UKMT February 2017 - Welcome to Tiny Train World

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT February 2017 - Welcome to Tiny Train World

Tesseraction: Apr 5, 2009

jBrereton posted:

Seeing as you're Johnny Leaver, what was wrong with that argument?

Because I was specifically thinking what the left-wing positive case for remaining was. I know what I'd have tried to argue on, and personally I doubt it'd work. I was interested in your contribution.

# ? Feb 7, 2017 00:49

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 10, 2024 21:40

Private Speech: Mar 30, 2011; I HAVE EVEN MORE WORTHLESS BEANIE BABIES IN MY COLLECTION THAN I HAVE WORTHLESS POSTS IN THE BEANIE BABY THREAD YET I STILL HAVE THE TEMERITY TO CRITICIZE OTHERS' COLLECTIONS

IF YOU SEE ME TALKING ABOUT BEANIE BABIES, PLEASE TELL ME TO

EAT. SHIT.

Tesseraction posted:

Firstly, thanks for the reply - I'm not out here to poo-poo them but wonder how it could be sold to the public. Let's be honest the Remain campaign basically waved pictures of bomb sites and made ghostly noises.

(a) has its merits, although I'm curious as to how the effect of lobbying has changed in recent times. The ability of TPP to get as far as it did behind closed doors before popular unrest undid it made me suspicious whether we can necessarily rely on it. What can be done to counter a narrative of "they do things in secret and don't have our best interests at heart" in a Leave campaign?

That's a complicated question. TAP (not TPP that's the Asian one) certainly had a lot of very lovely parts, though I suspect many were inserted due to US pressure (e.g. the dispute resolution court is already part of NAFTA and the US is said to have benefited from it far more than the other two countries there; would make sense for them to want to replicate that). Ultimately in a highly capitalistic society (which ours could certainly be even more so) there will never be a political system entirely immune to outside pressure, albeit that doesn't answer your question. I think the best answer I can come up with is "look at what they've managed so far and how it was arrived to".

quote:

(b) also has its merits, but how does it deal with the rising nationalist tendencies in countries like Poland and Hungary? What problems can the EU point to in recent times as examples? Currently it feels like pointing to Greece being hosed (by the admittedly separate institution of the Troika) or Spain being paralysed or Portugal being eyed at arm's length or Italy circling a giant turd-clogged drain are more pertinent negative examples than we can produce a positive one.

The EU is very much putting pressure on Hungary and has been for a good long while. That they resist it is another matter, but I would suggest that without it they and Poland would have gone much further.
As for an example - well, the things EU pressure helped push through in my native country in the last few years: statutory sick leave (there was barely any before), fighting tax evasion, education reforms and removing streaming, etc., etc. They are not necessarily things you hear about outside the given country, but they do happen.

quote:

(c) I agree here that freedom of movement is a good thing, but how do you explain that to the ol' 'economically anxious' (read: mildly racist) people who don't trust immigration being in their best interest? I'm aware this is a hard one to answer because ultimately you're having to fight a proto-fascist mass media.

That's why I said it's a contentious point. It's a bigger fight over internationalism and one that happens even among the hard left ("socialism in one country" vs. internationalist socialism and labour movements). For what it's worth most unions today are on board with internationalism and I think their influence could help there.

quote:

(d) No argument there, although the average Brit is more likely to talk about how we beat the Nazis once so we can do it again... while also stroking their sleeve with the nervousness of someone not wanting to reveal their Celtic Cross.

I think you'd find it comical but you'd see much the same attitudes in almost every country, albeit often to a lesser degree. There isn't any real answer beyond hoping it lessens with time. (as it has been doing for decades)

quote:

(e) Cynically anyone could argue they EU membership doesn't affect this. It looks like we're going to keep partnership with Europol for sure, and I think someone in this thread posted a statement from the gov saying we're going to reaffirm commitment to Euratom? These don't require full EU membership to be part of.

Well not from the standpoint of Britain itself necessarily, but those institutions have been conceived of as part of the greater pan-european movement. I agree with you in that I don't doubt Britain doesn't want to leave most of these. But if EU were to disappear it would be hard for them to function the same.

quote:

I suppose when I say "defend the EU" I mean "defend being a full member of the EU rather than partner status like some others"...

This is a viable pathway for some, but not at all for the whole union. And making it as or more advantageous than full membership would be self-destructive for the EU.

