Pat Condell. . . with an opinion that I, and a lot of people in the UK (52 percent) deeply share.

[Phil Perry]

[storchy neil]

thanks phil been looking for that hey whats his back ground save me checking him out neil

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Hey Phil you need to get that guy to be PM. Every single word spoken was so true and it is almost a mirror image of the bullsh1t that is happening here. Thanks for the video its a ripper

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Gawd.. what a load of waffle to say they are calling us morons, we are calling them morons and they are all against democracy... That's a wasted 10 minutes of my life I will never get back.

 

Although I don't disagree that there were and continue to be the disparaging comments made by pro-[edit[Remainers[/edit] media (and people have to understand, British (or at least, English) press is parochial to its beliefs/causes/etc), there are an equal measure of disparaging comments the other way from the pro-Brexit media.

 

I agree the Remainers camp get it wrong on their continual assertion that the masses don't know what is good for them and are idiotic imbeciles of moronic proportions. The campaign they ran, being "It's all about the economy, stupid!", was, well, stupid. If there were a course on "How to alienate people, 101", then this would have been the case study. It is pretty well agreed that the big Brexit success areas were those where they were economically disadvantaged compared to London/wealthier South East and the subsidised state of Scotland. The reason for this seems pretty obvious - alienated, not included and not really reaping the benefits of the economic progress made, yet seeing those responsible for the crisis and already enjoying a life of privilege articially propped up through government bailouts while they continue to struggle with already stretched resources and a perceived burgeoning of the population through Eastern European migration (the reality is the migration they could control - non EU was running at levels as high if not higher - it is certainly higher now). So, what better way than to say vote to stay in Europe to preserve the economy, from which you are disproprtionately disadvantaged and we don't invest in addressing the root causes to improve your lot, and while we're at it, we'll call you what we think of you.. stupid. The above was the Pat Condell impersonation - but in other words, a lot of people were isolated, not enjoying the investment they deserved in improving their economic lot and being told it staying in Europe is good for the economy they are isolate from and then called stupid at the same time. Must have been the same campaign advisors as Theresa May had...

 

I was in a pub talking to a bloke who ran a small auto parts importer who imported parts from Germany. He was obviously disappointed with the result, and said he had calls form his suppliers expressing disappointment at the xenophobia that Britain is and he was explaining how embarrassing it was. I sort of said to him, hey, most of the people who voted Brexit a) couldn't care about whether or not it hurt the economy as they were not in a great position from it, b) were probably putting up a protest vote; c) were belittled throughout the campaign; d) endured threats from the EU and the US; and e) were in struggling, under invested communities and perceived if not really taking on additional population when facilities ability to service their community were already bursting at the seams may be the real reason rather than simple xenophobia (though it did being out some of the uglier sides of a small minority of people).

 

He then went on, like most pro-Remain press and said look at all the broken promises - especially the 360m/week NHS one. My answer was simply "what promises" and it showed that even the "intelligentia" can be thick as two short planks. This was a referendum about whether or not the UK should stay in the EU. There were two camps - those for and those against staying (the questions in the referendum were almost literally that. The campaigns for an against were voluntary groups with members from all parties - to press a case for their corner. There were claims on both sides of what could be - but nothing promised as neither were going to be elected to power. This seems something that Brexit people are able to grasp more accurately their remainer counterparts.

 

What the real failure was of the Remainers, was to articulate any sort of reasonable argument. Brexiteers were very good at putting out what could be - taking control of the borders, controlling immigration, taking back sovereignty, acknowledging there would be short term economic pain but providing a plausible alternative of opening up trading with the world, etc. Whether or not they were real issues, the Remainers simply walked the streets with their "It's all about the economy, stupid!" catch phrase.Even when Gove claimed the EU drove his father broke, a claim that his father publicly refuted; and BoJo made some stupid comment about kids being banned in from playing in the streets, I think it was Barry (Wales) being an EU law (it wasn't - the EU paid for new playgrounds and the council passed a by-law to try and get kids to use them), the Remainer camp couldn't seem to use these and many other elements of hard evidence to refute the claims of the Brexiteers. So, yes, Pat is right - they Remainer camp are condescending to the Brexit camp - at least in the media.... But...

 

The Brexit press can serve it up as well. Pat's video is a You said this, I am going to say it back and we can go on all day like this - but what value is it? And I find it a tad ironic that it is presented as the media calling Brexiteers moronic - it is the pro-Remain media (English, of not British media is parochial to its causes), yet when Gina Miller decided to seek a judicial review on the use of the royal prerogative to exit the EU under British (and not EU) constitutional law, she was the subject of a press-witch hunt and subject to verbal abuse, death threats and I think her car was vandalised (but don't quote me on that one). And after the Brexit vote succeed, a Polish bloke was murdered in a race-hate attack and there were a string of race hate crimes/assaults - and - to borrow Pat's phrase - theoretically - there could have been remainers in there, but practically? I can't recall too many incidents where remainers took to violence or threats to express their displeasure and subvert the legal and democratic process, nor to express anger (rather than celebrate, as in the case of the racism attacks may show) victory. So, the argument about us gaining sovereignty is OK as long as it is for what I want and if it isn't, I will subvert it with violence harassment - doesn't sound too democratic or accepting of local laws - therefore any laws - unless it is the laws I want them to be. Hmmm.. And then, the judges upholding British (not EU) law were vilified by the press as enemies of the people and subject to public accusations of pandering to Brexit..

 

As to democracy, there has been a surrender of national powers to the EU - but this was done democratically. And I could argue that MEPs are voted for; that the Council is made up of heads of member states - which is voted for and that the commission is the public service arm. If you compare this to the UK, the Lords, a legislative arm, is appointed - not elected and parties have "flooded" the Lords with peers to get things through. The problem is that of distance and communication - and of course, the UK is 1 of 27 members, so their interests may not be as well served within the political backdrop that is the EU. In practice, while the EU has gone beyond its reach on numerous occasions, however, there can be the same charge leveled against the UK government.But Mr. Condell just makes accusations of usurping democracy but doesn't back it up with evidence. Tidbits Trump style..

 

The reality is both sides have a go at each other and don't properly articulate the real arguments - the press are too parochial to enter balanced and informed debate and the argument that 52% of the vote on such an important event against 48% against does indicate a polarised society if nothing else. A simple "we won, you lost" is a little childish when you consider the impact on everyone's lives and their children will be. I am not saying it shouldn't go ahead - far from it - but videos like that do not contribute one bit of value to the debate and the solution of what Britain is to become once we leave.

 

(Remember, we may not have a hard Brexit on day 1, which is my opinion what most people who voted Brexit wanted, but as a nation, we can get there if we really want to once we are out)

 

 

[storchy neil]

hows yah footy team going jerry before Brexit or after Brexit :thank you:neil

[Jerry_Atrick]

 

[Bruce]

Pat is dead right about the demise of the education system, including universities. The rot set in with the rise of managerialism, when vice-chancellors began to see students as customers and lecturers as workers. In between giving themselves million-dollar rises.

 

The end result is that you can get a Phd for grade 7 stuff. Yep, even a scientific Phd. How do I know? From being the supervisor of one until I mercifully got early retirement.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Yeah - I sort of agree on the education front... Over here, they did something similar, but there is still a distinct demarcation from the Russell Group of Universities (Oxford, Cambridge and their ilk) and the polytechniques (think TAFE) that were rebadged as universities. Having said that, I managed a couple of PhD mathematicians and although they could differentiate curves on a graph, they had no idea how to apply them in the real world..

 

Mind you, I am not sure what the education bit has to do about Brexit... Educated in my mind is far more than the schooling one has received.