It was the continuous attempts to stifle expression, ridicule and abuse people with a different viewpoint which caused the polarity in the nation.
I disagree. I think it was a decades long xenophobic campaign to blame outsiders for our own problems which caused the polarity in the nation. The cowardice of our political leaders unwillingness to face up to this, but rather hide behind a referendum as a device to hold on to power made matters much worse.
This is not a new phenomenon; fear of outsiders has been exploited by leaders to justify their own inadequacies and suppress opposition since the dawn of time. It rarely ends well, as our current predicament so richly demonstrates.
I agree that pro-EU UK governments of all flavours could not resist the short term appeal of laying blame for all of their failures that they possibly could on Brussels. They worked hand in hand with the eurosceptic press on this. The chickens came home to roost though.
What was new was the suppression of the people from expressing their views. People were scared to participate in debate because there was an ever changing set of rules about how you had to say things without being set upon.
I reckon that good hearted people would have talked things through with themselves and eventually come to a better conclusion if they had not been attacked so venomously when they started to try and work through things.
What was new was the suppression of the people from expressing their views. People were scared to participate in debate because there was an ever changing set of rules about how you had to say things without being set upon.
I don't recognise this. It might help if you could be more specific.
For instance. Who is scared? What rules? Some examples of being "set upon"?
Given that the popular media almost universally supported Brexit, the claimed "suppression" of these views is, honestly, hard to understand.
What was new was the suppression of the people from expressing their views. People were scared to participate in debate because there was an ever changing set of rules about how you had to say things without being set upon.
I don't recognise this. It might help if you could be more specific.
For instance. Who is scared? What rules? Some examples of being "set upon"?
Given that the popular media almost universally supported Brexit, the claimed "suppression" of these views is, honestly, hard to understand.
+1 It is a fair and pertinent argument. Especially the popular press side of things.
Indeed I do seem to recall people from the EU being physically abused after the referendum?
For a long time any mention of immigration was squashed by playing the racist card. This allowed it to simmer and fester. Eventually that one exploded out but the list of words that are on the taboo register isnt constant and after people are pushed from the word they grew up with to another, it in turn gets banned. People who are not involved enough to keep current dare not speak for fear of using a word they didnt know was now taboo.
Then something even more basic, what if people were voting out of racism? They still get that vote. Racism can not be openly discussed in a logical way, so those with that bent are just not in the conversation, even though they could actually have been influenced if included. There is a contradiction in saying they dominate the world view and are responsible for the brexit vote and also saying they are too small a group to be allowed any platform. They were not debated with, they were suppressed and excluded.
Repeat for sexism and homophobia.
Free speech is a tool for allowing people to work things through in debate, suppressing it in any form prevents that process.
PDQ Mobile wrote: I agree. There is to much simple blaming and accusation. Bring polite argument and reasoning to the debate. I can get cross when faced with mere "bring back control" argument not backed up by some vestige of fact. But I try not to sling insults at what I perceive as empty argument. Passion is ok of course, necessary even, but direct it mainly to the positive.
It's not an empty argument. If Brexit drives the country into a fairly deep recession many people will suffer. Those who voted leave will be responsible for this and will be criticised for it. Criticism is not an insult.
I actually meant a lot of "leave" argument is empty! IMHO Ah the written word.
The Blair administration very effectively kept it out of mainstream debate by attacking any Conservative (or other) who dared to mention immigration as a racist.
All the main leave protagonists have resigned partly in my view because they could not deliver what they promised. That is certainly the case for Farage. A windbag.
A strange interpretation of Farage's resignation after having had success in his main goal of having and winning an EU referendum. UKIP was a means to achieving a single issue and that issue was achieved. So long as the other parties respect the result, UKIPs role is over because it has been completed.
Wasn't it Farage who claimed that if the majority of brexit votes wasn't 2/3 thirds or thereabouts he would look on it as not a convincing enough,as unfinished business,but went quite about it afterwards. Wind bag isn't far off the mark,and a nasty piece of xenophobic work to boot along with the rest of his fascist party bretheren IMHO.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Yes, he actually used 52:48 as his ratio, which was the result but reversed. I can balance that out with remain voters flocking to sign a petition calling for a re-run which was started by a leave voter who was expecting defeat.
Wind bag isn't far off the mark,and a nasty piece of xenophobic work to boot along with the rest of his fascist party bretheren IMHO
Can I use this as one of the examples Brian Fox requested of people being set upon as racists when talking about immigration.
Meic Examine the UKIP party leaders,of which there's been many and you'll find I'm right,they are ultra rightwing fascist movement who would have cyclists licenced,numberplated,taxed,insured,and confined to any cyclepath however bad!
And I'm not claiming all leave voters are racists,not at all so please don't tar me with that brush,however UKIP is another matter.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
pete75 wrote: Yeah but you don't don't want immigrants here do you? You've repeatedly stated that's the reason you voted leave.
My bottom line is that I don't want an ever increasing population because I don't think that is going to make the UK a better place to live, but that means balancing emigration with immigration. That is not the same as being against immigrants.
Splitting hairs I think. You're against immigration but not against immigrants. A bit like being against speeding but not against speeders.