Private Speech fucked around with this message at 01:18 on Feb 7, 2017

# ? Feb 7, 2017 00:54

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

https://twitter.com/baleinho/status/828286190294011905

# ? Feb 7, 2017 01:02

Darth Walrus: Feb 13, 2012

One thing to remember about the education correlation for Brexit - it's not just a matter of information, but security. A shortage of qualifications limits your access to jobs and gives you significantly less of a safety net when things go tits-up. That's not a combination that typically encourages voting for the status quo.

# ? Feb 7, 2017 01:02

kingturnip: Apr 18, 2008

jBrereton posted:

OK but there's a rebound and then there's taking out some high profile MPs and quite a few councils with gigantic vote swings.

The Lib Dems are single-issueing like every idiot who doesn't get their deposit back in a GE.
They're still coasting on the back of people who think that somehow, the magical power of groupthink+latte will stop Brexit from happening. The people voting Lib Dem because they're opposed to Brexit are as stupid as the people who think the Lib Dems are making a comeback, because the substantive contribution of the Liberal Democrats to the government of the UK in recent years is to empower one of the most regressive, neoliberal arsebackwards Conservative administrations ever.

Oh, but they're making pro-EU mugs. :britain:

# ? Feb 7, 2017 01:04

jabby: Oct 27, 2010

Pissflaps posted:

48% already agree its a good thing.

You've been shown a poll showing a clear majority of the public now prefer either hard or soft Brexit over attempting to remain in the EU. You totally dismissed it, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

Fangz posted:

You have not lost the argument until you choose to concede.

This is really the defence of total morons who think putting their fingers in their ears and shouting 'la la la not listening' means they cannot lose an argument.

# ? Feb 7, 2017 01:06

Pissflaps: Oct 20, 2002; by VideoGames

jabby posted:

You've been shown a poll showing a clear majority of the public now prefer either hard or soft Brexit over attempting to remain in the EU. You totally dismissed it, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

An interpretation of that poll that concludes 'people want Brexit' is idiotic.

# ? Feb 7, 2017 01:10

Guavanaut: Nov 27, 2009; Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998; Toilet Rascal

Darth Walrus posted:

One thing to remember about the education correlation for Brexit - it's not just a matter of information, but security. A shortage of qualifications limits your access to jobs and gives you significantly less of a safety net when things go tits-up. That's not a combination that typically encourages voting for the status quo.

People who are scared and want security usually vote with the status quo, unless something has gone very wrong over the immediately preceding era.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that something has gone very wrong over the immediately preceding era.

# ? Feb 7, 2017 01:13

Gort: Aug 18, 2003; Good day what ho cup of tea

This is the trouble with having principles of any kind. The tories campaign against brexit, gently caress up so hard they have to foist an unelected prime minister on us, but by the time the vote comes up they're voting in lock-step against the position they previously held.

Even here, however, the question is how big a problem this is for Labour, and how much we can infight over a question with no easy answer that was going to piss off a lot of people regardless of the option chosen. We just expect the tories to be bastards so it all just slides off them.

# ? Feb 7, 2017 01:13

Cabal Ties: Feb 28, 2004; Yam Slacker

Pissflaps posted:

Except I told you that this strategy would not work. It's not working. It was never going to work. I think you knew it wasn't going to work yourself.

A Labour party, competently led and opposed to Brexit, could have built up some momentum in public opinion and in the house. To be fair, looking at what's leading Labour right now, that does seem an unrealistic fantasy. I was never expecting Corbyn to be able to do this - this is what a Labour party with a real leader would have done. Not one led by the bearded poo poo it has right now. Roll on 2030.

Of course it's unrealistic. You are talking about the most vilified man in current British politics. How would the conservative press, the tabloids and consequently Brexit voters react to that? He'd be out, no chance of any change, seen as not following will of the people because of the referendum result. No way around that, best strategy has to be roll with it at least for now.
E: just realized this was a few posts ago.. Oops.

# ? Feb 7, 2017 01:23

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

kingturnip posted:

The people voting Lib Dem because they're opposed to Brexit are as stupid as the people who think the Lib Dems are making a comeback, because the substantive contribution of the Liberal Democrats to the government of the UK in recent years is to empower one of the most regressive, neoliberal arsebackwards Conservative administrations ever.

The substantive contribution of Labour under Jeremy Corbyn is doing that from "opposition".

