God bless this mess: Study says UK's Christian beliefs had 'important' role in Brexit If you need something else to direct your Brexit-induced rage towards, look no further than the big guy upstairs and a subset of people who believe in Him. In their recently published book, Religion and Euroscepticism in Brexit Britain, Brunel University academic Dr Stuart Fox and the University of Exeter's Dr Ekaterina …
Why not buy them in Spain?
My experience from living abroad in several countries is that the person sent to fix some problem in the house will soon spot the "alien parts" and immediately not understand anything, then begin the process of sucking air in through the front teeths, which indicates a steep price increase coming up, in any country!
Not worth it, IMO. The local stuff might be shit, but, it is *their shit* and whenever shit is involved, going with the flow is the done thing.
It's what 'we' voted for! Currently I'm sourcing keyboards from the US because Amazon (seller) will not ship the ones I want from the UK any more.
(Added a few other choice US only goodies to the order for good measure.)
I'm sure the US is more overtly Christian than the UK...
"Which is daft, and just shows that the new rules are designed solely to punish the UK, not to benefit people in the EU.
Erm, what new rules?
We have apparently "chosen" to move outside the EU, and therefore the rules we must follow are those we helped write for third countries, they aren't new - they are just what we "chose".
I'm an old fart so I can't exactly remember but most of the rules look like the same rules that I was dealing with in my first job long before the UK joined the common market - I remember having to demonstrate that the AC line cords I was carrying used the EU cable colours.
You are the reason I don't live in the UK.
Nor do I, and I have direct personal experience of the issues shipping between EU and UK
All countries have almost identical import restrictions it's just you do not understand this.
Then why is it easier to import into the EU from the US than the UK? Logically, with the UK now as a 3rd country, it should be no different.
Of course, it may just be that the US exporter doesn't care about the rules, in which case the poster above will get a nasty surprise when the parcel shows up accompanied by a bill for taxes & duty.
Then why is it easier to import into the EU from the US than the UK? Logically, with the UK now as a 3rd country, it should be no different.
Several reasons:
Logistics and IT are already set up for US imports. The UK only started(?) on it's end of the pipeline in maybe(!) January 2021. Bloris is not a man concerned with detail or quality people.
Stuff arriving from the US are by sea or by air. From the UK, people still believe in lorries and in them not getting stuck on some paperwork and based on their experience, hauliers are still reluctant to send a lorry across the channel. In case it gets stuck.
If anyone importing from the US gets a "nasty surprise", it is because they are stupid, There is a well-oiled system already in place to bong importers for duties, taxes and customs handling fees. Same as there is for China and there will eventually be for the UK.
Eventually it will be sorted out. Probably not before someone like Dido Harding or Crapita has had a go with it, but, this is the way the current UK government "works" and evidenced by their solid majority, it is the way "the people" wants things to work. Thus, no point in moaning about it!
Well, we could have stuck with a system that worked (the common market), but idiotic jingoism won the day on that one, and out political overlords decided to hoist an agreement on us that our own politicians didn't even get time to read properly before it got voted on. Is it hardly surprising that this agreement turns out to be a bad one, when it was personally negotiated at the eleventh hour by someone as dishonest and untrustworthy as Johnson?
Yeah, it's not like the EU/UK could have picked a system that works and copied it. That would have been far too simple.
They did. Note the EU side is generally up and running and for imports from the UK and the UK side are waiving most checks for imports from the EU.
What there is is an inability to scale, using rules for third party countries (where things are loaded up on boats and planes and take hours or days to get there and any problems can be smoothed over in transit) on a JIT delivery network.
But the UK wanted this.
I am having difficulty importing some filter equipment. It is made in Switzerland, but it has to come via the EU, and is currently stuck on the dockside in Calais, awaiting some extra paperwork. Why could the manufacturer not send it directly (by air?) from Berne to Birmingham, thus circumnavigating EU import and re-export rules?
"Why could the manufacturer not send it directly (by air?) from Berne to Birmingham...?"
Perhaps because you only paid for standard shipping?
Perhaps because nobody is yet bothering to send sealed & bonded containers full of miscellaneous small shipments from CH to GB.
This is what shipping stuff around Europe used to be like, before they invented this Single Market thingy that the Brexiteers so much disliked. The Swiss, of course, still have a sensible agreement with the single market, although their right-wing nutters are likely to sabotage it.
"Logically, with the UK now as a 3rd country, it should be no different."
It's vastly different, because the UK is not a simple "3rd country"
Items _manufactured in the UK_ are allowd to be imported to the EU Tariff Free
This means you must prove they were manufactured in the UK, or tariffs apply. Problems immediately start accruing when items are made from multiple components sourced from within and outside the UK as percentage of work in the UK then becomes the deciding factor (local content rules)
if the tariff-free agreement was not in place then the paperwork would be significantly easier because tarffs would apply on the finished goods at the prevailing rate
And no, the US exporter DOESN'T care about the rules. Stuff does turn up with such bills. Everything tends to be "FOB" (meaning you have to pay local customs agent handling fees and these can be STEEP)
why is it easier to import into the EU from the US than the UK
It's not, in principle, but US exporters have been using the same rules for years and the infrastructure has grown to process the volume of traffic that is customary and the type of trade we do with the US is shaped by the rules.
The UK went from having no paperwork/tariffs and a common VAT system to overnight having to produce customs declarations (including being able to prove origin for a lot of goods), register for VAT in multiple jurisdictions and appoint customs agents in multiple countries. Even if they did everything right (which mostly they didn't owing to the last-minute deal) it was simply impossible to scale the apparatus of administration to deal with the vast new demands so everything is getting snarled up. The EU were basically pleading with us to extend the transition periods (in the case of NI they insisted the UK's refusal to accept was written into the agreement as they couldn't believe the idiocy of refusing it) because they knew what would happen.
There's also the further problem that most UK exports to the EU arrive on lorries and in the case of "groupage" an entire truck can be held up because one consignment has the wrong paperwork. The "third country" model is designed to work for small amounts of cargo arriving by air and large amounts of (similar) cargo arriving by ship, it's not really suitable for driving mixed loads across land borders. Basically we have the wrong sort of trade for a third country, having over 40 years developed our businesses for a single market. It's also, as a consequence, the wrong sort of trade for any other likely trading partner - none of which we can reach by lorry anyway.
This is the fundamental misconception about Brexit - it's not just about selling the same stuff to other people (assuming they want it), it means scrapping entire swathes of industry and starting again.
"EU punishment beatings are figments of the Daily Mail and Boris the Borker's imaginations"
Typical blinkered Remoaner attitude. Next you'll be telling us that the great and glorious leaders of Germany and France don't have large stockpiles of vaccines that they ordered outside the "official" EU ordering process but refuse to use, and that they have kept their word regarding how "easy" it would be to import and export goods between the UK and the EU - yes we have the same rules, but do they try to tax the uneaten meals of truckers from anywhere else?
Wake up and smell the manure, xyz. They have surely shovelled enough of it by now for even the most ardent Europhile to realise they might not be behaving quite the way honorable national leaders should.
They have surely shovelled enough of it by now for even the most ardent Europhile to realise they might not be behaving quite the way honorable national leaders should.
Since brexiteers takes the implacable evilness and mendecity of the EU as a matter of fact, should they not have been prepared for it? Come on, they go out and make a deal with the most brit-hating club there is on the planet, according top them, and then they expect it to totally go their way?? How can they even keep these totally tangential world models in their head?
And what are they doing about it? Nothing! If The French are being bastards, it would be nice to have some arbitration mechanism, take the basterds to court, have their clocks cleaned for them, that kind of action.
But, apparently, because Bloris's "Oven Ready Turkey of a Deal" hasn't been officially, 100%, ratified yet by the EU, no investment is made in making it work somehow and everything can just be left to slip and slide into ever more chaos: https://bylinetimes.com/2021/04/14/uk-in-brexit-limbo-with-eu-disputes-resolution-bodies-still-not-set-up-say-lords/
WTF -...
I am sad to be old enough to remember that the UK used to be a pragmatic and rational country, whereas now its going all senile and throwing tantrums that would embarass a 3-year old.
All over Brexit. They could at least have an earnest go at it and it could work out, but, all the self sabotage almost guarantees that it won't.
PS -
Same "process" happened with "Article 50" - The UK went "Oh - No, we just can't work out what we want and what it is we want to negotiate before we have pulled the pin on this particular grenade and dropped that pin down the drain". But we sure can complain when it blows up in our pocket!
Phil O'Sophical> and just shows that the new rules are designed solely to punish the UK, not to benefit people in the EU.
Bzzzt wrong answer. (Or just the usual Brexpress/Hail style Englander victimhood? Again.)
The real reason is UK sellers not having their VAT charging and customs set up. UK suppliers must be taking a pounding. It's no real problem for me. US keyboards are fine (Well, better than AZERTY) and I've switched to Japanese and Taiwanese whiskies. It's a global market after all.
Phil O'Sophical> in which case the poster above will get a nasty surprise when the parcel shows up accompanied by a bill for taxes & duty.
