Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 r_squared wrote:
To me it seems reasonably clear, the career path of MPs is overwhelmingly via university.
We have a hoard of career politicians, or those with a professional background, very few have been manual workers or held apprenticeships.
The working class are poorly represented because despite the best efforts of everybody involved in the education sector, university education is still dominated by the middle class.

Traditional entry points for the working class in the past were via union membership. That was the core of the Labour support, and why they don't fit the ideology of their own party, or could ever hope to represent the working class anymore.

This is unlikely to change without members of the working class motivating themselves, and their supporters, and running for election.
Obviously some do, but a brief search reveals that they are a minority.
If labour want to be representative of the working class they need to stop trawling the student union bars for plastic socialists, and actually get involved in their constituencies and encouraging people from workforces to get into politics. They could nail the lid of UKIPs coffin shut in short order and actually start to represent the people.

I also strongly dispute the idea that Cameron is anything other than a true blue Tory. Just because New Labour were effectively red tories, doesn't mean that he was a socialist!

Nonsense!

Cameron was a Blairite to his core,about as much a Conservative as Karl Marx.

A PR man masquerading as a Prime Minister, the man at the wheel who abandoned ship during the biggest constitutional crisis since WW2.

A man who did nothing to preserve the traditional family unit, ( a core conservative value) supported state intervention at every turn (the opposite of Conservatism) and with his henchman George Osborne, ran this nation's economy into the ground.

Cameron was many things: a disgrace, a sham, a man humiliated in every European capital he visited, outmanouvered by Juncker and the EU at every turn. Cameron was all these, but a Conservative?

Never in a million years.

What exactly is your definition of conservative, DINLT?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
What exactly is your definition of conservative, DINLT?

It's important to note that I'm not a Conservative myself, so just because I list these traits, doesn't mean to say I agree with them.

A Conservative believes in:

Small government, reduced state intervention.

Supports traditional family unit and the institution of marriage.

Respect for the rule of law and prioritizes law and order on Britain's streets, including effective use of prisons as a deterrent for preventing future crimes i.e maximum sentences available.

Respects civil liberties, free press, freedom of speech.

Believes in free market

Respect for property and land ownership.

Respect for cultural institutions such as the Church of England, the Royal Family...

Strongly sense of patriotism and sincere belief in the nation state as a sovereign entity

Has knowledge of Edmund Burke

Maybe not the last one. Normally, I would expand on these and show examples of how the Tories have abandoned many of these ideas, but it's New Year's Eve, so I'm not going to

Plus, there is no one 'true' definition of Conservatism, but I believe these to be broadly in line of what Conservatism is generally accepted to be.

IMO Cameron failed all of these miserably.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Cameron was a Blairite to his core,about as much a Conservative as Karl Marx.

One would suggest the issue here is less what Cameron was then but more whether Blair was actually Labour party.


-- note this won't matter as -- see above -- people persist in thinking the political paradigms of the proceeding XX years still apply.

By and large they don't.

The "left" won* the culture wars, but the "right" won** the economic argument.

The inability of people -- not the poster referred to above necessarily one hastens to add -- to comprehend this or indeed any seismic shift in the political thinking of the last...oohhh..... 50 years or so is reflected in the media we have today.



* & **
definition will depend entirely where one stands upon certain ideas or values.

Note also that, especially given hardened opposition, a victory may well wind up being very pyrrhic .

 Orlanth wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

It's the start of a very slippery slope. Sign up for government approval, or be forced to pay all legal costs in a libel trial, even if you win...

OMG how awful. Start a panic!! Take to the streets!!! Defend the paparazzi press profits!!!!

Hold on a second, were this true you would be right to stand up, but....please READ THE LAW you are getting worried about. Take a good long look at the wording. you will find this is not the case.

Sorry but you are being misled by the press for reason of selfish agenda.

OK lets look at the legislation shall we...(I've hidden it as a spoiler because well legislation can be a 'bit' dry



OK lets start with the "approved regulator" definition which although I'm not going to reprint all the legislation here is a regulator that has given that capacity by Royal Charter (similar to the BBC so could be given a term of 5-10 years or so). It is also within the governments power to issue and renew this Royal Charter (just as with the BBC). So the first concern is that a government favoured organisation could be given this approval over more independent ones. This is correct and hence you potentially have an authorised regulator with a biased view of the how the media should operate and could hence be consciously or sub-consciously manipulated (so it maintains that charter) to ensure that media outlets which favour government are easier to approve. This is all a possibility with a Royal Charter and something of a concern even with the BBC.

