They got everything they wanted, and told the rest of us to suck it down.
this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Europe
8484 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe πͺπΊ
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, π©πͺ ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out [email protected]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed.
Well well well, if it isn't the consequences of your own actions.
Usually I'm extremely sympathetic of Brexit woes considering the slim majority, lying Leave campaign, and considering the vote happened immediately after the EU refugee crisis where anti-EU sentiment was at a high all over the union.
I also usually remind the people that call for blood that, at the time, countries like France and the Netherlands had an even higher anti-EU sentiment. That people are lucky only the UK's leadership was stupid enough to allow the vote to happen when it did, and that the UK's population aren't any more guilty or deserving of punishment than a slew of other European populations.
But UK farmers? Nah. These people are business owners who should be expected to do their research. These people should've known that cutting ties with the strictest food market on Earth and opening the floodgates to food from elsewhere would damage their business. They voted for Brexit overwhelmingly. I have much less sympathy for these people.
The positive is that the Tories are heading for an electoral catastrophe. And farmers hold immense sway for the Tories in a way they don't with Labour.
at the time, countries like France, Italy, Czechia, Austria, the Netherlands, Greece, and others had the same level or higher anti-EU sentiment
I would very much doubt that, seeing as I've never heard of any significant leave campaign in any of these countries let alone any actual legislative move to do so.
Just because you haven't heard about it, doesn't mean it's not the case, jeez pull your head out your arse. France had a leave referendum too, and the majority voted leave, but they had politicians who were smart enough to ignore the results.
Why, thank you for your polite way of providing missing information to others.
You certainly make participating in this community an enjoyable experience.
And their disposition is counter to the experience you provide with posts derived from your ignorance and myopic assumptions? Is it really enjoyable to see misinformed posts all day long?
their disposition is counter to the experience you provide
I had inferred that from the post I replied to stating something that I had a different impression of. It's almost as if that was the very reason to reply in the first place.
ignorance and myopic assumptions? Is it really enjoyable
To be derided for minor disagreements?
I suppose it must be. Otherwise the level of discourse here could be considered somewhat unfriendly
Are you serious? You've never heard of, for example, France's national front party, who was the their largest party in the EU parliament, headed by Marine Le Pen, and wanted to leave the EU?
Eurosceptic movements were huge all across the union, particularly after the refugee crisis. It's only after Brexit that these movements have fizzled out.
I'm not saying that there aren't other eurosceptic, I just don't agree that they were at "the same level or higher" than in the UK.
As far as I'm aware, France has not left the EU indicating to me that euroscepticism in France has in fact never reached the same level as in the UK.
As I stated, the UK ended up being the only one to leave because the others didn't hold referendums.
Your assertion that the UK being the only country to leave means it's the only country that was very Eurosceptic is deeply flawed.
If every country in the EU had held a referendum in 2016, more would've left. The UK wasn't unique in its views on the EU.
Cameron called for the referendum in an attempt to stamp out UKIP, who were weaponising the UK's stupid FPTP voting system. He reasoned that by calling a referendum and winning, UKIP support would collapse, those right wing voters would go back to voting Conservative, the right wing vote wouldn't be split, and they'd be able to stave off Labour, who wouldn't benefit from a splintered right wing vote.
I mean, it was a cheap throwaway comment but since personal impressions are apparently the most important discussion point today:
My personal opinion is that the very fact that the UK had a referendum and did leave makes their Euroscepticism more real than bad polling results the EU may have had in other countries where that did not happen.
Euroscepticism is still Euroscepticism, regardless of whether there was a referendum or not.
You should spend more time reading, and less time writing nonsense
They voted for Brexit overwhelmingly
One ignorant tantrum after another, their minds not only closed, but forced shut and locked.
Just like all those ignorant expats living in places like Benidorm or Tenerife, they also voted overwhelmingly for Brexit, then when the hammer of the new strict rules came down on them, that ignorant, bitter and self-satisfied smirk was wiped from their faces.