Bzzzt. Wrong again. It's all set up to precharge TVA and fees. :-)
No one can bank on Christian charity to solve these issues.
If you program in any modern language then you should get a US keyboard.
All the square, curly things are on easy to access single press keys. All the rest are on simple shifts. You need never use the alt key again.
Arabic and Thai keyboards all have a US layout when English language is selected.
US English keycaps on an ISO layout is a thing.
ISO layout is the one with the big enter key, but it's still not as big as non-standard layouts with a bigass enter key... maybe you need one of those?
Which is daft, and just shows that the new rules are designed solely to punish the UK, not to benefit people in the EU.
Which leads to the obvious question - why did we allow Johnson et al to negotiate such bad rules? Why did we allow May to dictate that we have to leave the common market and customs union? I didn't vote to quit, but many who did were told that we would get "business as usual" and remain in those institutions. The moment our politicians decided we had to leave them, they were signing us up to those rules, which were only new in the respect that they already existed but had previously not applied to us, as we weren't a "third country".
It's a fine example of the quitling "doublethink" whereby they wanted to leave the EU but retain all the benefits of being in the EU, and also "take control" of our borders, but also allow unchecked transmission of goods though those borders. The whole thing collapses in a nonsense of contradictions the moment you actually think about it rationally, but the decision to leave was an emotive one, not a rational one.
As an IT person, I was rather irked by the way the brexit politicians were convinced that the issues of cross border trade, and customs inspections and so on were really not issues because we have really clever people and they ought to be able to sort it out without big fences and inspection posts using... computers, drones, the internet, black magic, etc.
In other words, if it all goes to shit, it's the fault of people like me who haven't stepped up to fix it, and not them for pushing this whole thing without having any real idea of how it would actually work.
Thing is, if you asked any of these clever people they're so proud of beforehand as to their opinions, it would be "remain" ... everyone with any knowledge, economists, hauliers, etc. knew the problems and that they could not be magicked away. But they just weren't interested in what "clever" people thought about Brexit, they'd already decided to do it and didn't want to hear anything that contradicted their view.
Dunnno - I bought some Rogowski Coils for work and an Arcade cabinet for meself before Brexit. It got here OK.
It particularly pisses me off that the UK has a lot of really smart, I would call them "artisan" for lack of a better description, small tech businesses running out of ancient cottages in Wales and the Cotswolds and now all those people, some of them friends and former colleagues, they are in the shit because a thicko cunt like Boris Johnson and his scummy, corrupt, cunt governement can't be arsed about "details" and basically only cares about keping The Daily Mail's commentary track enraged (which is what makes that lot happy)!
I think Brexit was a really bad idea, but, since the wanted to do it, they could have put some effort into it and maybe chosen to not screw it up at every opportunity!?
Yep, importing my household goods and chattels to a new house in Germany took six weeks and included a lightning dash to a customs post to sign some paperwork. And a stern warning that I wasn't allowed to sell any of it inside a year.
Meanwhile, I can't by a twenty-five quid benchtop power supply from CPC... export regulations say we can't deliver, sir.
I did not think they did that any more.
I personally know no-one in the UK who goes to church, mosque or synagogue regularly.
Although most will tick the "christian" box on a form they don't really believe it other than it provides an atmospheric venue for weddings and funerals.
Given that the fastest growing religion in the last census was "jedi" the UK is
pretty much an agnostic country.
The remoaner vs. brexiteer correlation is probably because Anglicans are more
likely to be ethnic English with all grandparents born in England, Catholics
are more likely to have some sort of migrant background (Irish, Italian, Polish etc.).
Hello
Just to be clear, I am a Christian, my wife is a Priest in the Church of England, My patents are Methodist Ministers (retired).
Just to deal with the "Jedi" thing : Growth numbers is not the same as Stock numbers. That said numbers in all churches are declining in general, numbers in the under 40's are low.
I think my experience of the Brexit and the church leads me to a few observations
1) Some people will divorce their Faith and politics and say that one does not infulance the other (I'm not sure I believe them)
2) I have heard theological arguments for both leave and remain, I personally find the remain ones more persuasive.
3) the church of England is very broad, making any assumptions about it as a group (even that they are all Christians!) is a bit if an ask.
On the day of the vote, I was in Taize with people from across Europe. It was a good place to be to remind you of what europe can be about.
I am sorry if your experience of faith has been like that. It is not like that for me. Particulary the do "what Father tells you". Firstly Taize's emphasis is on personal exploration of faith, not do as we say, but an emphasis on sharing in the style of the brothers life (simplicity, silent prayer, community) if only for a week.
Away from Taize, my faith is not about doing what I am told, but sharing in the life (in the person of Jesus) and influences of the what I believe to be God. (other people will put what I ascribe to God as something else(maybe mindfulness or other spiritual type stuff), people of other faiths will describe things through the lens of there own tradition or structure)
I am also sorry if that is your perception of the EU
I would assume it would be the fact that they're all going to burn in hellfire for eternity would be a factor?
Because it seems to be a central plank of most religions that they are the only right ones, and everyone else is not just wrong, but is going to face eternal torture for not believing.
I would assume it would be the fact that they're all going to burn in hellfire for eternity would be a factor?
Because it seems to be a central plank of most religions that they are the only right ones, and everyone else is not just wrong, but is going to face eternal torture for not believing.
Only for the Abrahamic religions, with Hinduism and Buddhism you just get to retry (reincarnation) until you get it right.
Not for Jews either. We don't proselytise. We don't believe other religions are damned. On the contrary. They are exempt from all the specific (and numerous) religious requirements that we place ourselves under.The basic Noahic principles of not killing/stealing and so one are sufficient. In fact, they are even good enough for ourselves at a pinch - as long as we remember the "No other gods bit".
^ And christianity is fundamentally judaism with additional teaching from (predominantly) Jesus and Paul (and the acceptance of Jesus as the fulfilment of centuries of prophecy).
As a christian I struggle with the concept that people who aren't christian are damned - at least somewhat because a significant reason I am christian is the accident of my birth location, but also because that's not the behaviour of the loving God I see in the bible.
It's amazing just how many things that people outside religions claim are completely universally held truths within those religion but are actually matters of (at most) secondary importance where people within the same congregation will hold wildly differing views.
>^ And Christianity is fundamentally Judaism with additional teaching from (predominantly) Jesus and Paul (and the acceptance of Jesus as the fulfilment of centuries of prophecy).
And Islam is fundamentally Christianity with additional teaching from Mohammed (Jesus was accepted as a previous prophet).
Not really, Islam has more in common with Judaism, even if it's only the not-being-Christianity stuff (Christ being both God and the Son of God, whose fully human death and suffering propitiated mankind's sins and whose resurrection was a promise of life everlasting in God, along with a fair amount of Roman-appeasing guff and some pseudo-Greek metaphysics tacked on a few centuries later).
It always annoys me when people refer to Buddhism as a religion. The Buddha is not a deity, he was a man like you and me. Buddhism is a life philosophy. The fact that some Buddhist believe in reincarnation is irrelevant. Reincarnation is not a primary tenant of Buddhism as it is in Hinduism.
In China (and so some extent Japan) Buddhism has been mixed with Taoism which does have deities and is a religion, but classic Buddhism and the teachings of the Buddha are not a religion.
I was brought up in a Christian environment, I recognise that had i been brought up in a Islamic faith or a Buddhist one then my religion would probably be different.
Did I chose Christianity from a list of faiths? No. Do I discount other faiths? No.
To me (YourMilageMayVairy) that that I call God is to big for me to ever understand fully, I am not so arrogant to say that I have it all right and people that think differently to me are wrong. I don't think i chose Christianity because it has always been a part of me. I did choose to affirm my faith through baptism an being received into membership (the Methodist version of Confirmation in the Cof E)
"3) the church of England is very broad"
I ain't saying your mother church is broad, but..... it includes everyone from people who turn up to the odd marriage or funeral through the spectrum to the "hands down for coffee" happy clappy people to "smells and bells" high church who enjoy a service very close to a Catholic (with a big C) mass.
The parenthetical part of
3) the church of England is very broad, making any assumptions about it as a group (even that they are all Christians!) is a bit if an ask.
is very true. I know one CofE vicar who's an atheist(*), but does what he does because he believes the CofE is a valuable social institution that helps a lot of people one way or another. I can't say I disagree with him on that.
(*) Ditto a Methodist minister, with similar ideas.
The EU is a bureaucratic organisation set up by mostly western European governments to harmonise regulations and ease trading. It has expanded over the years to regulate other areas. It is famously inefficient and unresponsive to the needs of anyone but its employees.
Europe is a large sub-continent which has hosted some of the earliest civilisations, has a 3,000 years of history and culture and currently comprises of dozens of regions and languages. The people are generally friendly, the food comes in many varieties and is delicious, the wines are excellent and the beer is OK. Europeans more than any-one else are responsible for the science and moral philosophies which comprise the modern world. England, Wales Scotland and Northern Ireland are part of Europe.
It seems to be a common mistake to confuse one with the other.
I'm sorry, how the hell can there be theological arguments about Brexit ? Brexit has nothing to do with religion, it is a secular matter.
