Terry - Somerset
Established Member
Campaigning on both sides (but particularly Brexit) has been either grossly exaggerated or have no real foundation in fact at all. The £350m emblazoned on the Brexit battle bus has been so roundly condemned that even Leave campaigners are embarrassed by it.
The vast weight of evidence on economic matters is that Brexit will leave us poorer - certainly for many years. Waving this away simply as a "project fear" tactic, insisting that the world will beat a path to our door, quickly sign favourable trade agreements, and anyway they know better is either a triumph of optimism over reality or plain dishonest. The argument that all forecasts are inherently guesses and that one forecast is as good as another is manifest rubbish.
Controlling immigration to allow only those we want to come is a justifiable policy. Suggesting it will solve resource problems with NHS and schools is probably flawed as any small reduction in demand may be offset by the loss of trained staff. Excessive immigration may be a problem in some communities, and I am also sure there are a significant number of racists and xenophobes out there. But for many the lack of government control over immigration makes this an ideal way to express their distrust/dislike of Cameron or other frustration (job, pay, housing etc)
Sovereignty is an entirely legitimate issue. However Brexit have campaigned as if the EU want to regulate our every living moment - patently false. The Remain campaign has largely been incapable of communicating what their limits are. The end result is that people start to believe that Turkey, for instance, will imminently become a member (untrue - veto and their compliance with entry requirements). But as Europe shares a common border with 85m Turks it makes very good sense to help them become a stable and democratic barrier between the EU and the Middle East - money well spent not evidence of impending membership.
It may be the case that democracy is flawed. Campaigning is orchestrated to maximise votes. The facts and evidence are largely ignored in favour of spin and selective truths. Rational debate is largely reduced to interminable carefully crafted soundbites. Politicians would use the same tactics if they were selling cat food or cars.
A large segment of the population respond to simplistic messages, and either don't bother or are incapable of to thinking or researching the matter for themselves.
One is inevitably drawn to the thought that the way the EU is structured with most decisions taken by highly educated and capable elite may produce a far better outcome than politicians concerned to convince the electorate at regular intervals that they are still up to the job. Perhaps democracy, worthy though its intentions, only produces sub optimal answers.
The vast weight of evidence on economic matters is that Brexit will leave us poorer - certainly for many years. Waving this away simply as a "project fear" tactic, insisting that the world will beat a path to our door, quickly sign favourable trade agreements, and anyway they know better is either a triumph of optimism over reality or plain dishonest. The argument that all forecasts are inherently guesses and that one forecast is as good as another is manifest rubbish.
Controlling immigration to allow only those we want to come is a justifiable policy. Suggesting it will solve resource problems with NHS and schools is probably flawed as any small reduction in demand may be offset by the loss of trained staff. Excessive immigration may be a problem in some communities, and I am also sure there are a significant number of racists and xenophobes out there. But for many the lack of government control over immigration makes this an ideal way to express their distrust/dislike of Cameron or other frustration (job, pay, housing etc)
Sovereignty is an entirely legitimate issue. However Brexit have campaigned as if the EU want to regulate our every living moment - patently false. The Remain campaign has largely been incapable of communicating what their limits are. The end result is that people start to believe that Turkey, for instance, will imminently become a member (untrue - veto and their compliance with entry requirements). But as Europe shares a common border with 85m Turks it makes very good sense to help them become a stable and democratic barrier between the EU and the Middle East - money well spent not evidence of impending membership.
It may be the case that democracy is flawed. Campaigning is orchestrated to maximise votes. The facts and evidence are largely ignored in favour of spin and selective truths. Rational debate is largely reduced to interminable carefully crafted soundbites. Politicians would use the same tactics if they were selling cat food or cars.
A large segment of the population respond to simplistic messages, and either don't bother or are incapable of to thinking or researching the matter for themselves.
One is inevitably drawn to the thought that the way the EU is structured with most decisions taken by highly educated and capable elite may produce a far better outcome than politicians concerned to convince the electorate at regular intervals that they are still up to the job. Perhaps democracy, worthy though its intentions, only produces sub optimal answers.