They all probably still blame everyone around except themselves, as ignorance and stupidity tends to double, triple, quadruple down.
Just like all those ignorant expats living in places like Benidorm or Tenerife, they also voted overwhelmingly for Brexit
That's not actually true. Over 70% of Brits living in the EU wanted to remain part of the EU. Many of them weren't eligible to vote in the referendum, though.
The farmers are guilty because they were just greedy. So greedy that they didn't engage their brains. They only wanted to do was be able to basically poison people and get away with it with really dodgy food practices, and are now upset that they can't do that. They can go swing on it.
They voted for Brexit overwhelmingly. I have much less sympathy for these people.
Interesting piece.
A poll in early 2016, conducted by the University of Exeter, found that 46 per cent of the farmers they questioned said the interests of British agriculture would be best served by the UK remaining in the EU, while only 36 per cent indicated it would be better to leave.
Another poll a few days before the referendum vote found that 38 per cent wanted to remain, 34 per cent to leave and 28 per cent were undecided.
Two polls, one in December 2016 and one in December 2017, both with near identical results found that among the farmers who responded, 53 per cent voted to leave, 45 per cent voted to remain and 2 per cent did not vote.
I lived in Sunderland at the time and the amount of brainless sentiment that was going around was huge. So I'm going to go ahead and say yeah actually a lot of the Nissan workers did vote for Brexit.
Quite possibly because they thought they were going to give the Tories a bloody nose but still they did vote for it.
What do Nissan workers have to do with this thread?
You might want to read the link you just posted
What does an article from a publication called West Country Voices entitled "Challenging the myth that farmers voted for Brexit (and therefore deserve whatβs coming to themβ¦)" have to do with Nissan workers?
Read the article you posted. It mentions Nissan workers along with farmers as groups that voted for Brexit and are now suffering the hubris of their own actions.
Also the article doesn't even demonstrate that farmers didn't vote for Brexit the one thing it claims to actually do, it does not do.
In the future when you're posting stuff to try and one up people it might be a good idea to actually read the content of the article first.
There is one sentence which makes passing reference to the stereotyping of various groups of people who Remain insists on blaming for its own mistakes. And you decided the only reasonable response was to reassure us that the stereotype was true for one of those groups, according to your inevitably limited experience of individuals you have encountered.
Astonishing.
So what I find utterly fascinating about this article is you posted it as if it was some kind of gotcha and it's just one person's opinion. There's absolutely no evidence provided and the whole article concludes by basically saying that there's no evidence for one belief or the other. So the ultimate conclusion to the article is that it could essentially not exist and everything would be exactly the same.
The thing is, what the author of this article never really bothered to address, possibly because it would undo his own argument, is why the belief that farmers voted in massive numbers ever came about. Apparently according to him it isn't even true so where did it come from?
Your position is not backed up by any evidence.
It's a discussion of the polls of farmers, which fluctuated a great deal above and below 50% support.
I posted it because Remain fucked up the campaign and now blames everyone but themselves. Which is exactly how and why they lost in the first place. Astonishing arrogance and spite.
A poll from 2023 puts anti-EU sentiment in France (ie. Leave) at 26%. Not great, but obviously not very high. And I think a "remain" camp in France would have learned a few things from brexit.
I'm talking about at the time. I.e. around the time of the EU refugee crisis. 2023 polling has no bearing on ~2015 polling.
Of course it's higher now, the same is true everywhere in the EU I'd expect, as well as in the UK. Brexit has been a a massive bit of positive PR for the EU, and Euroscepticism has dropped considerably since.
Thanks for updating your post to make it clear that you were talking about anti EU sentiment at the time. That makes it clearer, and I agree with you.
"They negotiated trade deals which literally see us slaughtered," she continued. "They're the worst trade deals in the world."
I mean, the UK is a net food importer. Trade deals that lower the bar to obtain agricultural output are a plus for the UK, in aggregate. That was one of the few real arguments you could make, that the UK could lower the barriers to agricultural imports, whereas in general, it was hard to do in the EU.