CofE, Roman Catholic, Lutheran or Calvinist is all about Jesus, the Bible, Thou Shalt Not Kill, Lie or Covet Thy Neighbor's Wife, etc.
Spiritual matters. Brexit is anything but spiritual.
Because religious ( and that includes the cultural accretions) attitudes effect wider social attitudes. Whether this study in any way demonstrates this is a very different kettle of ball games. But the principle that it might is incontestable.
It is not the theology of Brexit ( though no doubt that might also be a thing). It's the cultural attitudes that the theology engenders. Like it says ( though it sounds like a stereotype to me) Protestants are habituated to resisting the influences of them European Catholics......
Like it says ( though it sounds like a stereotype to me) Protestants are habituated to resisting the influences of them European Catholics.
Really? How about northern Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden? All mostly Protestant and pro EU.
I assumed it was because Anglicans have form historically for having a hissy fit over foreigners insisting on everyone following same rules, and then leaving and isolating themselves with their own inferior version of whatever it was they left in a huff. That's basically how the C of E started....
When I was in the mob, we had next of kin forms to fill in just before going on my first exercise, where it said Religion I put none and was told I had to put something as none was not acceptable by the British army, who went to a lot of trouble to provide us squaddies with chaplains for the good of our souls.
I wrote Shinto in the box, anyone know what the availability of Shinto priests is in the British Army?
Me neither but it made my sargeant happy.
My family has been living in England since 1560 at least, and I ‘converted’ to Catholicism (essentially from atheism). I’m not the only one to do this, and am part of a busy parish that is mostly British but also people from all over the world.
The church will outlast the Jedis, just as it has all gnostic heresies!
Yeah, I had to do that to get my son into the only decent local school, a Catholic one. Trouble was he's gay, and from the headmaster down had a seriously bad time in his teens.
We should just remember what the organised religions can be like given half a chance. The school said if he wanted a place we couldn't put down any other school on the list of preferences. Totally illegal. They should not have been able to find out from the local education authority what we had put down, but we were warned by parents already at the school that the EA was thoroughly penetrated. UK circa 2006.
Religion poisons everything.
James, you're spot-on that lots of Little Englanders self-identify as notionally Anglican.
At the same time, cos my girlfriend is a Vicar, I know very large numbers of hard-core believing active churchgoing Anglicans, and it happens that those I know the views of are all REJOINERS.
Cooperation being (generally) more humane than Conflict - or Conservatism.
I really do NOT want to be Ruled by foreigners, but I do want to Play Fair with them.
(Please don't tar me with the Henry8 brush.)
The article carefully distinguishes between Churchgoers (mostly Remain) and Anglicans (mostly Leave). Churchgoing Anglicans appear to be a contradiction in terms and, obviously, a minority.
That Boris Johnson is a bit of a Henry the Eighth, isn't he? Bastards. He's got lots of them. No one knows how many. He also has several illegitimate children.
Why are we discussing this on an IT site? I cannot help feeling the combination of religion and Brexit is flamebait. Really, The Register should be better than that. There is decent content here and no reason to resort to Facebook level trolling to improve engagement.
The lack of consideration of confounding factors pretty typical of the standard of sociological research.
Its very interesting as long as you assume correlations implies causation. Of course there are all sorts of other correlations that will affect it. In particular a lot of Catholics are recent immigrants from the EU, the people most likely to oppose Brexit. Ignore all that and you get a publishable result!
A lot of people who will tick the Christian box (and a lot of those who say "spiritual but not religious" too) will be moralistic therapeutic desists - a group of people who disagree with Christianity on everything except that there is a God or some sort. I suspect they are the largest religious group in the country
I personally know lots of people who go to church regularly (or did before covid). It depends where you live, and who you know. A lot of the congregations now are adult converts (about half at the Catholic church where we used to live) rather than people from Christian families so that skews it heavily to older people.
Its particularly bad with anything to do with religion. For example, a commonly accepted method of measuring religious orthodoxy essentially assumes that religious orthodoxy is being like an American evangelical. For example, it gives you a point for being a biblical literalist. That means everyone from the Pope to St Augustine of Hippo even, arguably, St Paul, is not quite orthodox.
They probably get by at the moment because they haven't clouded the issue with dogma. Wait for a hundred years and a handful of schisms, then see what sort of mess they'll be in. If the Holy Carriage Drivers aren't by then in conflict with the Landroverists, and the Whalesavers aren't denouncing the Glorious Thirteenth Grousers, I'll eat my crown.
I keep wanting to find out what Northern Ireland thinks of Orange Catholicism.
One or more of Arthur C. Clarke's futuristic novels featured a religion called Chrislam, which sounds like a bad idea by the second syllable. I think it used virtual reality indoctrination, you could visit heaven, like being inside a Jehovah's Witness magazine. And they were either against space travel generally, or against stopping colossal asteroids crashing into the Earth and killing everyone, specifically.
For a change? You've clearly never criticised the behaviour of one of their idols.
Say something nasty about Elon Musk or Linus Torvalds and you'll soon be getting sermons instructing you on correct behaviour.
Not sure how "If you're still sore about Brexit ... blame theists" squares with "one in five [20%] Brits' faith made them more likely to vote Leave, while a quarter [25%] of voters' beliefs helped place them in the Remain camp."
Wouldn't that mean the religious types were more likely to vote Remain?
For the record [anecdotal evidence alert] I look after six C of E congregations in rural villages, and no one I have spoken to about 'Brexit' seems impressed, and all voted Remain. I'm am sure there are 'Leavers' amongst the flock, but they seem hard to find.
Amongst the villagers in general, however, it seems much more evenly spread between Leave and Remain.
And amongst my Christian friends generally 'Brexit' is seen as a very shabby bit of un-democratic, unplanned idiocy. 'Leaving the EU' folk seem more open to, but leaving via 'Brexit' - not impressed - and most seem to think it would have been better to get our own house in order while remaining in, with a seat at the table.
"I'm am sure there are 'Leavers' amongst the flock, but they seem hard to find."
That might be because, no matter how we try to explain our reasons, the Remoaners insist that the only reasons for ANYONE to vote Leave was because we are racist loonies who only vote Tory and read the Daily Mail. You only need to look at the way Merkel and Macron behaved over the vaccines to see that the EU's claims to be the centre of truth and honour might not be quite as true as they claim.
But even when presented with evidence that should be obvious to anyone who bothers looking, Remoaners still scream and rant about how arrogant, evil and ignorant Leave voters are. Is it any wonder we keep quiet?
I've always been open to hearing good arguments for leaving and, hand on heart, I'd have voted Leave if I thought the advantages outweighed the benefits. And I can understand the sentimental urgings of just wanting control back. But every single argument has turned out to be either highly inaccurate, hearsay or propaganda from people I would not buy a used snail shell from.
Search YouTube for UKIP campaigners telling a farmer of glass eels that he'll be able to sell to new markets of people that the EU was preventing him from. Now he has no clients in the EU and has to find a new client base in places like Belarus from scratch, if his finances can keep going while does that. And he still doesn't know if the people of Belarus eat glass eels.
Look at the votes on this article, many from people who have to make important, unbiased decisions faced with evidence that may not be obvious and needs interpretation, and see how many down votes anyone who thinks Leave was a good idea get. Coincidence?
I voted Leave because I firmly believe that the "Christian" nations of Europe, plus America of course, aiding, abetting and supplying perpetual wars in the Middle East is morally wrong and unfair. I want to leave the Middle East alone, and have our wars here in Europe.
"I voted Leave because I firmly believe that the "Christian" nations of Europe, plus America of course, aiding, abetting and supplying perpetual wars in the Middle East is morally wrong and unfair. I want to leave the Middle East alone, and have our wars here in Europe."
er, have you seen where the UK exports its arms to?
There is leaving the room by getting up, politely excusing oneself, opening the door and walking out; then there is leaving the room using a chainsaw to cut a hole in the wall, after having first taken a dump in the middle of the floor (and even that demonstrates some level of forethought, whilst Brexit appears to have simply been an opportunistic shambles).
Seriously!?
Since when does any sensible and serious outfit undertake a fundamental change of direction, requiring genuine understanding and support from the 'members' on the basis of 50%+1?
The only people who resort to that are the incompetents, the desperate and the purveyors of snake-oil (it is possible to be all three at once).
GB could have left the EU in a mature, well supported and planned manner. Instead we have 'Brexit', it is not encouraging and certainly does our political system no credit at all.
It depends on how the figures are balanced. The Christian community in the UK isn't a 50:50 mix of Catholic and Protestant, is actually about 5:3 in favour of Anglicans.
Of course, the thing you have to remember, is that there are "lies, damn lies and statistics", and the figures quoted in this article probably come from some sort of opinion poll with a small sample size, uncorrected for selection bias, and a question along the lines of "which of the following did you consider when deciding how to vote" which has been massaged into these figures. The confidence interval is probably bigger than the actual figure.
Added to which, churchgoer is just a marker for class in the UK.
You might as well surveyed car ownership and shown that Subaru and Volvo owners share a Japanese and Swedish love of integrated multinational trade.