Secondly, it is up to this authorised regulator to determine whether individual group can be an approved member and what the conditions are. This does leave the risk that if the approved regulator has other interests, say to favour the incumbent government coming up to renewal or simply that the regulator 'owner' also has another media arm under their umbrella then refusing media outlets may be financially motivated. They could hence introduce restrictions on legal investigation methods (for example I previously mentioned having to name sources as a requirement). This could impact some medias ability to investigate issues (I'm thinking Private Eye here etc).

Thirdly, as stated in (2), if you are an approved member then the courts *must not* award costs unless the arbitration scheme of the approved regulator could not have reasonably settled the dispute (for example if there was a conflict of interest and the approved regulator/arbitrator were the ones being challenged) or if the court felt that the it was fair and just to do so (for example if the arbitrator made what the court determined was an unreasonably low settlement). As such approved members are protected to some extent from court costs as long as the arbitrator does their job properly. If the individual feel that they have not been fairly listened to they could still take it to court but at a high risk that they would have to pay the costs as it would be the claimants responsibility to prove that the arbitrations scheme failed.

Fourthly, as stated in (3), if you are not an approved member then the courts *must* award costs against them unless the arbitration scheme of the approved regulator could not have reasonably settled the dispute (again for example if there was a conflict of interest and the approved regulator/arbitrator were in this case the claimant against a non approved media outlet) or if the court felt that the it was fair and just to make the claim zero or less than being claimed (for example if the claimant was stating their legal costs were £1m per day or something silly). However the principle is correct that regardless of the results of the claim the court must award costs against the non-approved media outlet. That does leave them open to spurious claims and threats of action as even a losing claim could result in costs against the non-approved media outlet. It is effectively then for the non-approved media outlet to have to prove that costs shouldn't be awarded against them.

Hence to summarise some concerns here:-

Yes you could have a government cherry picking an approved regulator that they favour (and that could also mean backroom deals we as the public are unaware of, and with the sceptical hat on almost certainly likely)
Yes you could hence have an approved regulator that introduces member approval on the grounds that it favours them or the government of the day
Yes that protects some media that complies with a higher risk that government/approved regulator friendly ones are given easier access
Yes it does mean that those that can't (or won't) comply will have to take the risk of litigation on one or any of their articles and any or all of them they could have to pay costs on whether the litigation is successful or not (and it will be up to the courts to decide whether the costs are justifiable).

So in the end, yes the legislation can result in a form of state controlled media. It is not the Russian style, but through the fear of being litigated into bankruptcy (so it's just another type of fear) and we run the real risk that their will no longer be freedom of the press.

Finally in regard that those complaining are worried about profits, I don't think this is correct at all. Those media outlets approved will be less exposed to risk and if others fold because they don't comply and are litigated into oblivion then that leaves us with fewer, more concentrated media outlets. That will only make them more powerful and profitable. So a few could make massive profits, whilst others could dwindle away. All the time reducing peoples choice and exposing them only to government approved media - a scary thought.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
...I also strongly dispute the idea that Cameron is anything other than a true blue Tory. Just because New Labour were effectively red tories, doesn't mean that he was a socialist!

Nonsense!

Cameron was a Blairite to his core,about as much a Conservative as Karl Marx.

A PR man masquerading as a Prime Minister, the man at the wheel who abandoned ship during the biggest constitutional crisis since WW2.

A man who did nothing to preserve the traditional family unit, ( a core conservative value) supported state intervention at every turn (the opposite of Conservatism) and with his henchman George Osborne, ran this nation's economy into the ground.

Cameron was many things: a disgrace, a sham, a man humiliated in every European capital he visited, outmanouvered by Juncker and the EU at every turn. Cameron was all these, but a Conservative?

Never in a million years.

