Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Zanza]

More generally I think everything's still within the expectations most people had of where this might end up.

That's a bold statement and easy to say in hindsight. Anything to support it?

[Sheilbh]

That's a bold statement and easy to say in hindsight. Anything to support it?

No - I'm not even sure what would back it up.

Most people think Brexit is being handled badly and think it was a bad idea. But I don't think there's been anything flowing from that politically because it's not at the extremities of what people thought could go wrong (or right). I think they always knew there'd be a cost when the majority voted to leave, I don't think we're outside of that cost yet. I also think covid does create legitimate problems with untangling the Brexit consequences from the covid consequences. That isn't just an excuse I think having just experienced the biggest global recession in recorded history followed by the biggest economic expansion in recorded history has big effects - and people are aware of that.

I think my view in 2016 was that there would be problems, but it wouldn't plunge us into a particularly severe recession or anything like that and the consequences of Brexit are more likely to be felt over a number of years as we become gradually poorer than our neighbours. My main reasons for voting Remain were Northern Ireland and the union with Scotland, not that I thought it would be an utter catastrophe - and I was unsure on the rest. That's still my take now - I think it's probably where a lot of Remainers are too. Most Leavers would basically disagree and say there'd be a few issues but that, over a number of years, the UK would become better off than our neighbours.

But I really don't think anyone expected it to be cost-free - I think only a deluded few ever bought the sunlit uploads or knocking 20% of house prices extremes. My view is most voters heard both sides (especially because most people get their news from the BBC - even Sun or Express readers normally say the BBC is the main source of news), listened to the analysis on the BBC, ITV etc and, despite all of that, chose to leave. It was an informed decision, even if I think it was the wrong one.

[Zanza]

Ah, the classic "they knew what they voted for". Not convincing. 

[Jacob]

Ah, the classic "they knew what they voted for". Not convincing.

I don't think he's trying to convince you?

[Tamas]

It's hard to judge how many Leave voters knew there'd be costs, considering that the Leave campaign fully endorsed an entirely cost-free Brexit. In fact they campaigned with an immediate windfall of benefits from Brexit. We can argue that the average Briton was well versed in the particularities of the British economy and its close dependence on EU membership, but that argument is undermined by the simple fact, that Leave -if ever so slightly but- won

[The Brain]

The vote didn't specify how Brexit would be done, so the majority voted for "Brexit - any Brexit".

[Zanza]

Ah, the classic "they knew what they voted for". Not convincing.

I don't think he's trying to convince you?

Even if we are just exchanging different perspectives without trying to convince each other, a feedback on the presented perspective seems to be the expected and polite thing to do.

[Sheilbh]

It's hard to judge how many Leave voters knew there'd be costs, considering that the Leave campaign fully endorsed an entirely cost-free Brexit. In fact they campaigned with an immediate windfall of benefits from Brexit.

But I dont think that Leave voters only heard the Leave campaign.

Even people who get news from Facebook or who read the Mail or the Express say they get most of their news from the BBC and ITV on TV or the BBC news website. Those institutions were obliged to show the Remain campaign - so people also heard that. They also did their own analysis and fact checks etc. We are not as divided or as much in information bubbles as the US because of the BBC and ITV which are used by 66% of people (including people who buy partisan papers) as their main source of news. It's why despite all of the culture war noises off if you look at actual polling on the issues involved there tends to be a broad consensus in the middle.

And obviously while it was a tight vote, over 17 million people voted to Leave. So even if you point to the Mail and Express and Sun that only gets you to about 3 million people - Leave clearly reached beyond that panglossian base into the broad, sensible middle.

I don't generally like comparisions of Trump and Brexit or Johnson, because I don't think they really work. But I think this is one - the reason Trump voters didn't abandon him and the reason Brexit voters aren't furious at how this has turned out is because they knew what they were voting for. I think Trump voters knew exactly what and who Trump was and decided to go for it and were not disappointed because it wasn't a surprise; I think the same goes for Brexit (I don't for Johnson in 2019 because I think a significant chunk of his vote was "stop Corbyn" voters).

We can argue that the average Briton was well versed in the particularities of the British economy and its close dependence on EU membership, but that argument is undermined by the simple fact, that Leave -if ever so slightly but- won

But couldn't this argument be made against every democratic vote. Actually people aren't well versed on the particularities of any aspect of policy and yet our system is based on them deciding who should govern and on consent for core constitutional issues - despite their ignorance.

I'm not saying they were well-versed in particularities or experts or anything like that. I'm saying they were aware of both sides of the campaign, the analysis by journalists and the opinions of expert and international bodies - and, with that awareness, narrowly made the choice they did.

It reminds me of David Runciman's review of Cameron's memoir where he cites this paragraph:

We were still waking up each morning to the views of the latest expert or industry on the merits of Remain. I thought it was one of our great advantages that nearly every voice that mattered backed our case. The voice of major industries: cars, planes, trains, food, pharmaceuticals, farming, fashion, film. The voice of business: the CBI. The voice of many workers: the TUC. Our allies around the world: America, India, Japan, Australia, Canada. The multilateral bodies of the world: the IMF, the WTO, the OECD. Thirteen Nobel Prize winners. The head of the NHS. The former heads of MI5 and MI6. The head of the Church of England. Nine out of ten economists. Stephen Hawking, Tim Berners-Lee and Richard Branson – truly great Britons who so many people admire and respect. 'Maybe it's a conspiracy,' I would say. 'Or maybe all these people are right.'