Note the survey separated 'regular churchgoer' from Anglican. So the survey said that people who tick 'church of England' on a form but never go are more likely to be for Brexit.
@Phil O'Sophical
"Wouldn't that mean the religious types were more likely to vote Remain?"
Thats an interesting square to circle as attendance of church's seems to be falling as the young are less interested, but the caricature of the leave voter was the oldie.
"... a quarter [25%] of voters' beliefs helped place them in the Remain camp."
Wouldn't that mean the religious types were more likely to vote Remain?
Actually, it appears to mean that people who voted Remain were influenced by 25% of their beliefs.
Frankly, the way this part of the article was written, I'd be very hesitant about drawing any conclusions whatsoever. I hope the actual study is clearer. Not that I can be bothered to read it.
(Oh, sorry, just remembered we were asked to rant in block capitals. THIS ARTICLE WAS MODERATELY INTERESTING AND I DIDN'T FIND IT VERY CONTROVERSIAL.)
It's puzzling and the research or the article may be simply wrong, but a reading that makes more sense is that if God had made Her mind up and made it known, then the matter would be decided.
Which way is still unclear; the God of Jerusalem wants all nations to come together there (which historically hasn't worked out well), the God of Babel wants us to be divided and uncooperative.
I hear you're a Brexiteer now, Father? How did you get interested in that kind of a thing?
I get "This video contains content from Channel 4, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds." I'm in the UK.
Oddly, there are then a bunch of identical uploads for the (I assume) the same clip, in Youtubes suggestions on the right, none of which have been blocked!
Nice consistency!
Add this to the huge and often crazed support of US churchgoers for Donald Trump, and I'm starting to get curious about what it is they're preaching these days.
Barring the odd wedding, I stopped going to church about 30 years ago, but if they've given up on the whole teachings of Jesus thing and moved onto worshipping greedy adulterous liars instead it'd explain this odd phenomenon.
Johnson hasn't quite managed to rack up as many wives as Henry VIII, but he's certainly working on it. I dare say he has had more mistresses, with an unknown number of FitzJohnsons running around out there.
So is this the type of belief system where you ignore all the teachings about helping the needy, camels passing through needle eyes before rich enter heaven, throwing money lenders out of temples, promoting peace, loving thy neighbour etc.
A sort of pick and mix religion, where you just choose a few nastier bits of old testament text and say, yes Conservatives are the ones for me.
Well, I grew up in a very religious part of my home country. Basically, the local, very fundamentalist, big-wigs firmly believed that "If God didn't want me to lie, steal and cheat on my taxes, he would stop me"!
I a grew up to be very suspiscious of open displays, one could call them outbreaks perhaps, of Religion!
People who go to church tend to skew older. As do people who vote, as do people who vote Conservative. As did people who voted for Brexit.
I'm not sure how true that is of catholics and muslims, although I suspect its similar. The young muslims I know tend to attend mosque about as infrequently as the children of churchgoing parents.
We've had a big influx of Polish, Slovak and Czech catholics, who are younger, and you'd have thought would be voting to stay in the EU - as they've still got strong links home.
But it's going to take an awful lot of statistical untangling to get any sense out of it. If it's even possible. I'm personally skeptical, but haven't read the book.
People who go to church tend to skew older. [...] As did people who voted for Brexit.
Not strictly true, the "peak" brexit voting age was in the "baby boomer" generation. Those who were old enough to have actually experienced the horrors of war tended to vote against leaving the institution that was founded on the principle of cooperation to prevent the recurrence of those horrors.
It was the "me first" generation that grew up with full employment, affordable housing and upward mobility that chose to pull up the ladder behind them. They're also the same ones who like to go on about young people not trying hard enough when the only jobs available are zero-hours contracts and the gig economy, and the price of a house has gone up from 4 times the average person's salary to 20 times.
Loyal Commenter,
I had a recollection of seeing polling that showed that leave voting was pretty much corelated with age. And continued to rise with it, but can't find them now. Just did a quick Google. Partly it's a survey data issue. The over 65s are only about 20% of the voting population, so in a normal survey of 1,200-1,500 people, that's only a few hundred people - which means that further dividing it gives ridiculous margins of error. Also polling samples are balanced as a total, not for each subgroup, so you're also introducing massive sampling bias when trying to extrapolate from small sub-samples.
The best I could find was leave-remain split up to 65+ Scroll down to Table 3
This shows the 65+ lot (born in at latest 1951) were 7% more leave-y than the next lowest cohort.
I did find one more granular sample, from a big poll that goes up to 75. It's the only thing I found, and less representative because it's middle class with at least 1 A Level voters:
link to Yougov-Economist table
This still shows the 75+ group - born in at least 1941 and therefore definitely not being Boomers - being more leave-y than every younger cohort. Sorry I can't find better data.
So before you go off on the standard anti-Boomer rant, you might want to have a brief reconsider.
It should also be pointed out that this group voted in favour of remaining in the EEC in 1975. And so rather than being because of their hatred of peace and mother's apple pie, it could be because their experience of EU membership in some way failed to live up to their hopes of it. Or it could be that they would have been happy to stay in the EEC, but were unhappy with the EU.
Oh and finally, because it's such a common talking point - it is not true that all the poor young workers are doomed to a life on zero hours contracts. I've just downloaded the ONS stats on this here - and the highest proportion of the workforce that have been on a ZHC this century is 3.3% (1.05m) in the 1st quarter of last year. Before the coronavirus crisis it's been wandering around 2.5%. Around 55-60% of people on ZHCs say to the Labour Force Survey that they're happy with the hours they've got and don't want more - and have for the last decade. So while they might be a problem, it's not the huge problem that it's made out to be, for political reasons.
Replying to myself. Just found an article by the authors of the book talking about their thesis
I'm not sure how related it all is to Brexit, rather than just gradual changes in the major parties coalitions of voters - as voters react to gradual social changes.
Jews for example have recently switched from being mainly Labour to Conservative voters - but I don't think that's related to Brexit, so much as Jeremy Corbyn.
Jews for example have recently switched from being mainly Labour to Conservative voters - but I don't think that's related to Brexit, so much as Jeremy Corbyn
Or at least, like me, not bloody voting Labour while Corbyn's supporters and those who colluded with him are still in there. I'd supported labour for decades and campaigned for them until Corbyn. But the local Labour leadership in my borough, one with a lot of Jews, stayed in their party and fought to get Corbyn elected. Even when the LibDem's ex-labour candidate had a chance of getting the Tory MP out they worked hard to elect Corbyn.
I can't even look those people in the face any more.
The problem with a lot of the graphs that were seen is that the age groups were quite large, especially dumping everyone at the top -end into "65+". The raw data is out there if you look hard enough, but there are few easy-to-find graphs of that data on google, which tends to be swamped with the most popular results.
The following, for instance, shows the dip of leave voting in the WW2 generation:
https://twitter.com/simonjhix/status/1062031782839758849/photo/1
I'm not sure how much I'd trust fitting a quadratic curve to the data, so it would be better to see the scatter plot as well, but there's only so much time in one day to go looking for these things...
>We've had a big influx of Polish, Slovak and Czech catholics, who are younger, and you'd have thought would be voting to stay in the EU - as they've still got strong links home.
One of the problems with that is the vast majority of the ~3-5 million who came into the UK weren't able to vote either way. Given the way they moved to the UK, and the likely medium-long term effects on them, if they had voted it would have swung the vote the other way.
"So is this the type of belief system where you ignore all the teachings about helping the needy"
Hm, I did not realise that the functionaries of the EU were in need of charity. I am reasonably confident that the NHS* IS worthy, though, of several hundreds of millions of pounds extra each week.
And you believed they would get it, despite (A) the weasel words ("we could" == "we won't" in politician speak) and (B) the fact that the figures on the bus were easily debunked, and had been challenged publicly.
That sounds like wilful self-delusion to me. There may well be a correlation between that and religiosity...
At a glance, 19.8% of the population identifies as Anglican Christian, while just 8.3% identifies as Catholic.
As such, I'd have expected the result to be far more tilted towards Brexit if religion was a major factor.
Semi-anecdotally, my home-town is fairly close to Manchester, and voted for Brexit with both feet (58%), as compared to Manchester's 60% Remain vote.
Here's the thing for my home town, though:
1) Unemployment is slightly higher than the national average
2) Wages are 25% lower than the national average
3) Crime is 125 - 150% higher than the national average
4) Minority demographics are higher than the national average - just 80% of the population is classed as "white", as compared to the national average of 91%; the muslim population in particular is around 12%, or more than double the national average of 5%.
And those kind of statistics make it all too easy to explain why the various claims and promises made by the Brexit camp struck such a strong chord.
Because they're in the worst of all worlds; they've got the same social changes that bigger cities have (Manchester's "white" demographic is even lower, thanks in part to a large Asian population), but this hasn't brought any of the higher wages or opportunities that cities like Manchester offer.
So could religious history be a factor? Perhaps, but for me, it'll have just been the icing atop a cake baked from the above ingredients.
If you're youngish, it might have been Labour who put you in your current situation in 2016. To have stronger feelings about Thatcher, rather than Blair, you'd expect someone to be in their 50s maybe?
