Friday 11 August 2017

Buzzfeed Brexit review

Normally a vocal part of the daily remain, Buzzfeed has hot off the press a new, large-scale, study into peoples views on Brexit.

It makes poor reading for remainers - after filtering out the mostly contradictory statements which people want as their preferred Brexit, it finds that UKIP and Tories are for a 'Hard Brexit', whilst the Labour and others are split 60/40 in favour of a 'Soft Brexit.'

So this means that the majority prefer a Hard Brexit option in the Country over a soft one and there is really very little appetite for re-running the whole thing as the London Media and Chatterati are endlessly suggesting should happen.

It just goes to show, it really is hard to make people change their minds and that in addition, taking the side of the Elite and Entitled just won't work. For these reasons, Brexit is happening - this is the realisation that keeps both May and Corbyn ignoring the media chatterati; because at the end of the day they have to face the people again one day and need to be seen to be on the side of the people.

So what is the current view, what Brexit are we going to get?


K said...

The problem for Remainers is that there has never been much pro-EU sentiment in the UK. Can anyone ever remember someone saying nice stuff about the EU pre-referendum, whether that be in the pub or on a BBC comedy show? Hislop is a good example of this - he constantly railed on the EU for years but is now a Remoaner for no apparent reason other than it's the right-on opinion right now.

My guess is that the country has always been probably 70+% leavers it's just that 20% of them voted to remain out of economic fears.

The problem with hard vs soft is that the definition keeps changing as it is an invention of the media. At first "hard" meant a sudden leave with no agreements in place and now it simply means leaving the single market or customs union. Anyone with any sense always knew it was going to put a transitional period unless the EU wanted a hard exit out of spite.

E-K said...

It amazes that we've just had a general election in which the only reverse party got drubbed. Yet Remoan have been pointing to obscure polls. Let's not do the same. We're better than that.

James Higham said...

Events may overtake intention. Eyes on Carney pulling the plug.

Anonymous said...

The general election was Corbyn jobs first soft Vs May mandate for hard brexit.
Electorate gave May least possible votes whilst keeping Corbyn out

Govt wouldnt be in power now without Scottish Conservatives (soft brexit manifesto) and DUP (against hard brexit due to fears of it triggering unification).
I don't understand why hard brexit is still being discussed.

If you go along with what the electorate, it shoukd be a jobs first brexit. (Whatever a jobs first brexit means.)

Electro-Kevin said...

Anon - Walk-away has to be an option for any negotiation.

Referendum - Won.

Court case - Won.

Parliamentary vote - Won.

General election - Won.

Yet Remain are still reaching for obscure polls over these quantifiable measures and of those the most authoritative show the majority want full Brexit.

I don't know why we're still discussing *hard* Brexit either. The word *hard* is a BBC/Remain construction with a deliberately negative connotation.

At least the people have shown themselves to be more pragmatic. They understand that being stuck half way through the catflap would be the real catastrophe.

They understand that democracy is often split roughly down the middle but that what is needed above all else is decisiveness.

*Soft* Brexit is dangerously indecisive and leaves us at the whims of Brussels. In other words not Leave.

Why should trade mean a compromise on law, immigration, money - subscription to a political and economic ideology ? It's like going to an Indian takeaway and finding that you've had to sign up to Sharia to get your chicken curry.

Anonymous said...

"Why should trade mean a compromise on law, immigration, money - subscription to a political and economic ideology ?"

This is the crucial point. I voted in when we joined the EEC. It was purely to facilitate trade with Europe yet it gradually morphed into something which involved Europe meddling with all manner of things which as a sovereign nation were our business and our business only. As for any kind of economic union, that would be preposterous.

It would be like me and all my neighbours pooling our money and spending it by concensus. I prefer to have my own money and spend it the way I want to.

Anonymous said...

Love the paranoia on here

As was pointed out before

* Referendum - Won.
* Court case - Won.
* Parliamentary vote - Won.
* General election - Won.

... and yet you can stop worrying about the group called "Remoaners" who simply have a different agenda/views. But what do do?

Why not have a one party state [blue] with control of the media [get the BBC to knuckle down] and you'll have a paradise similar to North Korea which also has a large degree of paranoia.

Have you ordered your tinfoil hats?

Electro-Kevin said...

Yours is a total reversal of what is happening, Anon.

Neither 'Remoaners' nor the very powerful and state supported BBC accept the referendum result.

I'd say we're going NK already because of them. The BBC is riven with political bias and a tight agenda.

We can have any colour we like so long as it's blue and yellow. I don't expect Brexit but I'd settle for second best, which is to see the public will *openly* disobeyed - just to confirm to everyone where we all stand.

That will is now supported by a lot more than a mere referendum.

Electro-Kevin said...

BBC - Contrast Dutch eggs to the furore about chlorinated US chicken.

EU good.

Independent UK bad.

Charlie said...

Anon: "Govt wouldnt be in power now without Scottish Conservatives (soft brexit manifesto) and DUP (against hard brexit due to fears of it triggering unification)

If you go along with what the electorate, it shoukd be a jobs first brexit. (Whatever a jobs first brexit means.)"

Here's how the electorate voted:

- The party that coined the (meaningless) phrase "jobs first brexit" was unable to form a government at all.

- The Tories got their biggest share of the vote since 1983.

- Only 8% (yes, eight per cent) of Labour voters rated leaving the EU as their most important issue.

Given those facts, how can you possibly say that a "jobs first brexit" (as you say, whatever that means) should be pursued over a "hard" (i.e. actual) Brexit?

Personally, I see no reason to be paranoid; the sky hasn't fallen in, the government have triggered A50 lawfully, the negotiation process is underway and "walking away with no deal" is still on the table as far as I can tell.

If there is any backsliding whatsoever, people will be on the streets. How do I know this? Because I've not taken to the streets since the protest against the Iraq war and I would relish the chance to march on parliament if the demos is ignored in favour of a half-in, half-out stitch up. The British will put up with a lot, but if we have the piss taken out of us so transparently, we get rather angry indeed.

Electro-Kevin said...

Charlie - I was with 400,000 Countryside Alliance protestors and we just got completely ignored.

I don't particularly care about foxes but I hated Blair long before anyone else did.

Jan said...


I don't think you can have hated Blair earlier than I did! I was in despair when he got in. I thought he'd pulled the wool over everyone's eyes and was not a proper socialist. He was out for himself and was the worst kind of hypocrite and so it proved. For ever it seemed I had to turn off my radio/TV every time he showed up but funnily enough (either I've changed or he has) as I found his interview last week on radio 4 with Peter Hennessey bearable and quite interesting. His father was Tory apparently.

patently said...

Terms like "hard" and "soft" are largely meaningless. They are used purely in order to conceal great swathes of detail beneath them, because commentators either can't be bothered with the detail or they don't understand it. So far as I can tell, "soft Brexit" is code for "officially outside the EU but effectively inside, but without a say in its running", and "hard Brexit" is code for "We need something that sounds painful in order to make a soft Brexit sound good".

As for which Brexit we get, it will be neither. But commentators will spend years arguing over which it is, probably without ever going into any detail over the exact terms.

In the end, just as Brexit means Brexit, so too we will get the Brexit that we get...