As an American I have only a peripheral interest in Brexit. It's an intellectual curiosity more than anything else. We have enough of our own problems at the moment so that I do not need to contemplate problems elsewhere. However, when I read this article the parallels between the peoples' revolts in the UK and in America became clear. My contention all along, here and elsewhere, has been that the surprise voting resulted from emotion rather than being based on evidence. Apparently Lord Kerr, the author of Article 50 and advisor to Theresa May, came to the same conclusions. I found the article to be interesting reading. Perhaps you will too.
http://www.businessinsider.com/lord-ker ... 50-2016-11
Lord Kerr on Article 50
-
Icey
Re: Lord Kerr on Article 50
Yes, the article was interesting alright, but I think Lord Kerr's a typical example of an upper-class twit being removed from the ideas of ordinary people, and thinking that the voting result had nothing to do with evidence. He couldn't be any other than a Remainer, being the Deputy Chairman of Scottish Power. Scotland's relied heavily on the EU, and Kerr's a Council member of the European Policy Centre in Brussels AND of Business for New Europe, as well as being Chairman of the Centre for European Reform and several other prestigious positions.
With such close ties, he's going to side with staying in Europe come what may, and try and rubbish all attempts for a soft Brexit. Imagine if he lost all the money and power that comes with his position? He's another one who's done very well out of Europe.
With such close ties, he's going to side with staying in Europe come what may, and try and rubbish all attempts for a soft Brexit. Imagine if he lost all the money and power that comes with his position? He's another one who's done very well out of Europe.
Re: Lord Kerr on Article 50
I found Kerr's observations interesting because he authored Article 50. This would be coming from a man you cite as a Remainer. He is also drafting the exit plan for your Prime Minister, Theresa May, and she is a staunch advocate of a hard Brexit, i.e., a total break. Again, I find that assignment contrary to your depiction of the man. The parallel I was struck by was Kerr's comment about the part emotions played in the final voting. Both the Brexit campaign and the Trump campaign relied heavily on voter emotion for success.
-
Icey
Re: Lord Kerr on Article 50
I have to admit that emotions were running quite high. It didn't particularly bother me either way, but I listened to lots of people giving their views before voting.
What I find annoying Yogi, is that even so-called top newspapers're still saying that the subject of immigration swung it, but the inference was that the British people were against it. It wasn't so cut and dried, and still isn't. The checks carried out on new arrivals're pathetic, and many people're here illegally. For safety's sake, I think most people want to see better border checks, such as iris scanning, especially in the wake of the atrocities carried out in Europe.
I read an article by a government correspondent which poured scorn on the idea that immigrants're helping our economy. This sort of talk's been going on for a while, and the way it was worded showed a completely different scenario.
I don't know why some people're trying to undermine us. We have medical graduates spilling out of universities and they're jostling to get jobs, yet foreign nurses and doctors seem to be filling our hospitals. The NHS admits that many of these don't come up to scratch, as qualifying standards're lower in some of the countries they come from. That, plus the fact that hundreds and hundreds of people've complained that they can't understand these foreign accents, or that the medical staff don't seem to understand questions asked by patients, makes for a disgruntled public.
I sometimes see Mrs. May wavering over the Brexit demands. She didn't really support any of it, but said that, as elected Prime Minister, she'd bow to the majority vote.
As for Lord Kerr - he's no better than several other MPs in his sort of position. I don't dismiss some of what these people say, but without wishing to go into it, I've been in the company of some of these type of people, and what they REALLY think would shock a lot of the voters. They're in it for their own ends. They don't have to worry about whether they can afford their mortgages or if their children can attend a chosen school or not, and although I'm not bothered much about Europe one way or the other, I sided with those who wanted to come out of the union because I thought that we'd have the opportunity to pass our own laws again, and end up with millions in extra revenue if we didn't send so much to Brussels - which could be better used in our own country.
I agree with you that emotions've run high during our referendum and your Presidential election, but maybe we're all in need of a change. I've never known political issues that involve public feelings to get so intense.
What I find annoying Yogi, is that even so-called top newspapers're still saying that the subject of immigration swung it, but the inference was that the British people were against it. It wasn't so cut and dried, and still isn't. The checks carried out on new arrivals're pathetic, and many people're here illegally. For safety's sake, I think most people want to see better border checks, such as iris scanning, especially in the wake of the atrocities carried out in Europe.
I read an article by a government correspondent which poured scorn on the idea that immigrants're helping our economy. This sort of talk's been going on for a while, and the way it was worded showed a completely different scenario.
I don't know why some people're trying to undermine us. We have medical graduates spilling out of universities and they're jostling to get jobs, yet foreign nurses and doctors seem to be filling our hospitals. The NHS admits that many of these don't come up to scratch, as qualifying standards're lower in some of the countries they come from. That, plus the fact that hundreds and hundreds of people've complained that they can't understand these foreign accents, or that the medical staff don't seem to understand questions asked by patients, makes for a disgruntled public.
I sometimes see Mrs. May wavering over the Brexit demands. She didn't really support any of it, but said that, as elected Prime Minister, she'd bow to the majority vote.
As for Lord Kerr - he's no better than several other MPs in his sort of position. I don't dismiss some of what these people say, but without wishing to go into it, I've been in the company of some of these type of people, and what they REALLY think would shock a lot of the voters. They're in it for their own ends. They don't have to worry about whether they can afford their mortgages or if their children can attend a chosen school or not, and although I'm not bothered much about Europe one way or the other, I sided with those who wanted to come out of the union because I thought that we'd have the opportunity to pass our own laws again, and end up with millions in extra revenue if we didn't send so much to Brussels - which could be better used in our own country.
I agree with you that emotions've run high during our referendum and your Presidential election, but maybe we're all in need of a change. I've never known political issues that involve public feelings to get so intense.
Re: Lord Kerr on Article 50
To paraphrase Lord Kerr, Change is good, if it's for the right reasons.
-
Icey
Re: Lord Kerr on Article 50
I believe that the reasons WERE right, in the minds of the majority of voters. I see a similarity between what's happened here and what's happened in the US, but it's not the same. Maybe everyone just wants to get rid of the "old set up" and bring in the new.
My best hope is that we can all settle down and see what the future brings. I don't care who runs a country so long as they believe in trying to do some good. Each leader has faults, as well as some good points. You can only please the majority SOME of the time though, not all of it, and once a government starts taking and dictating, but gives nothing back, it's bound to cause unrest.
My best hope is that we can all settle down and see what the future brings. I don't care who runs a country so long as they believe in trying to do some good. Each leader has faults, as well as some good points. You can only please the majority SOME of the time though, not all of it, and once a government starts taking and dictating, but gives nothing back, it's bound to cause unrest.