Whereas if you're in your 70s you might have stronger feelings about the 70s than Thatcher.
I'm not quite sure when political identities form, but it does seem to take many people a long time to change their minds once made up.
My Nan was still blaming Labour personally (and angrily) for our lack of preparedness for WWII in the 80s. This being because she'd joined the peace movement in the late 20s and marched against re-armament - and presumably as part of admitting what she thought was a huge mistake she was determined to blame those around her. Her house was bombed in September 1940 and Hitler destroyed her brand new saucepans. That Hitler, what a bastard!
She also signed the pledge in the 20s, in her idealistic youth. Never to drink alcohol in her life. I'm still not sure if she thought that was a worse mistake than marching against re-armament and thus sending her brothers off to war inadequately equipped...
My Mum (in her 80s) is still bitter about the 1970s - and that is her go-to reason for being hugely anti-Labour.
But not that many people remember politics in detail. So who you blame for a specific situation may be the one who dealt with it last, or the most memorable one to do so?
> My Mum (in her 80s) is still bitter about the 1970s - and that is her go-to reason for being hugely anti-Labour.
This. Corbyn in particular was a major polarising factor - I know at least one older relative refused to vote Labour because of Corbyn's historic ties with the IRA.
And the tories have been very skillful when it comes to reminding people about the 1970s and things like the winter of discontent. Which meant that it was all too easy to point at Corbyn's proposals for things like nationalising broadband and link them back to all the union strife of the 70s and 80s.
For better or worse, the 70s will remain a millstone around Labour's collective neck until they've faded from living memory - or until the Tories manage to do something worse. The jury's out on whether the combination of Brexit and Coronavirus will do this; personally, I suspect the government will be quite happy to deflect the blame for any and all economic woes onto Coronavirus...
>And the tories have been very skillful when it comes to reminding people about the 1970s and things like the winter of discontent.
The Tories are very good (you could argue it is their main skill) at making the public believe that everything wrong in the world is the fault of Labour. Look at how well Labour are blamed for the credit crunch and how their incompetence led to the country having no money - while Brown was praised worldwide for his actions at the time and since.
They can sell snappy 3 word slogans ("Magic Money Tree", "Get Brexit Done", etc) far better than they can actually govern. The world is complex, national finances aren't like a credit card bill, and events outside the UK can have significant impacts on the UK.
> people in areas of high unemployment and poverty thought they'd "stick it to the man"
I don't think they were trying to "stick it to the man". They just wanted change, and Brexit seemed like the best way to trigger this.
From what I've seen of my relatives, what it boils down to is that they're stuck with low wages and insecure jobs. And meanwhile, there's lots of immigrants visible - shopping in town, catching a bus, casual labour, working minimum-wage jobs, etc.
And it's been this way for years (if not decades), with little or nothing of value coming from the various governments which have risen and fallen, despite their promises. Anyone remember the Northern Powerhouse? Personally, I loved the bit where they decided that the best thing to do with the government's Northern Powerhouse offices was to relocate them back into London...
https://metro.co.uk/2016/01/29/northern-powerhouse-department-to-close-office-in-sheffield-and-move-247-jobs-to-london-5651943/
So. You've got no faith in local or national government. Life for you and everyone you know is a grind.
The various "working class" newspapers such as the Sun and the Mail are constantly banging on about how immigrants are simultaneously taking your jobs while raising huge families which they raise in huge mansions paid for by diddling the social benefits system.
And then Nigel pops up in his bus. And he promises economic growth and £350m a week back to the NHS. All we have to do is leave the EU, so we can cut down on immigration. And it'll be the easiest deal ever in the history of Mankind.
Meanwhile, the Tory leadership assumed that Remain would win, so didn't bother much with any campaigning. After all, the referendum was just a sop to some of their hard-right wingers!
And Labour was both riven with infighting and somewhat on the fence when it came to Brexit, partly because they recognised that it struck a chord with the voters in many of their strongholds.
So given the situation above, which would you vote for? The side that promises jam tomorrow, or the side which will keep things pretty much the same?
I have to agree. Much of the anger channelled into Brexit was anger at a status quo that still left these communities feeling stiffed.
And it's not to hard to see why.
The infrastructure that draws in money is still largely gathered in the South East. London often claims that it generates the wealth. It's more accurate to say that London is where the wealth generators want to be. With their public-school chums (and kids), stockbroker belt homes and country clubs. I remember back in the '80s going past a large massively expensive building, near Hyde Park. It was the HQ of the National Coal Board. About as far from an actual coal mine, or indeed their customers, as it was possible to be.
And decades along hardly anything has changed.
So, taking the very thoughtful comments above together, it really was that a lot people could not realise where the real problem lay - British politics, not the EU. The lack of democracy and fairness that some people (wrongly) claim for the EU actually lies in Westmonster, where MPs and civil servants have continued screwing over the working class. At least Brexit means the mendacious fuckers can't hide behind the EU any longer, and well hopefully see some domestic change before I die.
Intractable Potsherd,
Are you not giving those comments above the status of thoughtful, because they agree with you? I also think there's a lot of truth in them. But I don't think they're the only reason for Brexit. Partly because Brexit needed a coalition of voters. And a cross-party coalition at that - though the thing that may permanently changed our politics is that it looks to have broken old party loyalties in a way that has people who would never vote Tory, now doing so.
Brexit has an economic component - described above. But also a major social component. We could call it cosmopolitans versus localism, or socially liberal vs socially conservative? I'm not sure if either quite catches it. And there's an economic component here too. The fury of many young remainers you saw that they were having their rights stolen from them to go and live and work in say Paris or Berlin must have looked a bit funny to someone from Bolsover - who doesn't even think they've got a hope of moving to Manchester or London. Or maybe even self-indulgent, whiny and selfish - hence some of the anger in the argument? People on both sides feeling they're being "got at" and often also insulted.
The lack of democracy and fairness that some people (wrongly) claim for the EU actually lies in Westmonster, where MPs and civil servants have continued screwing over the working class.At least Brexit means the mendacious fuckers can't hide behind the EU any longer, and well hopefully see some domestic change before I die.
There's also this. But I think not in the way you mean. Because it is true that the EU suffers from a lack of democracy, fairness and accountability. The founders of the EU had lived through the 1930s and the war, had seen democracy subverted, and consciously set up the EU to be a counterweight to "the will of the people". This is not some bizarre conspiracy theory, or childishly saying EUSSR, it's all public. It's not a sinister thing, just that some aspects of the EU are hard to square with ongoing democratic consent - because it moves decisions out of day-to-day politics - and then the only way for people to get at those decisions is revolutionary change, like Brexit. The Euro is the most dangerous example of this in my book. If you're an Italian voter who wants to radically change your economic policy, or even to leave the Euro, there's nobody to vote for - because the two current biggest parteis flirted with a Euro referendum when in opposition - but saw the economic consequences of holding it were too disastrous - even though they think Euro membership is also economically disastrous for Italy. If this isn't solved by fixing the Euro, some country will leave in a disorderly manner, and risk collapsing it, or voters will try more and more extreme parties in order to get the problem solved. Note how so many EU countries have lost traditional parties of government in recent years: the SPD in Germany, socialists in France, Pasok in Greece, both old main parties in Italy are now bit-part players around 10% of the vote.
But, as you say, governments also find it useful to complain about decisions they've signed up to in Brussels. The most dishonest thing. Take the recent vaccine fuck-up - we still have no idea whose fault it was, nor will there be probably ever be a political accounting. It suits the governments to blame the Commission - but one reason they took until November to sign most of their contracts was haggling about the price from the member states in the vaccination committees. None of them admit that now though - they might have to resign. So Von der Leyen makes a lovely scapegoat. But as a voter, what can you do? Who can you blame? And how can you vote the buggers out?
But on the other hand, what if some previous government has signed up to something you don't want - and you now can't change it? Who can you blame but Brussels for decisions you don't like or control then?
Now British governments can no longer hide behind this. And those people who voted Brexit on constitutional grounds are happy with that, it's what they voted for.
Those Northern (red wall) seats becoming marginal is shifting the political gravity of this country North - which is likely to be a good thing for reducing the wealth disparities between North and South - but that's a side-effect of Brexit breaking down traditional party support. That one is actually voters' fault as much as politicians. If you only ever vote for one party, they'll tend to take you for granted, and you incentivise the other party to ignore you too.
Some people of course, voted on immigration. That couldn't easily be changed within the EU. But it nicely suited both parties I suspect - that they wanted high net immigration - and suited many voters, but gave a way to easily ignore the economic losers. A lesson other EU countries ought to learn about the Euro, lest the voters suddenly refuse to cooperate, and blow the whole thing up.
> So. You've got no faith in local or national government. Life for you and everyone you know is a grind.
Well, that was my point. I can see what you mean when you frame it Farage-unicorns versus same old same, but ultimately, they voted to give more power to the very people (UK governments) that they are angry at!
"which would you vote for? The side that promises jam tomorrow, or the side which will keep things pretty much the same?"