# ? Feb 7, 2017 01:24

Pissflaps: Oct 20, 2002; by VideoGames

CareyB posted:

Of course it's unrealistic. You are talking about the most vilified man in current British politics. How would the conservative press, the tabloids and consequently Brexit voters react to that? He'd be out, no chance of any change, seen as not following will of the people because of the referendum result. No way around that, best strategy has to be roll with it at least for now.
E: just realized this was a few posts ago.. Oops.

Corbyn has no chance of enacting change because he's voting with the Tories and no oval office likes the fucker.

# ? Feb 7, 2017 01:27

Private Speech: Mar 30, 2011; I HAVE EVEN MORE WORTHLESS BEANIE BABIES IN MY COLLECTION THAN I HAVE WORTHLESS POSTS IN THE BEANIE BABY THREAD YET I STILL HAVE THE TEMERITY TO CRITICIZE OTHERS' COLLECTIONS

IF YOU SEE ME TALKING ABOUT BEANIE BABIES, PLEASE TELL ME TO

EAT. SHIT.

namesake posted:

And yet the serious borders we erect around Fortress Europe show that this not some principled position offered for making peoples lives better, it's a way of making Europe a political and economic force of capitalism relevant in the age of superpowers. It's about as leftwing as the Scottish-English border.

Tell me, how much better do you see the refugee situation without the EU? For one, far fewer refugees would get into Germany. And there's no way the border countries would be able to accommodate all of them alone. I could see even more drastic measures being used by them in that case, out of sheer necessity.

The refugee question is not a good angle to criticise the existence of the border-less EU, much as we can argue that more (and many unfortunately want much less, in Britain in particular) should be done. The proper criticism is setting freedom of movement against the ordinary visa regime. The best thing you can say there is that it's better than nothing, and that the EU mandates allowing a level of access to non-eu foreigners through the common visa policy. And of course Schengen visas is a great thing for foreign workers, tourists and visitors who -do- get them, as they can then switch countries with a lot less hassle.

e: not that any of this (besides the visa policy) applies to Britain, because UK just had to be utter dicks about Schengen

Private Speech fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Feb 7, 2017

# ? Feb 7, 2017 01:34

Guavanaut: Nov 27, 2009; Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998; Toilet Rascal

Private Speech posted:

Tell me, how much better do you see the refugee situation without the EU?

It's a counterfactual, but it could have been much better. Without the Common Agricultural Policy and other Eurocentric protectionism existing since the mid-60s, farmers are able to operate more comfortably in the Levant and North Africa, leading to farms not collapsing in Syria, a desperate rural population not converging on Syrian cities, riots not happening, harsh countermeasures to said riots never occurring, a division in higher military policy never happening, and thus nothing even approaching the current situation resulting. We'd probably also need 'without NATO' and a couple of other variables too though.

# ? Feb 7, 2017 01:45

Prince John: Jun 20, 2006; Oh, poppycock! Female bandits?

^^ Interesting take on things. Alternative history is fun.

namesake posted:

And yet the serious borders we erect around Fortress Europe show that this not some principled position offered for making peoples lives better, it's a way of making Europe a political and economic force of capitalism relevant in the age of superpowers. It's about as leftwing as the Scottish-English border.

It is a principled position for making the lives of European people better though (and I think this distinguishes it from the English/Scottish border - European politicians really care about this freedom). If you think of it as being a matter of survival and relevance in the age of economic superpowers as you suggest, is it better to have a bastion of relatively liberal economic and political freedoms, even if it excludes the rest of the world, if the alternative is to have a fragmanted and declining Europe, unable to compete in the world, going hard for nationalism as things get shittier?

It is FYGM to an extent, but I don't know whether dismantling Fortress Europe would actually be a net improvement to the world, if it resulted in the US and China moving into the gap. The EU refugee policy may be pretty bad, but they still took over 1 million refugees in 2015, compared to 85k in the US for 2016 (presumably dwindling to nothing post-Trump) and China takes closer to 0. Economically, the EU is many times less protectionist than the US and, to a lesser extent, China. There was a handy graph posted in here a while back illustrating this, but I can't find it sadly - it showed at least an order of magnitude in difference between the value of protectionist policies, and the EU was the least protectionist of all blocs shown by a country mile.

The slow and measured expansion of EU benefits to a wider and wider number of countries would address the FYGM and be more in tune with acting like a 'global citizen', but that runs into its own realpolitik problems of course.

Prince John fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Feb 7, 2017

# ? Feb 7, 2017 01:47

jabby: Oct 27, 2010

Pissflaps posted:

An interpretation of that poll that concludes 'people want Brexit' is idiotic.

