Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ZeroGravitas 3637 days ago
Cameron's strategy was to claim that he was going to leave, then negotiate a brilliant deal, then campaign to stay on the basis of those changes.

This frankly idiotic approach rather undermines any attempt to point out the reality of leaving, since you have to suddenly discover all the unfortunate practicalities half-way through the process.

He probably also thought he was a great politician, not realising that he only won his elections due to mass media propaganda being on his side[1] (even then he didn't win in any convincing manner). With them taking the contrary position on Brexit, and having no compunction when it comes to lying, smearing the Bank of England, or whipping up hysteria about foreigners, he was in deep trouble (and like Boris, it's interesting to speculate as to whether the media actually wanted to win this vote or were just in it for political street cred by taking that stance).

[1] Note how he literally campaigned to leave if he didn't get concessions (and everyone knew this was pretend), then warned about utter catastrophe if we did leave and yet he's a great statesman as he stands down (which he also promised not to do). Meanwhile Corbyn is hounded for not being sufficiently positive in his campaigning and it's working class Labour voters that get the blame, not the rich Tories who voted overwhelmingly to leave. It's utterly bizarre, yet accepted as normal. Just like the Sun attacked people who questioned the Iraq War as traitors, and even provided a dart board with their faces on it so you could throw things at them, and now years later we get confirmation that they were all correct.

1 comments

Cameron initially went to the EU for reform and with that changing aspects of the EU for all members. That not only did not happen and still needed but he in effect got palmed of with a special deal to appease the UK. But his initial remit and outline was to seek reform of the EU, not some special UK only back-hander.

UK leaving EU now and EU still in need of reform and currently they seem to still be going in the wrong direction and widening public discontent with them across Europe. The whole ignoring the people over companies as case of no individual wants TTIP, not one I have met. THis and any concerns are demonised and labeled so they can be dismissed, has driven the EU to become unpopular with an ever increasing populus it purports to serve.

AS for the media, well in todays times politics panders to the media and has changed in a way that is not nice too see and no offence to America, politics in Europe has become more American. more about how you look and come across more than the content of the words.

But when democracy for the people revolves around binary choices and an X in a box every 4-5 years from a limited choice then you have to wonder if that needs reform as people are afforded more of a say democratically in talent shows upon TV than political elections.

But like the plane industry the UK kind of stepped back in so many area's of space after WW2 due to the amount of debt incurred in that time.

TTIP is a valid EU-related concern if you live in a country that would reject TTIP if it wasn't part of the EU. This doesn't apply to the UK, where the current and probably future governments would happily sign it in normal times, and will be much weaker when negotiating now, so even a hypothetical anti-TTIP goverment would probably have it foisted upon them.

Everything is relative, so one persons's too-corporate EU is another person's too-socialist EU. Anyone in the UK who voted out of the EU because they were worried about corporations having too much influence is in for a rude awakening as the reality of brexit sinks in.

Its the aspect that no individual cares for TTIP and many actively against it. That does highlight disparity in communication by the EU and the people and was the point that was being made.

Your right that many governments will sign it away happily and again only back how out of touch many governments in countries as well as the EU collective are with the people.

May be they need to communicate more about matters as currently what people do know and even those who looked deeper into it that it was not good for them overall.

Easier when trade deals were more focused and case of we sell you this and you sell us that and we will balance out import tariff's and save grief and paperwork. Today trade deals seem to want to be a catch everything in one hit style documents and run to encyclopedia style lengths that the ability to game them or abuse them is more open as more of them. After all documents written by humans just as prone to bugs as software when you get into large tomes as most trade deals are these days.

Which for me is sadly like trying to design a shoe for everybody no matter that people are different sizes and needs of there footwear.

People moot rude awakening but seriously brexit has become the go to blame scapegoat for lots. But when the global economy loses on stock markets more than the UK's total economy for a year in one day, then you know it is far removed from reality and all speculation driven as markets are these days. Indeed somebody sells lots of something they can create the problem that was the reason for them selling and somewhat self-fulfilling.

Only come 10 years time can we truly get a gauge of change as by then things would of changed and be no change for least 2 years from now. Indeed Europe as a collective has too many weak links members wise and when just 4 of its members were net contributors into it with the other staking more out than paid in, and the UK one of them, then is it a bad thing for the UK, probably not at all once the market FUD and settles down and plans outlined and formalised as currently it is somewhat under-pant gnomes: 1) Referendum 2) ?????????? 3) Profit

with us at stage two currently. So can accept the markets having fun. Indeed whatever happens it is those who get commissions (brokers) that always win out.

But corporations issue with EU is that they have paid lobbyists at the MEP's in Brussels all the time that the MEP's saturated time wise by them and the public interaction with MEP's is not great at all and indeed, many cases not as accessible. This along with Brussels centric and UK being Island does remove the level of access many would expect and still the EU does not have its own portal for communications to engage the people in a two way process. But so many things that could be improved it is what I call: QWERTY politics and any other arrangement would work out more efficiently, just everybody stuck with what seems to work, even if the most inefficient form. Alas today, that lack of change creates divides. But that is equally a global issue in many countries more than many realise.

We live in interesting times, but heck, when is it not interesting.

"net contributors" in cash terms, every economic analysis suggest that money is paid back multiple times over in benefits of the EU.

I'm amazed that international politics is decided on the same basis as buying a smartphone app. Two dollars for useful app? No way man. I could buy half-a-coffee with that money!