Personally I'd have tried to work out what the truth was rather than simply following the racist thinking. unfortunately you're right - to many, brexit was simply about keeping "forriners" out, with no thought given to wondering why no UK government until our current proto-fascist one had ever really tried to limit immigration, or whether a spiv like Farage was actually one of the lads simply because of a few photo ops with a pint and a fag.
I'm still waiting for one single benefit of brexit - given that there seem to be a number of pro brexit people on here perhaps they could enlighten the rest of us.
@Mooseman
"I'm still waiting for one single benefit of brexit - given that there seem to be a number of pro brexit people on here perhaps they could enlighten the rest of us."
I suggest reading through the various EU/brexit threads. So far the remain position isnt looking too impressive.
On a project fear note the claims of the London financial markets coming to doom seems to have fallen apart already-
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/05/06/brussels-bid-cut-city-backfiring-watchdog-warns/
As had been mentioned a few times, if the EU wants to cut themselves off from the global financial markets thats up to them even if it is stupid.
"As had been mentioned a few times, if the EU wants to cut themselves off from the global financial markets thats up to them even if it is stupid."
Sorry, you're linking a Torygraph article as your evidence??
Possibly the most biased "newspaper" currently in existence.
And look, not one single benefit listed by you, just vague whining about stuff that isnt happening. If it's all so rosy, tell us about it. Show us one tangible benefit. IF you can.
@Mooseman
"Sorry, you're linking a Torygraph article as your evidence??"
Sorry if I cant provide a link to some pro-EU propaganda paper to satisfy your source requirement. But the EU cutting themselves off from the global financial centre of Europe seems good to you? As if its a win for them to lock themselves out of the largest European financial centre?
"Possibly the most biased "newspaper" currently in existence."
I dunno, there are plenty leaning bias both left and right in various other publications.
"And look, not one single benefit listed by you"
Guess you dont read many of my comments then. For one the vaccination program and Covid bailout funds are proving brexit to have happened just in time. The EU being slapped around by Russia would be more embarrassing for us if we were still associated with them.
Considering we only left in January that is a very quick payoff considering it was supposed to take years to see the benefits.
"he vaccination program and Covid bailout funds are proving brexit to have happened just in time"
The vaccination program has precisely sod all to do with brexit, as you are well aware. Covid bailout funds likewise (the Eu has a huge fund allocated anyway)
Your posts, as always, provide no concrete reasons for brexit being a good thing, relying instead on debatable "facts" (gleaned from the Express and Mail by the look of them) and tortuous self-promoting logic on a par with Johnson's self-congratulatory nonsense about the vaccine rollout.
I'm still waiting for one tangible benefit of brexit. Should I hold my breath?
@Mooseman
"The vaccination program has precisely sod all to do with brexit"
You may need to explain that one. Brexit and rejecting remainers insisting we join the EU procurement is why the UK is vaccinated and the EU in total is behind. The whole EU short on vaccine. All of em.
"Covid bailout funds likewise (the Eu has a huge fund allocated anyway)"
Eh? The Covid bailout is being stalled because Finland was about to vote on a one off emergency power only to hear the EU wants to reuse such powers (I repost this link).
https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/eu-officials-risk-approval-of-recovery-fund-by-finland/
"Your posts, as always, provide no concrete reasons for brexit being a good thing, relying instead on debatable "facts" (gleaned from the Express and Mail by the look of them)"
Really? I post a link from euractiv and you claim Express and Mail? How often do I source Express or Mail? Seriously go look through my post history and I do like to post source links.
Also you claim no concrete reasons while in this very post denying 2 very public and explicit benefits of leaving. If the facts are debatable then cmon and debate them. Denial is a river in Egypt.
"I'm still waiting for one tangible benefit of brexit. Should I hold my breath?"
If you refuse to accept the very public and demonstrated benefits then you will probably pass out long before comprehending a fact.
The defence of the EU does seem to be slowing to an emergency stop nowadays. But on the plus side the good news continues!
While the EU seems to be stalling creativity with its bureaucracy and over-regulation the UK remains the regions technology hub-
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2021/05/25/half-start-ups-complain-eu-bureaucracy/
@Mooseman
"And look, not one single benefit listed by you, just vague whining about stuff that isnt happening. If it's all so rosy, tell us about it. Show us one tangible benefit. IF you can."
I do notice the burden of proof (and then crying about sources or denial of reality) demanded from remainers, but looking the other way can you honestly say the EU is acting in a way that we should consider desirable? Look at the crying over a chair by the piddly president of the EU or incompetence on display in foreign relations or inability to cope with the world. The EU isnt a trade block but a project aiming for federalisation, yet the bedwetters pull away at the first sign of trouble.
A reasonable case for remain has yet to be made. It seems to consist of fear of the unknown.
@AC
Yeah sure. Or its the EU being as bad as leave explained-
https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/eu-officials-risk-approval-of-recovery-fund-by-finland/
Oh damn, the covid bailout emergency measure could become a staple EU scum mechanism. So much for sovereignty if the EU puts debt in your name for its own desires.
I'm saddened by these findings. FWIW I'm anti-Brexit and anti-Conservative.
As someone with a strong faith in Jesus, I find I am more and more reluctant to align myself with formal religious movements.
Get angry at injustice.
Look after the weakest members of society.
Seek peace, not division.
It is worth remembering that a lot of the food banks in the UK have been set up by people of faith (not just Christian), in response to the current government's failures.
"It is worth remembering that a lot of the food banks in the UK have been set up by people of faith (not just Christian), in response to the current government's failures."
So what you're saying is that there were no foodbanks before Boris, and no need for them? You didn't realise that most every western nation has seen a surge in foodbank patronage since the COVID-induced lock-downs?
>So what you're saying is that there were no foodbanks before Boris, and no need for them? You didn't realise that most every western nation has seen a surge in foodbank patronage since the COVID-induced lock-downs?
In 2007, the UK had ~25 foodbanks. In 2019, there were ~2000. Austerity led directly to the vast increase in demand. Usage doubled from 2013/14 to 2019/20 (pre March 31st) - and will have increased again last year (with another 100+ opening). It was already a crisis in many areas *before* Covid.
Remainers continue to try to find some explanation of Brexit that doesn't involve people just wanting to leave - they must be religious, they must be racists, they must be gullible, they must be extreme right-wing, they must be extreme left-wing, they must be rich, they must be working-class, they must be old.
There was a vote; most people voted to leave. Just deal with it FFS.
@WilliamBurke
"We are dealing with it! We are moving on from Project Fear, via Project Told You So, to Project Rub It In. Enjoying a bit of gloating is the least we deserve!"
Oddly enough I was enjoying a bit of gloating on another topic (I voted leave of course) which seemed to bother a remainer. I am amused that on opposite sides of the vote we can both be going through the same stages.
"There was a vote; most people voted to leave" - I think you want the word you were looking for was "more" not "most". Fewer than 50% of eligible voters expressed a desire to leave, but the leave vote won because a million fewer expressed a desire to remain. Happy to be down-voted for clarifying...
"Fewer than 50% of eligible voters expressed a desire to leave" and even fewer expressed a desire to Remain.
So there you have it: leave won. Welcome to how voting works. Tune in next week when we point out how electorates work and how MPs are chosen. This will be followed by a lecture from a special guest on how the USA's electoral college works.
Poor logic from that point of view. We were within the EU. Voting to leave is a vote to make a change Not voting is not stating a wish to change the status quo.So a minority vote to change was allowed to stand as a decision. It's why referendum votes on serious matters normally have a threshold:This is nothing new or previously unknown.
And yes. I would equally view a tiny majority in a future vote to rejoin with a significant percentage not voting as being highly dodgy. Especially it it were achieved by outrageous voter manipulation, dark propaganda campaigns and out and out lies.
Voters who actually wanted to leave were motivated to go out and vote Leave. Voter manipulation doesn't need to persuade voters into your camp- it merely needs to make them unsure so that they don't turn out to vote for the other one. Voters who didn't want to leave did not have the same degree of motivation, why would they, we were already in. All that was needed was to make the voters who wanted to retain the status quo but weren't too fussed feel unsure enough to stop them turning out.
In effect a minority of more highly motivated Leave voters was allowed to trump the larger combined group of {wanting to remain} and {willing to remain} voters because the willing group were made unsure by lying claims about Turkish Immigrants or money that we could give to the NHS ( or something about fish that no one understood but it sounded bad).
@NXM
"A third of the population couldn't be arsed to vote at all, so can't complain about what happens to them."
Actually, they can.
When voting is a complete an utter waste of time in the UK due to the lack of real democracy, (i.e. representation based on votes), and when every other time they have voted has led to absolutely no improvement in their lives. For decades.
Clearly, you aren't in that position.
If it were a parliamentary election I'd agree with you. But the brexit vote was one single issue presented to the entire population and not a 'safe seat' where the same party gets in every time.
There were effectively three choices: leave, remain, and don't care (represented by not voting). A third of people chose don't care.
When voting in every other election results in no change, doing the same thing again and expecting a different outcome is a sign of insanity (paraphrasing Einstein).