He seems very much like a centrist conservative to me...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_David_Cameron

He might have been a Blairite, but that just means he's a centrist tory, not Nigel Farage. New Labour became successful because they adopted a new tory centrist outlook, that doesn't make Cameron a Socialist.
He was the Leader of the Conservative party, elected by his own membership, and I'm pretty sure a few of them are Tories and I'm fairly confident that they wouldn't have voted a Marxist to lead them.
But you know, Happy New UK political Year.

Let's hope things improve on the whole scene, could be worse, Trump could be running the show over here.

 r_squared wrote:

He seems very much like a centrist conservative to me...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_David_Cameron

He might have been a Blairite, but that just means he's a centrist tory, not Nigel Farage. New Labour became successful because they adopted a new tory centrist outlook, that doesn't make Cameron a Socialist.
He was the Leader of the Conservative party, elected by his own membership, and I'm pretty sure a few of them are Tories and I'm fairly confident that they wouldn't have voted a Marxist to lead them.
But you know, Happy New UK political Year.

Let's hope things improve on the whole scene, could be worse, Trump could be running the show over here.

I think he started closer to New Labour than he finished. He probably recognised what Blair did with Labour and managed position themselves so they could be palatable to the slightly right leaning Tory voters that were getting more hacked off with Tory shenanigans. Carmeron did the same with slightly left leaning Labour supporters. However after he got into power he became increasingly right wing focussed - whether that was because that is his view (and the centrist position was an act) or whether he felt he was forced into a further right wing position by political views of the Tory party is open to question. Either way he was out manoeuvred by the ultra-right Tories leading to where we are now.

As for Trump. I expect we'll roll over to him and May will hand him the keys when he meets the Queen in the middle of 2017.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
supported state intervention at every turn (the opposite of Conservatism)

There's much in your list of things to describe conservatism that I think most people would readily agree with. But not this. Conservatism LOVES to use the state to intervene. They can't get enough of it. The difference between liberal and conservative ideologies on this comes down to how the state intervenes. The liberal uses the state to redistribute and accommodate societal change. Conservatism uses the state to limit or prevent radical societal change.
I'd wager there hasn't been a cultural shift anywhere on the planet throughout history where the conservative mindset hasn't sought to use the power of the state to prevent it from happening. Them conservatives love to stick their fingers in other people's business and tell them they're doing it wrong.
Conservatism isn't libertarianism.

Cammeron failed the conservatism test in this regard not just because he supported frequent state intervention, but because he saw the way the wind was blowing (reds8n makes the point of the "left" winning the culture wars) and used the state to intervene in non-conservative ways.

 Henry wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
supported state intervention at every turn (the opposite of Conservatism)

There's much in your list of things to describe conservatism that I think most people would readily agree with. But not this. Conservatism LOVES to use the state to intervene. They can't get enough of it. The difference between liberal and conservative ideologies on this comes down to how the state intervenes. The liberal uses the state to redistribute and accommodate societal change. Conservatism uses the state to limit or prevent radical societal change.
I'd wager there hasn't been a cultural shift anywhere on the planet throughout history where the conservative mindset hasn't sought to use the power of the state to prevent it from happening. Them conservatives love to stick their fingers in other people's business and tell them they're doing it wrong.
Conservatism isn't libertarianism.

Cammeron failed the conservatism test in this regard not just because he supported frequent state intervention, but because he saw the way the wind was blowing (reds8n makes the point of the "left" winning the culture wars) and used the state to intervene in non-conservative ways.

His plan to lessen state interference i.e The Big Society, was a shambles to start to finish.

Even when he argued the opposite, he still made a mess of it. I stand by what I said in June - he was an awful PM and it says much about the state of the Conservative party that Cameron was propelled to high office.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Cameron was a Blairite to his core,about as much a Conservative as Karl Marx.

One would suggest the issue here is less what Cameron was then but more whether Blair was actually Labour party.


-- note this won't matter as -- see above -- people persist in thinking the political paradigms of the proceeding XX years still apply.

By and large they don't.

The "left" won* the culture wars, but the "right" won** the economic argument.

The inability of people -- not the poster referred to above necessarily one hastens to add -- to comprehend this or indeed any seismic shift in the political thinking of the last...oohhh..... 50 years or so is reflected in the media we have today.



* & **
definition will depend entirely where one stands upon certain ideas or values.