The poll asked what people would like to see happen now, and only 23% said they wanted Britain to try and stay in the EU. You're arguing that Britain should try and stay in the EU. Your opinion and suggestion for what the Labour party should advocate was literally one of the options and it got less than a quarter of the vote.

The idea that everyone who said they want to see soft Brexit in that poll just 'wants the best of a lovely situation' is an absolutely ludicrous answer when not having Brexit at all was one of the options. If they wanted that, they would have picked that.

# ? Feb 7, 2017 02:11

Private Speech: Mar 30, 2011; I HAVE EVEN MORE WORTHLESS BEANIE BABIES IN MY COLLECTION THAN I HAVE WORTHLESS POSTS IN THE BEANIE BABY THREAD YET I STILL HAVE THE TEMERITY TO CRITICIZE OTHERS' COLLECTIONS

IF YOU SEE ME TALKING ABOUT BEANIE BABIES, PLEASE TELL ME TO

EAT. SHIT.

kingturnip posted:

Oh, but they're making pro-EU mugs.

I'm wearing a pro-EU tshirt right now.

It also says "refugees welcome" on it for maximum aggravation. Don't think I'd dare to wear it outside in the UK though, being an EU migrant and all.

# ? Feb 7, 2017 02:14

Niric: Jul 23, 2008

While the government are helpfully and honestly trying to push the responsibility and blame for the housing crisis on to councils, the consistently interesting City Metric has a short piece on the how to buy property the answer is to have wealthy parents

quote:

Want to buy the average London home? Save more than the average salary every month

eration’s Home Truths report to find out why:

House prices have become so expensive in the capital that buyers hoping to save for a typical deposit over the next four years will need to scrape together at least a staggering £2,300 every month, a new report from the National Housing Federation reveals today.

It might take you a couple of goes to take that one in, so let’s hear it again:

House prices have become so expensive in the capital that buyers hoping to save for a typical deposit over the next four years will need to scrape together at least a staggering £2,300 every month, a new report from the National Housing Federation reveals today.

Still not getting it? Let’s try focusing in on the important bit:

£2,300 every month

Oh. That’s... well, that’s quite a lot really, isn’t it?

Put it this way. The median London salary – the amount earned by the Londoner in the middle of the income distribution – was, as of April 2016, £671 per week, which is just shy of £35,000 a year. Earn that, and you receive a take home pay packet of around £2,241 a month.

So if you, as an average Londoner, save every penny you make – live on a friend’s sofa, walk to work, steal your food, never go out – you will still, at the end of the year, be around £720 short of your savings target. (This is assuming that you don’t have any student debt which, of course, you do.)

Or to put it another way: to save the money requried to buy the average London home, you need to earn more than the average London salary and not spend any of it.

Lazy millennials, blowing all their money on iPods and flat whites instead of pulling themselves up by their bootstraps like what we did. Why can’t they just work harder and stop whining?

The face of the enemy.

And get a bloody pension! Don’t want to be a burden on society do you?

Now, there are all sorts of ways in which we can fisk this one. The NHF represents housing associations: it thus has an interest in talking up the housing crisis, in an attempt to get its members more powers and freedom to address it.

The 2021 deadline is pretty arbitrary. So is the idea that first time buyers would buy as singletons rather than couples. Perhaps the biggest hole of all is the idea that they would buy “the average London home”, now worth (gulp) £563,041, rather than – as is more likely – a shoebox in a lovely area because goddamn it it’s a foot on the ladder isn’t it.

So, no. To become a first-time buyer in London, you do not literally need to be saving £2,300 a month. And to become a first-time buyer you don’t need to do it in London.

Nonetheless the fact that you can get to such a figure, even through some reductio ad absurdum fag packet maths, highlights quite how ludicrous the London housing market has become. It should not be possible, through any conventional mathematics, to come to the conclusion that you need to save more than the average income every month to have a hope of housing security in this or any other city.

Here are some other figures from the Home Truths Report which inspire much the same sort of rage:

To buy that average home, under current mortgage rules, you’d need a 20 per cent deposit of around £113,000;Not to mention a household income of £130,000 a year;The cheapest borough in the capital is Barking & Dagenham, where the mean house price is £254,183. That’s 10.1 times the average salary in the borough, or “a whole salary more than any bank is likely to lend to a couple as a mortgage”;The most expensive is Kensington & Chelsea, where the average house price is now less than £40,000 off £2m. Not that it matters, really, but that’s 34.8 times the average salary in the area;The rental value of the average property is now £1,727, which is 61 per cent of the average salary. Which is probably one of the reasons why...Over a third of those claiming housing benefit in London are in work – because their income isn’t high enough to cover their rent.