Many people that did vote didn't understand what they were voting for. Many others wouldn't have understood the nuanced difference between election types you alluded to.
Given that it was a question that the vast majority of people had neither sufficient interest nor background knowledge to give an objective answer to, a perfectly principled position of abstention would have been "don't we pay you, our elected representatives, to deliberate on this kind of thing on our behalf"?
-A.
Ask ten people what the EU actually does and nine of them will be wrong. That still applies today. So the question is not did they have a reason, it's did they have a reasoned reason.
The distinction matters; leaving the EU because of all the asylum seekers (the tub-thumping explanation I got first hand from a friend's dad; I decided against pointing out that Europeans arrive by plane at Gatwick, not by rubber dinghy at Dover) makes as much sense as leaving because you prefer feet and inches, "sovereignty", or something to do with straight bananas.
@Androgynous Cupboard
"Ask ten people what the EU actually does and nine of them will be wrong. That still applies today. So the question is not did they have a reason, it's did they have a reasoned reason."
That pretty much sums up the UK relationship with the EU. Remain or leave the above seems to apply.
I'm not going to disagree with you on that, and on this topic that's not going to happen very often. But the corollary is the few people that did understand it (diplomats and civil service) were largely pro-EU. So, as usual, we come to the "stupid people voting beyond their abilities" issue we've seen so much of recently.
@Androgynous Cupboard
"But the corollary is the few people that did understand it (diplomats and civil service) were largely pro-EU."
The people with their snouts in the trough. And one of the most knowledgeable MEP's representing this country was leader of UKIP. To which of those desiring to be in couldnt explain why, only threaten the population. Vs those desiring leave having reason which was never refuted to reasonable satisfaction.
@Androgynous Cupboard
"Please. Skipping over the risible suggestion that Farage was knowledgable"
He wasnt?
"who do you think paid his salary?"
A salary to represent our desire to leave and end his job. The guy who succeeded in getting the UK the first vote on our membership of the EU.
"He too had his "snout in the trough" yet voted to leave. You're refuting your own point."
How?
Galileo. Agriculture funding. Investment. Travel anywhere in Europe, say... Cornwall, and you'll see regeneration schemes funded by EU grants. See page 24. This stuff is quite easy to look up.
Capital expenditure - say €130B - is on a par with the UKs capital expenditure. Admin costs are €8B, less than the £11B the UK budgets for admin.
"There was a vote; most people voted to leave. Just deal with it FFS."
There wasnt a vote, there was a non binding referendum that certain stupid politicians said they would honour the result of. Deal with it? OK lets "deal" with pointless red tape, a lack of nurses and doctors, a growing unpleasant nationalism, customs chaos, businesses giving up or moving to the EU, your "heroes" like Farage buying EU citizenship for himself and his family, the drain of our financial businesses to Europe.....Frankly, I'm sick of people like you. You made the mess, you fix it.
Where I currently reside (in Germany), every second village is catholic. Apparently there used to be a certain pairing of villages, when it came to go looking for a life-partner that was not a cousin. I have never noticed any particular animosity between villages of different systems of belief.
Generally, the southern Germany is catholic, while the north is Lutheran.
"Wasn't JC more of a joiner than a leaver?"
He didn't insist on membership and subscriptions? The Holy Roman Church wasn't an idea before his death?
But the HRC did seem to be a good way to extend power over the populace that rivaled that of the populace's own local form of government.
I:
how to stay relevant: join two completely unrelated subjects, cobble together, done. Can't wait for Brian Cox take on how his sub-particle theory of self-revelation influenced people to vote leave...
Lister: D'ya think Wilma's sexy?
Cat: Wilma Flintstone?
Lister: Maybe we've been alone in deep space too long, but every time I see that body, it drives me crazy. Is it me?
Cat: Well, I think in all probability, Wilma Flintstone is the most desirable woman that ever lived.
Lister: That's good. I thought I was going strange.
Cat: She's incredible!
Lister: What d'ya think of Betty?
Cat: Betty Rubble? Well, I would go with Betty... but I'd be thinking of Wilma.
"Researchers have found that people who would go with Betty were more likely to vote Leave than those who would hold out for Wilma"
Hey stop throwing rocks!
Actually I'm a supporter of a unified europe, but the way the EU is setup is not the way to do it.
Because unless the people of europe can actually get rid of the people in charge then theres no point in having an EU, we may as well go back to what the boomers signed upto in 1975.... a cooperative trading organisation.
Lets take ... the EU commission for example.. doing a fine job of organising the EU's response to corona virus.. so good in fact that member countries are off buying their own vaccine supplies instead of relying on the EU.
So the people of europe decide "lets get rid of the EU commission for being next to f'ing useless"
Except we cant
They are not elected
They are appointed by horse trading among the member governments for the candidate least likely to upset the rest
And then a 'vote' by the Eu parliment (the field of candidates at this point last time was............... 1 )
So how do you get on the list to be appointed... best mates with a prime minister/president seems to be the way and if the likes of you or me wanted the job...... ha dream on.
And that is why I voted leave (and much as I didnt like Tony Benn... this was pretty much his viewpoint too, "who are you? how did you get the power? how can we get rid of you?")
Ah so much anger still - you won!
FWIW, I don't have any say in who gets appointed to the cabinet in the UK, nor who will be a special advisor to the PM, etc. so to be honest it's not that much different. The voting system for the EU parliament was much fairer than what we use the UK which you can tell because UKIP / The Brexit Party managed to win lots of seats in the EU elections but almost nothing in the UK elections.
I voted remain and would much rather the EU did a better job - but the cool thing is, EU member states can do their own thing as long as they bother to think for themselves. However, our chance (however small) to fix the EU has passed, so we'll just have to wait and see what happens next.
"Because unless the people of europe can actually get rid of the people in charge then theres no point in having an EU"
What's the point for House of Lords if you can't get rid of them? (or the monarch)
Is there any point in the whole UN just because UK and a few other countries cling to a permanent seat in the Security Council?
How do you get rid of a member of parliament or the Home Secretary or ministers or your nationally appointed EU commissioner or the MEP?
The democratic option is to vote for another person/party when the current term is coming to an end. Simple as that.
"doing a fine job of organising the EU's response to corona virus.. so good in fact that member countries are off buying their own vaccine supplies instead of relying on the EU."
The obvious problem is that there isn't enough supply at the moment. Research for covid vaccines started only a year ago and while the vaccines from several pharma companies came out in record time, the supply hasn't scale up, and it is not the fault of EU. I'm sure the fight against covid and vaccine procurement could have been done way better than has been done - this applies to all governments world-wide. Boris and Donald downplayed the 'flu' until both were hospitalised.
Yes, there are some EU countries allying closely with Russia and buying (or trying to buy) Sputnik. Russia will gladly supply its vaccines if it can cause rife between EU countries.
"The democratic option is to vote for another person/party when the current term is coming to an end. Simple as that."
As the EU project had no term-expirey, this wasn't really an option. So hence the referendum. And, lo and behold: the voters voted for another option/system when given the chance...
"The obvious problem is that there isn't enough supply at the moment." Obvious to you. Obvious to everyone else is how there seems to be plenty, even for Australia and New Zealand, who are COVID approx. nil.
Regarding the vaccine - yes, for whatever reason the EU seem to be a bit behind the curve in its response to a situation it wasn't prepared for*. However, I have no doubt that it will review what went wrong and correct it. However, it did get a functioning track and trace system going.
When it comes to the UK, I have no belief whatsoever that anything will be learned. The fucking Tories** will still be spaffing £billions of public funds at their friends for no obvious benefit to the population, and idiots will keep voting for them, even when it is against their best interests.
*It should have been, but that's a different story.
**I don't think any other party is immune from this, but the scale and openness is magnitudes higher with the Party for the Few.
@Intractable Potsherd
"However, I have no doubt that it will review what went wrong and correct it."
Time for doubt. They are still making the same mistakes. Failing to negotiate for vaccine, upsetting the countries they are relying on, continuing to act like children.
"However, it did get a functioning track and trace system going."
Did they? I know individual members did-
https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/coronavirus-response/travel-during-coronavirus-pandemic/mobile-contact-tracing-apps-eu-member-states_en
"When it comes to the UK, I have no belief whatsoever that anything will be learned"
PHE failed and is to be wrapped up. But no the UK will likely still try to make its own national apps which suck etc. But the UK did know how to get vaccine in. I do hope the UK learns from the lockdown how to not do it in future, but I doubt it.
Most of the EU countries and the UK will finish their vaccination programs (<80% of adults, both doses) within probably abut 4-6 weeks of each other in July-September this year (current estimates). Vaccination is a marathon, not a sprint and the fat lady isn't even at the arena yet.
Obvious to everyone else is how there seems to be plenty, even for Australia and New Zealand, who are COVID approx. nil.
The reason that Aus and NZ have very low COVID infection rates has absolutely fuck all to do with vaccination rates.
They locked down fast, and hard, and stopped the initial infection in its tracks. They closed their borders to all but essential travel, imposed proper quarantines and didn't downplay the seriousness of the situation. Lo-and-behold, by doing the exact opposite of right-wing libertarian governments, such as those in the US, UK, Brazil and India, they got the exact opposite result.
