guess hat is where the 'complicit' is, lies or incompetence. 

 

At the moment brexit is looking like any government project. It's costing more than we were told, it's gone on for way longer than we were told, it isn't doing what was promised and the people who pushed for it and just going on in the hope that one day they can say 'hey, look what now have'. 

 

I'm also sure a lot of the issues with Brexit were highlighted here on TT over the years. So either they were very obvious, or we here on TT should be running the UK government :ph34r: 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, cb6dba said:

"People campaigned and voted for the UK to leave a political and economic union, that was it." - While being made aware of the risk and ignoring it or having it lessened in their eyes to the point it seemed very unlikely. If we had stayed in the customs union I think this all would not be an issue. Same if we had stayed in the single market.

 

However, that was actually said often, no one is talking about coming out of the single market, no one is coming out of the customers union, said by politics during the campaign.

Is lying about that to get the vote across the line a complicit act? 

 

Yes, exactly! Brexit as we, the voters and the campaigners mostly understood it was for not coming out of the single market or customs union, NI wasn't, in principle, at risk. This all come afterwards. There was an inherent risk, because Brexit wasn't officially defined and nobody knew for sure what it would end up but, I would argue that, at the time, those risks to Ireland were seen and understood to be small.

 

Now we know that the ERG types were lying through their teeth and they wanted are harder Brexit all along. Those people are complicit for sure.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, theGman said:

 

Yes, exactly! Brexit as we, the voters and the campaigners mostly understood it was for not coming out of the single market or customs union, NI wasn't, in principle, at risk. This all come afterwards. There was an inherent risk, because Brexit wasn't officially defined and nobody knew for sure what it would end up but, I would argue that, at the time, those risks to Ireland were seen and understood to be small.

 

Now we know that the ERG types were lying through their teeth and they wanted are harder Brexit all along. Those people are complicit for sure.

Yep, any politician that knew the goal was to come out of the customs union and knew the risks that would bring to NI is complicit. Any that lied to just get the whole thing done, also complicit. 

As brexit wasn't defined, we could also argue that no one knew exactly what they were voting for. This issue alone proves that, or did anyone vote for a border between the north and south?

We have enough brexit supporters here on TT and none have said 'I voted knowing that this could happen and I just don't care'.

 

As I said before, I don't see any blood on the hands of people who voted for brexit, at least not in general, but the politicians who knew how this would play out and accepted the risk, yes. Saying 'blood on their hands' is really just a heavy way of saying they are responsible or carry some responsibility for this. 

 

As I've also said, a government has the moral responsibility to keep it's citizens safe. Any politician that undertakes an action knowing that it could harm people but just accepts the risk and anything that comes after as 'acceptable' is at best incompetent, at worst, unfit for office.  

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now