Note also that, especially given hardened opposition, a victory may well wind up being very pyrrhic .

I defiantly agree that the left 'won' the culture wars. If you look at the culture sector and make up of university lecturers and intellectuals, expressing a preference for right-wing viewpoints is frowned upon, which is a shame to my eyes. I'm not a right wing Conservative type, but there is nothing wrong with them in a democracy.

Whilst the right may have 'won' the economic argument, even in this area, people are fed up of the incompetence of all government parties these past decades, be they left, be they right.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


His plan to lessen state interference i.e The Big Society, was a shambles to start to finish.

The Big Society was never a plan to lessen state interference. It was never a plan for anything really. It was just the catch phrase given to conservative plans to cut state spending and make charities and local government pick up the slack (and in the case of local governments making them pick up the slack whilst also cutting their budgets).

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


His plan to lessen state interference i.e The Big Society, was a shambles to start to finish.

The Big Society was never a plan to lessen state interference. It was never a plan for anything really. It was just the catch phrase given to conservative plans to cut state spending and make charities and local government pick up the slack (and in the case of local governments making them pick up the slack whilst also cutting their budgets).

There was never any reduced state interference. In some ways it was much worse than the New Labour years. One of the good things they introduced was proper consultation on proposals and changes and actually listened to the feedback. When Tories came in they effectively reduced it to lip service and did what they wanted to anyway. What Tories meant by The Big Society was Localism when convenient - if a council does something that they don't like in they step (or try to). It was more a blame diversion tool. It something went well they'd take the credit, if it went badly it was blamed on the local government. There were lots of planning decisions overturned too, some for long term infrastructure projects. Take Norfolk County Council they got completely screwed over by the government because Tories lost control to UKIP. Something that's going to cost them 10's millions of £'s over many many years.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


His plan to lessen state interference i.e The Big Society, was a shambles to start to finish.

The Big Society was never a plan to lessen state interference. It was never a plan for anything really. It was just the catch phrase given to conservative plans to cut state spending and make charities and local government pick up the slack (and in the case of local governments making them pick up the slack whilst also cutting their budgets).

Can't disagree with this, but for me, it sums up the 6 years of Cameron's premiership: all style no substance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


His plan to lessen state interference i.e The Big Society, was a shambles to start to finish.

The Big Society was never a plan to lessen state interference. It was never a plan for anything really. It was just the catch phrase given to conservative plans to cut state spending and make charities and local government pick up the slack (and in the case of local governments making them pick up the slack whilst also cutting their budgets).

There was never any reduced state interference. In some ways it was much worse than the New Labour years. One of the good things they introduced was proper consultation on proposals and changes and actually listened to the feedback. When Tories came in they effectively reduced it to lip service and did what they wanted to anyway. What Tories meant by The Big Society was Localism when convenient - if a council does something that they don't like in they step (or try to). It was more a blame diversion tool. It something went well they'd take the credit, if it went badly it was blamed on the local government. There were lots of planning decisions overturned too, some for long term infrastructure projects. Take Norfolk County Council they got completely screwed over by the government because Tories lost control to UKIP. Something that's going to cost them 10's millions of £'s over many many years.

Because of the devolved administrations, I'm grateful for the fact that a lot of Tory nonsense at the local level never sees the light of day in Scotland. Long may it continue, fracking being a case study.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Because of the devolved administrations, I'm grateful for the fact that a lot of Tory nonsense at the local level never sees the light of day in Scotland. Long may it continue, fracking being a case study.

There's still some nonsense that goes on with the tit for tat arguments such as http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-38202298.

The advantage is that generally speaking most of Scotland seems to have similar left wing leanings, so was predominantly Labour/SNP/LD with very few Tory holdouts. That means that the principles of most of the parties are fairly similar which makes overall working together easier. The risk is that given the current direction the UK government is heading in is that Scotland will eventually go independent and at that point SNP will split into left/centre/right elements and the same thing that hamstrings English politics will happen in Scotland.

The problem with England is that all the parties have really lost their way and focus on what is best to maximise their votes rather than try to do the best for the Country as a whole. That's why we have a ridiculous situation where 55%+ of welfare payments go to pensioners (regardless of their wealth) because they vote in numbers, whereas disability allowance which makes up no more than 5% or housing benefits (10%ish) keep getting hammered again and again because of some vague notion that it is only paid to those 'sponging' off the system.

