The future of the UK EU relationship

[roubaixtuesday]

From Viz comic https://shop.viz.co.uk/

[Jdsk]

The current Home Secretary favours a policy of "One out, one in".

Jonathan

[roubaixtuesday]

The current Home Secretary favours a policy of "One out, one in".

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

...
The belief that people with right-wing views definitely supported Brexit is a fallacy. If you look at how the country voted in the referendum you will see strong support for Leave in the Labour strongholds of South Wales and Northern England.

There are two different hypotheses in there with different denominators: one about who voted to Leave, and the other about how people with right-wing views voted. No matter how Labour voters voted it's still possible that those with right-wing views strongly supported Leaving.

From what I have read the old way of dividing up voters by left-right or conservative-labour are no longer good predictors of current voting intentions or views on things like Europe. Age and level of education are better. Society seems to be changing.

The associations in the 2016 referendum of years of formal education and age were massive.

But the association between left or right-leaning bloc and attitude to the EU in the 2024 general election is very strong:

"Fragmentation revisited: the UK General Election of 2024":
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10 ... 5#abstract
"The most striking feature of the outcome was the persistence of electoral alignments that emerged in the wake of Brexit – with the vast majority of British voters supporting a party that lined up with their stance towards the European Union – despite big changes in overall support for individual parties and the near absence of Brexit as an election issue."
"In 2024, these proportions declined slightly, but the vast majority continued to line up with a party on their ‘Brexit side’, with 76% of anti-EU voters voting for right-conservative parties and 85% of pro-EU voters voting for left-liberal parties."

Jonathan

[853]

No one disputes that a generally labour vote swung the Referendum.

But it is who promoted (and funded) the "Leave" campaign that is the important thing.

You don't think Farage is right wing?
Or Rees Mogg?
Rupert Murdoch?
Johnson and Gove?
Or the Daily Mail?
Or Marie le Pen?

I, (or others in the discussion with me), never mentioned Farage. Or Rees Mogg, Rupert Murdoch, Johnson or Gove. They're just five men in an estimated uk population of 69.5 million, whilst the discussion was about an American citizen

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... /ukpop/pop

[PDQ Mobile]

No one disputes that a generally labour vote swung the Referendum.

But it is who promoted (and funded) the "Leave" campaign that is the important thing.

You don't think Farage is right wing?
Or Rees Mogg?
Rupert Murdoch?
Johnson and Gove?
Or the Daily Mail?
Or Marie le Pen?

I, (or others in the discussion with me), never mentioned Farage. Or Rees Mogg, Rupert Murdoch, Johnson or Gove. They're just five men in an estimated uk population of 69.5 million, whilst the discussion was about an American citizen

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... /ukpop/pop

So you don't think the important point is about who funded and promoted the Brexit referendum campaign?

I merely popped in a few names to clearly demonstrate that it was predominantly the Right who did so.

A man like Murdoch (American citizen by the way) wields huge influence on public opinion.
Ditto Dacre of the DM.
Farage's link and discussions (at the time of the referendum) with Murdoch are documented.

The above link (that you deleted in the above quoted) I posted seems to show Thiel's hefty financial support of Farage and Reform.

What do YOU think the phrase " Brexit is just the beginning" signifies?

[sjs]

This latest argument about what the paedophile and his various pals did or didn't feel about Brexit ...... it seems like an argument about who is the goody and who is the baddy; and about how baddies weren't necessarily in favour of what some think of as a good thing (Brexit) because if they were that might make Brexit a baddy thing.

Strewth!

I think you hit the nail on the head with that last paragraph.

[853]

What do YOU think the phrase " Brexit is just the beginning" signifies?

Nothing much. Peter Thiel, who Epstein was communicating with and meeting in his office, didn't understand it so how the **** can anyone else know.

[mjr]

Thanks for replying

And given the pairs support of right wing causes it is not unreasonable to infer that those causes had had at least Epstein's support- him being so influential and all that.

It is unreasonable. The belief that people with right-wing views definitely supported Brexit is a fallacy. If you look at how the country voted in the referendum you will see strong support for Leave in the Labour strongholds of South Wales and Northern England.

Only a fallacy if you say it's definite. It's accurate to say people with right wing views GENERALLY supported Brexit. But we should remember that 4 percent of UKIP supporters voted to remain.

And that doesn't say anything about what Labour voters did, either way.

[roubaixtuesday]

Peter Thiel, who Epstein was communicating with and meeting in his office, didn't understand it so how the **** can anyone else know.

That would be because Epstein then clarified it in his reply.

****ing obviously.

[slowster]

This latest argument about what the paedophile and his various pals did or didn't feel about Brexit ...... it seems like an argument about who is the goody and who is the baddy; and about how baddies weren't necessarily in favour of what some think of as a good thing (Brexit) because if they were that might make Brexit a baddy thing.

Strewth!

I think you hit the nail on the head with that last paragraph.

If you are including me in that, you are mistaken. I simply look at the Epstein/Thiel exchange and try to understand the meaning of what was said.