The fact that you are now trying to spin this into some point about the EU being bad because "vaccines" shows that you either have absolutely no grasp of the topic whatsoever, or, worse, are deliberately trying to mislead to bolster your own political agenda.
@Sandtitz
"The obvious problem is that there isn't enough supply at the moment."
The EU turned down offers to order more vaccine. The EU has just lost its negotiation with a French company (producing in Scotland thankfully) after 6 months of wasting their time. Now the company will deal direct with countries only-
https://www.politico.eu/article/valneva-walks-away-from-vaccine-negotiations-with-commission/
"the supply hasn't scale up, and it is not the fault of EU"
3 months late and refusing to sign contracts resulted in the EU being behind in setting up.
"I'm sure the fight against covid and vaccine procurement could have been done way better than has been done"
No kidding from the EU. This is the fastest mass development of a vaccine in history and while some countries asked phama what they needed the EU haggled on price. After their behaviour AZ has said they probably wont produce vaccine at cost in future as it isnt worth the grief. Pfizer's contract is at an end with the German company and isnt going to renew it (they can produce it themselves, and probably an advantage outside the EU). EU determination to block exports which breaks contracts. Raiding manufacturing plants. Being openly hostile and lying to try and deflect blame for failure. Yeah it could have been better.
"Yes, there are some EU countries allying closely with Russia and buying (or trying to buy) Sputnik. Russia will gladly supply its vaccines if it can cause rife between EU countries."
Germany and its gas supply. EU bribing Turkey to hold back asylum seekers. The EU even managed to upset the Russians while begging for vaccine-
https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/eu-has-absolutely-no-need-of-sputnik-v-vaccine-commissioner-says/
Because unless the people of europe can actually get rid of the people in charge then theres no point in having an EU, we may as well go back to what the boomers signed upto in 1975.... a cooperative trading organisation.
That's a bit of a strange argument, given that there's no system of representative democracy that I can think of where the public at large can arbitrarily get rid of their leaders, except by voting them out.
Think for a moment about the situation in this country, where we currently have an evolving scandal surrounding blatant cronyism and corruption, and the only person who can authorise a proper investigation into that corruption is the person in charge, who is refusing to do so. While we have a system where it is a combination of FPTP and politicians marking their own homework, I'd say that we as a country are far less democratic than the EU as a whole, where the parliament is elected by a system of proportional representation and operates on cooperation amongst a coalition of parties, rather than an elective dictatorship of winner-takes-all.
The Conservatives polled around 40% in the last general election, and as a result have absolute power to overrule the wishes of the other 60% of the voting population. If Labour had won the election, it would be no better. Unless we have a system where all groups are represented to some degree (including the odd seat for the right-right and far-left whackos) then we have a system where large swathes of people are disenfranchised.
The root of this problem is that British politics is in its nature adversarial, whereas to have proper government in the interests of all requires cooperation.
Do you realise that you put both of the words "democracy" and "revolution" in the same sentence, apparently unaware of the irony inherent in doing so?
Revolutions may well be a way of getting rid of very corrupt, or dictatorial governments. Madame Guillotine springs to mind. One feature is that they are very rarely non-violent, and never democratic, and usually end up by replacing one regime with another that is equally abhorrent. They seldom end well for their instigators either, just ask Robespierre. If you can find his head.
The EU commissioners are appointed by the governments of the member states. Do you get to vote for who is in the cabinet? Did you vote for the (unelected by anyone) member of the peerage that Johnson appointed to government positions?
The EU president? Yes there was one candidate. Had she not been elected by a sufficient majority then another candidate would have been chosen.
Covid vaccine? Every member state has the right to source its own vaccine supplies. What has that to do with the EU commission?
You're another one with no idea how the EU works, relying instead on untruths by the leave campaign instead of bothering to look it up for yourself.
It's weird, every time there's a big political or economic event, I notice there's usually some obscure, but prominent commentary from the UK that tries to turn it into a debate about protestants and catholics or different types of protestants and different types of catholics.
There are times you'd wonder if a there's a cohort in fixated on the 1500s-1700s who just see everything through some kind of weird sectarian lens.
I remember reading some article on the BBC website at the height of the global financial crisis, which was trying to claim that the European divide on which countries were in debt had something to do with which were mostly catholic and protestant, and obviously there was absolutely no financial crisis in the UK ever and no banks were ever nationalised or bailed out. That was something that only happened in the Eurozone.
Aside from that, many of the most fiscally conservative parts of Europe e.g. Bavaria, Austria etc are historically very Catholic.
I just think though sometimes some of these commentators really need to stop dwelling the distant past. Whatever about Brexit, this regression to some dim and distant past does nobody any good.
The major positive about the EU is that it took a pragmatic view of where Europe was after WWII and looked forward, trying to build a modern Europe based on fundamental rights, interconnectedness, technology and all of those things. It drew a line under the past, centuries of vicious conflict and looked towards a shared future.
All I see coming from a loud wing of UK populist commentary these days is people lost in some kind of bizarre nostalgia that seems to include everything from non-decimal currency, customary illogical units of measure, flags, symbolism, revised history of empire, imagined histories of some kind of good old days that never existed for most people and so on.
At times it feels like Blackadder II is becoming current affairs!
Also, isn't this supposed to be an IT website?! I come here to escape such topics!
I wasn't born in the 1700s. I was at school through the 1960/70s. In Manchester. And within a week of starting high school I had this encounter. A bunch of lads cornered me and one asked;
"Are you a Catholic or a Protestant?"
"I'm Jewish"
"But are you Protestant Jewish or Catholic Jewish"....*
If anyone had told me this had happened to "someone (they) knew" I'd have put it down to being an urban myth. Only it happened to me, and I was sh** scared.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Decades later I think back and sort of reckon my local comprehensive school wasn't as comprehensive as it might have been where religion was concerned. There were the times when they wanted to start a fight with the nearby RC school for starters.
I often wonder how nonsense like this even gets funded.... just what is the point of it ? In a UK the most divided in my lifetime, the authors seek to introduce the highly invidious dimension of religion to Brexit ? We don't need this given what we have just been through and are still dealing with (Brexit, pandemic).
We had enough nut jobs during the Brexit debate without encouraging the just as crazy religious fanatics. I am working on the assumption that this work is so obscure that it will go largely unnoticed, acting only as some raison d'etre for 2 out there academics to justify their salaries. All that education, what a waste.
Sadly, I have a relative that is born again. He fervently believes that the EU is the work of the devil - designed to get us all marked with 666 on our foreheads. He also says that everyone that doesnt believe in his bible centric protestant sect will all burn in hell forever. His heores are Donald Trump and to some extent Boris. His desired event is the Rapture and the Apocalypse - ASAP.
For this alone I will always vote to rejoin the EU.
"Faith also contributed to the rising Euroscepticism that pressed David Cameron to hold a Referendum in the first place," added Dr Kolpinskaya, "and the stunning victory for Boris Johnson's Conservative Party in the 2019 General Election."
Poll results show that before Cameron announced the Referendum, the British public had no strong feelings about the EU one way or the other. In 2019 the Tories only increased their vote by 1.2 percentage points - the massive majority that won them was simply a result of the ludicrous First Past The Post system the UK uses.
Dear Reg,
it would make life a lot more interesting for us poor readers if we could vote on the story itself, rather than the opinions of other commentards (which can be, to be frank, a bit dull and irrelevant).
So, how about it? Please make sure to include a wide range of alternatives including, for example, "Study authors are deluded morons who are seeking to legitimise their own simplistic prejudices by writing a load of bollocks".
It's important to separate the actual religious belief (faith) from the cultural belief that the religion carries. The cultural aspects will prevail even when the actual faith has long since faded.The Protestant Work Ethic can persist even in a confirmed atheist. Many lapsed or just descended from parent who were Catholics with no religious feeling remaining will still experience Catholic Guilt and so on.
I wonder what the Methodist Christians voted? I am one and I find this very interesting, the Methodist history of having bible study groups and engaging brain so you have your own view may have boosted them looking at the facts not the daily fail headlines. My Mrs has a friend who is part of a new 'born again' lot, who think any bible apart from the King James version is heresy and only the leader of the church is right on anything, unsurprisingly he voted leave and avoids talking religion when I am around.
In answer to some of the questions that others have invoked on here:-
-no I don't discount other religions and brands of Christianity, but I have looked at them and found the Methodist church works for me
-yes I do believe in science, history and that the world is round
I'm reasonably certain it played a role, but not the one implied in the report.
A lot of our Asian communities have a vested interest in avoiding competition for lower paid jobs. There is no doubt a big chunk of the West Mids and it's extensive Asian contingent voted for Brexit.
And at the other end of the scale there are widely publicised quotes from Sunderland residents celebrating the Gupta's going back to India after brexit.
It was, and will always be complete bollocks in the name of furthering some rich gits agenda. The farce that has happened to import/export of stuff just goes to show the surface of the problems to come. At least us remainers get to say we told so.
Never mind, WW3 is brewing in the Ukraine. Better get making those ration packs and rifle cartridges.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