Which is disingenuous as Runciman notes. The case being made wasn't about the merits of Remain but the folly of Leave (and I think that's key to why Remain lost). But also if one Nobel Prize winner doesn't make an impact, another twelve won't because people are either buying your message or they're not. And that list of "nearly every voice that mattered" shows what's wrong with it - with the exception of the Trades Union Congress, who were divided on Brexit - it's a pretty homogenous group. It may be from around the world but the worldview is very similar, as Runciman notes, underpinned by higher education, metropolitan values and overlapping connections - so not a conspiracy but, possibly, from the outside "it still looks like a cosy club".

Even if we are just exchanging different perspectives without trying to convince each other, a feedback on the presented perspective seems to be the expected and polite thing to do.

Yeah and I enjoy our back and forths - but I rarely expect to change anyone's minds on Languish or the internet in general so I'm normally just trying to explain the way I see it/my take but I do often get tangled up

But your challenge prompted me to have a look at polling at the time from https://whatukthinks.org/eu/ in June 2016. I think it sort of backs up my view that people were pretty realistic overall - so more people thought it would be risky to leave the EU v safe to leave, only 23% thought the UK would be better off economically if it left v 40% who thought it'd be worse off and 22% who thought it wouldn't make much difference. Simlarly only 15% of people thought the UK would have more influence outside the EU v 38% who thought it'd have less and 34% who didn't think it'd make much difference. Same with jobs only 22% of people thought it would have a good effect on British jobs v 36% who thought it'd be bad for jobs and 27% who didn't think it would make a difference. People didn't really think leaving the EU would make any difference to pensions, house prices or terrorism.

Strikingly, though, 53% thought it would result in less immigration v 3% who thought it would lead to more and 33% that it would make no real difference. Because they're pre-referendum it doesn't break down by Leave/Remain because people hadn't voted yet which is a little annoying in retrospect. I'd love to know how this one broke down because I think many Remain voters would also think leaving the EU would lead to less immigration.

In contrast I think the "sunny uplands", Brexit Britain as a world power etc vision was only ever embraced by Leavers, but even then it was a minority taste - none of those figures on economics is even half of 52%. It's not quite on point but interesting anyway and reinforces my view that there was more realism than not in the way people voted. I think it also gives the sense that actually in convincing people of the risk of leave the Remain campaign did their job and were pretty successful, they just failed to make it matter.

[Josquius]

I've often thought the true leave vote accounts for something like 25% with the remaining 27% being fairly floppy middly people who went with that on the day without believing too strongly in it. It's amongst these that you'll find people voting for counter intuitive reasons of hating tories, thinking the UK will be better off, etc...

[Tamas]

I've often thought the true leave vote accounts for something like 25% with the remaining 27% being fairly floppy middly people who went with that on the day without believing too strongly in it. It's amongst these that you'll find people voting for counter intuitive reasons of hating tories, thinking the UK will be better off, etc...

Pretty much. It was a protest vote against whatever the voter didn't like (e.g. in one my previous examples, beggars on their street). It was an uninformed retarded shit move.

[Sheilbh]

I've often thought the true leave vote accounts for something like 25% with the remaining 27% being fairly floppy middly people who went with that on the day without believing too strongly in it. It's amongst these that you'll find people voting for counter intuitive reasons of hating tories, thinking the UK will be better off, etc...

Yeah I think about 20-25% of people are on both sides really committed true believers were Remain/Leave are core to their political identity in 2016 and forever after.

I think the remaining 50-60% were basically swing voters.

[Tamas]

I think the remaining 50-60% were basically swing voters.

Which would be incredibly ignorant. In Hungary people like to hate on "Brussels" and cucumber shape regulations as much as any Brit, but support of EU membership is so strong Orban's propagandists haven't yet dared bringing up leaving despite 10+ years of vicious anti-EU propaganda. .

[Josquius]

Yes, that's one of the core problems with the brexit vote as it was set up.
Look at polling data from the decade before and the EU was never an issue for more than 20% of people absolute max. Its just not something most had a view about at all as much as Brussels red tape is a standard moan from people who don't have much interest in anything.

And then it was placed into a life or death binary referendum, even after the cluster fuck of the AV vote that we failed to learn from.
The EU referendum was a truly egregious assault on democracy and should never have happened, especially not in anything close to the form it took.
I do look forward to the tory memoirs in decades to come where they thank covid for masking how disastrous it was

[Tamas]

Frost manages to stand out even in this government. What shameless thick-skinned scum.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think there's a common belief among many that the "populists" who frequently vote in ways that "don't make sense" from say, a mathematical, economic perspective, are confused or stupid. Now, I take the view most people are somewhat stupid, but I don't think they are voting out of stupidity or confusion. Most of the polling we've done around this topic, or adjacent to this topic, in the United States, shows that for example most Trump voters have some level of awareness of ways in which that vote may not directly benefit them on a financial or economic perspective, but they still supported him regardless.

There were tons of "explorations" of a few classes of voters in the Trump years. One was farmers, who Trump largely fucked in the ass financially with his trade war with China. Journalists would do deep discussions with farmers who were literally in the process of losing farms that had been in their family for generations, with the trade war being the final nail in the coffin. Not a one regretted voting for Trump. Most of them basically viewed it as--this farm has been struggling for decades, Trump is trying to do something we agree with, it sucks that it's also hurting our farm, but it doesn't change our opinion. Another group was small business owners and employees of firms who were hard hit by the Trump steel tariffs--which resulted in sometimes higher prices on inputs for these firms that made their products no longer competitive internationally where most of their sales were done. Again, to a man, these people said things like "yeah, it sucks that his policy here screwed us, but we agree with the direction he wants to take the country."

Time and time again, people in the thick of it actually put their political ideology ahead of "pocket book issues." It's weird how that goes against the common received wisdom, isn't it? That's probably a whole separate discussion, but just because you can point to some ways in which a certain type of vote may not make economic sense for someone, don't assume those people don't know that, or that they would vote differently if they did know it. That may not have been their deciding factor.