As an aside given we were having a debate a few pages back about why using the press is a poor indicator of trends. I present this:-
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/the-sunday-times-correction-islam-uk_uk_5868eb21e4b0f24da6e91ed3?utm_hp_ref=uk-news
where we have three stories all linked to the same misleading interpretation of data. Hence why it is always important to look at the data from a holistic perspective.

 Whirlwind wrote:

As an aside given we were having a debate a few pages back about why using the press is a poor indicator of trends. I present this:-
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/the-sunday-times-correction-islam-uk_uk_5868eb21e4b0f24da6e91ed3?utm_hp_ref=uk-news
where we have three stories all linked to the same misleading interpretation of data. Hence why it is always important to look at the data from a holistic perspective.

Good point.

Though the students thinking 50-90% of the UK are Asian is troubling as well. If nothing else that's bad education (unless it was a pre-school or something).

SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

As an aside given we were having a debate a few pages back about why using the press is a poor indicator of trends. I present this:-
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/the-sunday-times-correction-islam-uk_uk_5868eb21e4b0f24da6e91ed3?utm_hp_ref=uk-news
where we have three stories all linked to the same misleading interpretation of data. Hence why it is always important to look at the data from a holistic perspective.

Good point.

Though the students thinking 50-90% of the UK are Asian is troubling as well. If nothing else that's bad education (unless it was a pre-school or something).

It was a secondary school (although that could be a wide age group so it anything from 11 - 18) so your point still stands as 11 year olds are more likely to "say what they see" rather than be more critical. It would be a lot more worrying if they were 18 years olds as it would demonstrate that for the area in particular has issues in social mobility (probably with a much lower than average income would be my guess).

The relevant paragraph in the report was:-

"Taken together, high ethnic minority concentration in residential areas and in schools increases the likelihood of children growing up without meeting or better understanding people from different backgrounds. One striking illustration of such segregation came from a non-faith state secondary school we visited where, in a survey they had conducted, pupils believed the population of Britain to be between 50% and 90% Asian, such had been their experience up to that point."

One wonders if these children had ever watched TV.

Britain's ambassador to the EU has had enough and walked away:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/03/uk-ambassador-to-eu-quits-amid-brexit-row

I've got mixed feelings on this. Losing somebody of his experience, especially his knowledge of the EU, is not a good thing, but on the other hand reports are saying he advised Cameron ahead of last year's negotiations for more powers.

Considering how bad, how horsegak that was i.e Cameron asking for nothing and not even getting half of that, perhaps it's no bad thing.

Even so, it only adds to the idea that May and Co. have no idea what they are doing...

there's only 1 man for the job.....





meanwhile :


http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/viva-las-vegas-gamblings-mecca-shows-how-brexit-can-beat-the-odds-p2wj6jn0q

I you want to get an idea of what Brexit Britain could — and probably should — look like in years to come, then you should pay a visit to Las Vegas.

Uh huh.

I'm not entirely convinced that most/sizable number of leave voters were really striving for an economic situation quite like that.

Organised crime.... has been eviscerated by enlightened corporate interest.

of course.

I guess we could go further and replace all benefits -- except MPs allowances of course -- with scratch cards and lottery tickets.


Extraordinary.

He looks cold.

Only due to those -- foreign ! -- winds

he is a proper loon :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Horan#David_Norris_letter

stumbled on this





how times change eh ?

 reds8n wrote:
Only due to those -- foreign ! -- winds

he is a proper loon :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Horan#David_Norris_letter

stumbled on this

Spoiler:

how times change eh ?

Is there no end to this plague of fake news stories and slander against an honest, decent, beacon of jourmalism?

Next you'll be saying that the Mail was pro-Hitler in the 1930s

Back then it was not the European Union.

If you gave the Daily Mail back in 1973 a crystal ball and showed them what the European Community would morph into (EU) over the decades (without any democratic mandate)... would they have have still been in favour of joining?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Back then it was not the European Union.

If you gave the Daily Mail back in 1973 a crystal ball and showed them what the European Community would morph into (EU) over the decades (without any democratic mandate)... would they have have still been in favour of joining?