Personally, I think the opposite applies just as much, if not more. People who have very strong and passionate views against Brexit, tend to be predisposed to believe an appalling individual like Epstein was in favour of Brexit. I dont think the exchange - especially on its own - supports that view when looked at dispassionately and objectively.

On a wider note, culture wars is not simply a right wing phenomenon: very often many people on either side now tend to adopt views and positions which are part of a package, and they seek confirmation of their biases as a package, whether that be in the Telegraph/GB News or the Guardian etc.

From the little that I have read, Epstein was not a particularly good picker of winners in his investments. He was successful despite that because a) his particular skill was in exploiting the extremely complex US tax code, e.g. to structure investments (I read a comment that he was reckoned to understand the tax code better than almost anyone else) and b) it is easier to make money in a stable/bull market, doubly so if you have the sort of information that comes from the specialised insight that Epstein sought from those he cultivated, e.g. Mandelson, Thiel, A. Mountbatten-Windsor during his term as a trade envoy etc.

I think only a small minority of investors have the skill, intelligence (and luck) such that they would prefer an investment landscape where there were high levels of instability/an increased risk of business failures. Those who anticipated the 2008 financial crisis and made investments to profit from it were very few in number - the rest of the financial sector (and the investors dependent on it) had to be bailed out by all of us. Soros was similarly an exception: a hedge fund specialist, much of whose reputation was based on the single instance of exploiting clearly flawed UK Govt. policy of entering the ERM with the pound at too high a value and thereafter refusing to reduce it, which resulted in Black Wednesday (without which Brexit would probably never have happened).

This article provides some interesting insight into the sort of investor Epstein was and his relationship with Thiel:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/iainmartin ... nnections/

In the light of that article, I suspect Epstein's comments were made with the aim of presenting himself to Thiel as an astute observer of political trends. The comments “Brexit, just the beginning” and “Return to tribalism, counter to globalisation, amazing new alliances” have the quality of the Delphic Oracle - it may look like the insight of someone with a deep understanding of what is really happening in the world, but in reality it is vague, superficial and imprecise, so much so that it could later easily be presented as having predicted whatever actually came to pass.

The Forbes article states that Epstein sought to gain entry into the "Tech Bro" investor community, and especially to build a relationship with Thiel. It looks like he did not have much to offer Thiel in return, so at bottom his emails strike me as trying to tantalise Thiel and maintain the relationship, hence the initial cryptic “Brexit, just the beginning.” It looks like it was not all that effective, and Thiel stopped replying to Epstein's attempts at communication in 2018/2019.

[PDQ Mobile]

Well I for one don't think Slowster's long post stacks up well.
(His Forbes link is not available to me)

In reverse order.
That Thiel stopped corresponding with Epstein in 2018/19 is almost certainly because there was a very hefty whiff around that Epstein was in trouble again.
That is after all Thiel's business - trawling through the internet and prophesying trends, (Palantir!).
(The fact that Epstein had already served a prison sentence earlier seemed not to have bothered Thiel up to then anyway!)

.........
The "Delphic Oracle" angle doesn't stack up either IMV; Epstein "trying to present himself as an astute observer" etc.

These are 2 men who have had many personal "in my office" meetings.
They know each others views and aims really quite well.
They are both extremely well connected and therefore well informed, think Mandelson, Edward Mount etc etc.

There is no need for Epstein to "present himself".
It is a simple gloating and anticipation of more (of the same) to come.
In that sense totally prescient!


.........
It has been shown time and again that a certain group of powerful individuals did not like the EU.
And they put money and huge influence into the "leave" campaign.

Putin for political ends- now laid bare.

Murdoch because he didn't like the EU's legislating in favour of its own citizens instead of his grasp towards ever more media power in the block.
And you can throw in Bannon and Trump too for reasons also now laid bare.

.....
There are links and quotes posted up thread by me and others that have attracted no comment, yet they show many of those aforementioned individuals were intend on driving a wedge into the EU's block.
Funding anti EU right wing parties directly and putting their huge media influences to work too.

[mjr]

It has been shown time and again that a certain group of powerful individuals did not like the EU.
And they put money and huge influence into the "leave" campaign.

And afterwards, too. You can see that pretty clearly if you browse the latest uploads at https://jmail.world - I suggest the emails and messages with Steve Bannon as a starting point if you've no better idea. Meetings and money to Farage, Le Pen, Meloni and more.

[853]

Peter Thiel, who Epstein was communicating with and meeting in his office, didn't understand it so how the **** can anyone else know.

That would be because Epstein then clarified it in his reply.

****ing obviously.

If you'd actually bothered to read the email exchange you posted, (below), you'd have seen there wasn't a second reply from Thiel, so we have no idea if he understood Epstein's second incoherent email as it doesn't clarify anything

[853]

These are 2 men who have had many personal "in my office" meetings.
They know each others views and aims really quite well.

Not well enough for Thiel to know what Epstein was talking about in the exchange we've been discussing