So, to sum up, we’re all doomed.

# ? Feb 7, 2017 08:49

learnincurve: May 15, 2014; Smoosh

Gort posted:

This is the trouble with having principles of any kind. The tories campaign against brexit, gently caress up so hard they have to foist an unelected prime minister on us, but by the time the vote comes up they're voting in lock-step against the position they previously held.

Some Tories campaigned against, they lost and are suffering the GOT style consequences. We don't vote for a prime minister, the party with the majority has a new leader. Saying a prime minister is "Unelected" is implying that they are like a US president when they simply arn't, the Queen is our head of state. It's also been happening forever, in fact the last time it happened was with the last labour government.

# ? Feb 7, 2017 09:09

Gort: Aug 18, 2003; Good day what ho cup of tea

learnincurve posted:

Some Tories campaigned against, they lost and are suffering the GOT style consequences.

What consequences are you referring to?

quote:

We don't vote for a prime minister, the party with the majority has a new leader. Saying a prime minister is "Unelected" is implying that they are like a US president when they simply arn't, the Queen is our head of state. It's also been happening forever, in fact the last time it happened was with the last labour government.

Sure, and the term "unelected Prime Minister" was thrown at Gordon Brown as a pejorative all the time. Pretending that nobody votes for their MP based on the PM they share a party with is wilful ignorance.

# ? Feb 7, 2017 09:27

learnincurve: May 15, 2014; Smoosh

Well I don't see Cameron in parliament anymore, and Osborne's gone to the back benches in order to spend more time with his lucrative speaking engagements. Also we live in a world where Boris Johnson is Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

# ? Feb 7, 2017 09:41

Jippa: Feb 13, 2009

It's amazing how cameron has managed to slip away from all this with all the craziness that keeps coming every day. History will remember him though.

# ? Feb 7, 2017 09:49

learnincurve: May 15, 2014; Smoosh

It is 2717, we are in The dog and duck on space station Zappa. The landlord clears his throats. "Name the British prime minister who had sex with a dead pig"

# ? Feb 7, 2017 10:08

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

Gort posted:

Why does that get scare quotes from you? Implementing the result of a referendum is pretty democratic no matter how much you personally dislike the result.

52 wolves and 48 lambs voting on what to eat for lunch is not democracy

# ? Feb 7, 2017 10:40

Prince John: Jun 20, 2006; Oh, poppycock! Female bandits?

Heh, my approval of John Bercow has somewhat waned after seeing a list of other people he's allowed to speak in parliament. Trump may be a vacuous, bigoted, mysoginist, but hasn't (yet?) approached anything like the scale of opression that the day-to-day operation of the Chinese state involves.

Jippa posted:

It's amazing how cameron has managed to slip away from all this with all the craziness that keeps coming every day. History will remember him though.

I think the proper word is 'slither'. I also share your amazement at the lack of outcry.

# ? Feb 7, 2017 10:41

Oh dear me: Aug 14, 2012; I have burned numerous saucepans, sometimes right through the metal

Why would there be outcry? Cameron wasn't greatly loved by anyone, and most people want Brexit.

# ? Feb 7, 2017 11:04

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Guavanaut posted:

Without the Common Agricultural Policy and other Eurocentric protectionism existing since the mid-60s, farmers are able to operate more comfortably in the Levant and North Africa, leading to farms not collapsing in Syria, a desperate rural population not converging on Syrian cities, riots not happening, harsh countermeasures to said riots never occurring, a division in higher military policy never happening, and thus nothing even approaching the current situation resulting. We'd probably also need 'without NATO' and a couple of other variables too though.

This is insane argument because it assumes that individual member states would somehow be less agriculturally protectionist than they are now if the EU didn't exist, even though the EU is a broadly market-oriented liberal organisation and has massively increased external countries' access to European markets over the course of its existence.

# ? Feb 7, 2017 11:10

Oh dear me: Aug 14, 2012; I have burned numerous saucepans, sometimes right through the metal

Article in FT showing why 'centrist' Labour is a disaster:

quote:

The research suggested that �New Labour was essentially about reinforcing Thatcherite policy values�, Mr Jennings said.
�Thatcherite values were reproduced under New Labour and become stronger and embedded in the generation that came of age after Thatcher�s time in office.�

# ? Feb 7, 2017 11:16

kustomkarkommando: Oct 22, 2012

Good to see that in the three hour debate on amendments concerning the devolved regions there was enough time to hear from one welsh mp, one northern Irish mp and one and a bit Scottish MPs.