You may be surprised to learn how popular EEC membership was back in 1970s Britain. I was certainly surprised when I looked into it as part of my research pre-June 23rd.

Again, the EEC was not a political union like the EU today, it was an economic union. And I'm not surprised at all that free and open trade and economic integration between European nations was (and still is) popular. Thats not the issue here, the issue is that political integration is not popular (or more accurately, quickly becoming unpopular across Europe).

You're both comparing apples to oranges. Being enthusiastic for economic integration in the 1970's does not make the Daily Mail hypocrites for opposing political integration today or mean that they made a U-turn and changed their position.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Britain's ambassador to the EU has had enough and walked away:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/03/uk-ambassador-to-eu-quits-amid-brexit-row

I've got mixed feelings on this. Losing somebody of his experience, especially his knowledge of the EU, is not a good thing, but on the other hand reports are saying he advised Cameron ahead of last year's negotiations for more powers.

Considering how bad, how horsegak that was i.e Cameron asking for nothing and not even getting half of that, perhaps it's no bad thing.

Even so, it only adds to the idea that May and Co. have no idea what they are doing...

It's very bad news really. You've lost someone that knows how the EU works at this level, knows the people on personal terms and knows what are the drivers for each of the countries. He's probably been pushed out because of talking realistic expectations on what we can expect from Brexit. However the experience and knowledge he will take with him is not something you are going to be able to replace overnight. If I just lost someone who was going to be managing a multi-billion £ project just days before it was about to start I would be mortified. Most people take 6-18 months before they even start to get up to speed on the intricacies of the job. I'm not sure that Empress May has thanked him either. That would imply some difference in opinion on the EU.

Like with any organisation if you effectively force someone out because they highlight genuine issues, then the risk you run is that the only people that then go for the job are 'yes-men' that will do the best impression of a Churchill dog. It drives a fear based culture where no one wants to take a risk and be thought of as a trouble maker. That sort of approach only leads to a bad end. The person at the top thinks everything is going well because no one will speak out. Then when it hits an issue it all falls over because no one has been willing to highlight the bleedin' obvious.

It's just another example of how the current government are completely failing to get a grasp of any of the realistic effects that will occur from Brexit and that will all be green meadows with flowers!

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Back then it was not the European Union.

If you gave the Daily Mail back in 1973 a crystal ball and showed them what the European Community would morph into (EU) over the decades (without any democratic mandate)... would they have have still been in favour of joining?

Free movement of people and all kinds of law harmonisation were in from the beginning (treaty of Rome which predates the UK joining)

You'll find the relevant articles in this very thread.

The UK knew exactly what the European project meant from day one.

jouso wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Back then it was not the European Union.

If you gave the Daily Mail back in 1973 a crystal ball and showed them what the European Community would morph into (EU) over the decades (without any democratic mandate)... would they have have still been in favour of joining?

Free movement of people and all kinds of law harmonisation were in from the beginning (treaty of Rome which predates the UK joining)

You'll find the relevant articles in this very thread.

The UK knew exactly what the European project meant from day one.

The UK political elite, maybe. But did the British people?

When the UK held a referendum on whether to stay in the EEC, were they told that the EEC was just one of many stepping stones to European federalisation?

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Britain's ambassador to the EU has had enough and walked away:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/03/uk-ambassador-to-eu-quits-amid-brexit-row
... . . . ... . . . ... . . .

It's just another example of how the current government are completely failing to get a grasp of any of the realistic effects that will occur from Brexit and that will all be green meadows with flowers!

I don't think that is fair. I think a lot of the government and parliament know full well what a disaster Brexit is going to be, on one side from the economic fall-out, on the other side from the inevitable failure to satisfy unrealistic expectations (e.g. reduce immigration to 100,000 because I wanna...)

Consequently they are wrestling with a combination of denial, desperation and a desire to make it happen combined with a deficit of the means realistically to do so.

I bet there are thousands of civil servants quietly indulging in schadenfreude.

That entirely depends on whether they got themselves up to speed on the topic. I would hazard a guess and say they were more clued up on it than the public of today.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

The UK political elite, maybe. But did the British people?

Were the people who voted on June the 23rd know exactly what they were voting for?