Doing so is bad for British farmers, sure, that's zero-sum insofar as it's just a transfer of wealth between British people eating food and farmers, but they permit leveraging comparative advantage in other countries, so you get economic efficiency gains.
Like, the one group of economists that I saw that was arguing for Brexit was led by an economist specifically arguing on the point that it'd permit the UK lower barriers to agricultural imports more than the European Union Customs Union would permit for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Minford
A confirmed eurosceptic, he is a supporter of the Better Off Out campaign to leave the European Union because he believes that the net economic costs to Britain of its policies are substantial. He argues that they are in most respects contrary to free market principles and that British citizens had no power to alter them.[25] In 2016, Minford was a notable member of the Economists for Brexit group which supported the referendum campaign for the UK to leave the European Union.[26] He believes that Brexit could increase GDP by 6.8%,[27][28] and could reduce prices for British consumers.[29]
I mean, I'm American, and I still went out and read his papers to see what people were arguing on both sides. If I were a British farmer and was thinking about Brexit and where I want my country to go and the impact it might have on my business, I'd damn well read what the material being put out is.
I was skeptical that Minford is right that when you take into account all the pros and cons into account, that the UK is better-off out, but I don't dispute that he's right on being able to lower barriers to agricultural trade trade is more-favorable to the UK; if the UK could take that in isolation but otherwise be in the EU, sure, it'd be better-off. And what the UK is doing now is nothing compared to what he wanted to do -- he was arguing for, in Brexit, unilateral elimination of all British import tariffs. You think that British farmers are seeing disruption under a few trade deals with major agricultural exporters, that'd be a heck of a lot more disruptive.
literally see us slaughtered
Sure. Letβs go with that.
itβd permit the UK lower barriers to agricultural imports more than the European Union Customs Union would permit for.
Is this still about the shitty US chlorinated chicken that we've already had a long-ass trade war about?
You don't want chlorine in your food? Why do you hate freedom? Are you a communist?
- Brexiteers, probably
It was hardly a trade war. It was one MP that thought that maybe this would be a good idea and the US going "er, maybe". The UK is such a non-market as far as the United States is concerned, especially once you calculate in all of the costs of shipping, that it was never really going to happen.
The only real reason that it got brought up so much was that it was a good demonstration of the utterly delusional attitude of brexitiers. That somehow we'd be better off with lower food quality standards and that should be something we would celebrate. I do not think it got much further than the vague idea stage because it really wasn't viable for the United States so they never agreed to it. No matter what some nutcase MP may have thought.
If only someone had told them that this exact outcome would happen.
The problem was someone else also told them this exact outcome wouldn't happen.
The problem is that the person who told them this was Boris Johnson who was about as believable as the devil. So it's still on them.
If the bus was true:
If the bus were* true
When using be in an if clause for an unreal conditional sentence, always conjugate it as were, no matter what the subject is. Even if the subject is first-person singular (I) or third-person singular (he, she, or it), still use were with an if clause in unreal conditional sentences.
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/conditional-sentences-was-instead-of-were/
Lmao look @ that person's above me. Their much smart
Yeah, but only one of these two parties was a pathological liar.
The problem is how do you prove the other guy is a liar when he is saying you're a liar?
Yup, I just described how the british political system is played.
Perhaps one of the two being a massive cunt is an indication
With sources and facts and by remembering it's the party that said the country is sick of experts as one of their barrage of lies during Brexit. By not trusting the party that's been looting the country for 14 years, leading us to where we are now, a situation they are claiming they will be able to fix if only we elect them one more time! They just haven't had enough time in office you see.
It's blatantly obvious which party lies most unless you're a gullible fucking moron.
Evidently 52% of voting UK are gullible morons
Pretty much. Not really their fault, they have right wing media, false balance, and being too busy with coping to then go and research stuff afterwards.
Report Murdoch is scum
Iβm sure they didnβt think the leopards would eat their faceβ¦
view more: next βΊ