Good show

# ? Feb 7, 2017 11:17

Guavanaut: Nov 27, 2009; Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998; Toilet Rascal

LemonDrizzle posted:

This is insane argument because it assumes that individual member states would somehow be less agriculturally protectionist than they are now if the EU didn't exist, even though the EU is a broadly market-oriented liberal organisation and has massively increased external countries' access to European markets over the course of its existence.

Your argument on the other hand assumes that they would have the ability to be more protectionist as individual states than they would clubbing together to gently caress over their immediate periphery.

It's a well known fact that we import two thirds of our cheese etc. etc. and that is a disgrace, if the Levantine and North African farms were able to compete against the European ones why wouldn't we go with them absent any large scale structure to penalize buying non-Euro? Some sense of white loyalty?

# ? Feb 7, 2017 11:27

GEORGE W BUSHI: Jul 1, 2012

kustomkarkommando posted:

Good to see that in the three hour debate on amendments concerning the devolved regions there was enough time to hear from one welsh mp, one northern Irish mp and one and a bit Scottish MPs.

Good show

John Redwood's speech was the most loving aggravating. :qq:

"Why won't anyone think of England? :qq:

People who seriously complain about England not getting it's own devolved powers are as loving oblivious as the morons who ask why there isn't a white history month.

# ? Feb 7, 2017 11:41

Guavanaut: Nov 27, 2009; Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998; Toilet Rascal

The English regions should get their own devolved powers. Scotland, Northumbria, and Yorkshire would be able to join legislative forces against Anglia, Chiltern and the London city-state.

# ? Feb 7, 2017 11:48

Gort: Aug 18, 2003; Good day what ho cup of tea

Cerv posted:

52 wolves and 48 lambs voting on what to eat for lunch is not democracy

Where do those who couldn't be bothered to vote at all show up in this analogy

# ? Feb 7, 2017 11:50

Pissflaps: Oct 20, 2002; by VideoGames

Roll back devolution within Great Britain and empower local authorities.

# ? Feb 7, 2017 11:51

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Guavanaut posted:

It's a well known fact that we import two thirds of our cheese etc. etc. and that is a disgrace, if the Levantine and North African farms were able to compete against the European ones why wouldn't we go with them absent any large scale structure to penalize buying non-Euro? Some sense of white loyalty?

Because of things like this: http://www.fwi.co.uk/news/french-farmer-protests-win-600m-government-aid

National farming lobbies are powerful because they have a lot of public support and farmers traditionally aren't afraid to gently caress poo poo up good and proper when they feel they're getting a raw deal.

# ? Feb 7, 2017 11:53

mehall: Aug 27, 2010

YouGov have specifically asked Labour voters what they want on Brexit, and the results are as spread as we've all been saying for months:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/828907418692284416

42% for 2nd Referendum vs. 37% against
45% for No Brexit vs. 35% against
28% for Hard Brexit vs. 35% against
36% for Soft Brexit vs. 31% against

Don't care or don't know at least 20% in each question, up to as much as 37% when talking about Hard Brexit.

# ? Feb 7, 2017 11:51

JFairfax: Oct 23, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

mehall posted:

YouGov have specifically asked Labour voters what they want on Brexit, and the results are as spread as we've all been saying for months:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/828907418692284416

42% for 2nd Referendum vs. 37% against
45% for No Brexit vs. 35% against
28% for Hard Brexit vs. 35% against
36% for Soft Brexit vs. 31% against

Don't care or don't know at least 20% in each question, up to as much as 37% when talking about Hard Brexit.

so more people against a second referendum than against a hard brexit.

# ? Feb 7, 2017 11:55

mehall: Aug 27, 2010

JFairfax posted:

so more people against a second referendum than against a hard brexit.

and more people who vehemently feel that way in the no second Ref side too, compared to Hard Brexit.

# ? Feb 7, 2017 11:57

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Yes what what you need to understand is that it's all Corbyn's fault.

# ? Feb 7, 2017 11:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 10, 2024 21:40

JFairfax: Oct 23, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

I think it just shows that there really is no easy answer for Labour on this one

# ? Feb 7, 2017 12:00

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT February 2017 - Welcome to Tiny Train World

«‹›172 »