Can someone explain to me why people supported Brexit in the first place?

[ceecee]

It is unclear what impact on Brexit the Supreme Court judgement will have as it is more symbolic than anything. Since the whole purpose of the proroguing failed in that parliament has already pass law requiring an extension.

In most normal times the PM would be expected to resign since he was found to have acted unlawful. But these are not normal time, as usually when there is one of the most incompetent PM ever the opposition does not usually chicken out of an election. It seems hard to see how this can be resolved without general election and that will end up in another result similar too 2017 election given the current polls.

I'm sure that's the argument conservatives plan to use - in the US as well.

 

[Red Herring]

I recently had a video clip in my Facebook newsfeed of a speech by Ed Miliband about the whole issue of divisive speech in which he said that the physical safety of an MP should not depend on how they voted. Just an appeal to decency and civil behavior.
Now, on anything Brexit-related opinions are bound to be divided and I expected to find comments for and against the speech. The media I subscribed on Facebook tend to be center to left and have about a 20-25% share of conservative or rightwing posters. However, under this video (which had quite a few comments) absolutely every single one of them was pro -Boris Johnson, pro-hard Brexit, but more than that, they were explicitely hostile towards parliament and representative democracy in general. They were extremely aggressive and talking about fury, civil war and what not. I was puzzled.

Then I scrolled back up to see which medium had posted the video which I had not paid attention to as it was an uncommented dump of a parliament tape. Turns out it wasn't any channel I had subscribed to, it was a Facebook "recommendation": Russia Today UK!

So it seems save to assume that most of these aggressive posters with their hate for parliamentary democracy and love for Boris Johnson and a hard Brexit that I had just read were regular consumers of Russia Today. Go figure!

 

[Lark]

I still think its because there's one born every minute and people have become easier to dupe with vague, vague promises than ever.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I recently had a video clip in my Facebook newsfeed of a speech by Ed Miliband about the whole issue of divisive speech in which he said that the physical safety of an MP should not depend on how they voted. Just an appeal to decency and civil behavior.
Now, on anything Brexit-related opinions are bound to be divided and I expected to find comments for and against the speech. The media I subscribed on Facebook tend to be center to left and have about a 20-25% share of conservative or rightwing posters. However, under this video (which had quite a few comments) absolutely every single one of them was pro -Boris Johnson, pro-hard Brexit, but more than that, they were explicitely hostile towards parliament and representative democracy in general. They were extremely aggressive and talking about fury, civil war and what not. I was puzzled.

Then I scrolled back up to see which medium had posted the video which I had not paid attention to as it was an uncommented dump of a parliament tape. Turns out it wasn't any channel I had subscribed to, it was a Facebook "recommendation": Russia Today UK!

So it seems save to assume that most of these aggressive posters with their hate for parliamentary democracy and love for Boris Johnson and a hard Brexit that I had just read were regular consumers of Russia Today. Go figure!

It is really a shame that today many people in general don't look at who or what was the source of information. Perhaps the main problem of internet is that it allows unchecked info to spread quickly and it creates direct connection between totalitarian governments and common people in none totalitarian governments. I mean do you really want to get your news from the country that is ranked 153th or whatever in media freedoms ? Some obviously do.


However the irony of all this is that this opens the question of media freedoms. Is every media source worth of being able to reach the audience ?

 

[ceecee]

I recently had a video clip in my Facebook newsfeed of a speech by Ed Miliband about the whole issue of divisive speech in which he said that the physical safety of an MP should not depend on how they voted. Just an appeal to decency and civil behavior.
Now, on anything Brexit-related opinions are bound to be divided and I expected to find comments for and against the speech. The media I subscribed on Facebook tend to be center to left and have about a 20-25% share of conservative or rightwing posters. However, under this video (which had quite a few comments) absolutely every single one of them was pro -Boris Johnson, pro-hard Brexit, but more than that, they were explicitely hostile towards parliament and representative democracy in general. They were extremely aggressive and talking about fury, civil war and what not. I was puzzled.

Then I scrolled back up to see which medium had posted the video which I had not paid attention to as it was an uncommented dump of a parliament tape. Turns out it wasn't any channel I had subscribed to, it was a Facebook "recommendation": Russia Today UK!

So it seems save to assume that most of these aggressive posters with their hate for parliamentary democracy and love for Boris Johnson and a hard Brexit that I had just read were regular consumers of Russia Today. Go figure!

Not exactly on topic but I think some are finally seeing that Russia Today or WZHF, the DC radio channel ruled to be a Russian agent or Sputnik are not something consumers want. My cable provider won't carry RT (citing McCain Amendment 2017) and I appreciated that so much I sent them a thank you.

Unfortunately, I'm in the minority. I don't think the majority of Americans are looking that closely at sources of information. Or they think silencing RT is some asinine 1st Amendment violation (it isn't).

 

[Red Herring]

Not exactly on topic but I think some are finally seeing that Russia Today or WZHF, the DC radio channel ruled to be a Russian agent or Sputnik are not something consumers want. My cable provider won't carry RT (citing McCain Amendment 2017) and I appreciated that so much I sent them a thank you.

Unfortunately, I'm in the minority. I don't think the majority of Americans are looking that closely at sources of information. Or they think silencing RT is some asinine 1st Amendment violation (it isn't).

I'm personally fine with their existence but think people need to be more media savy. And I am a big defender of profesional journalism who is annoyed by anyone using the term "mainstream media" (or worse, the abbreviation "Mama") as I see it as a toxic far-right talking point seeping into the middle of society (admittedly the media landscape where I live differs from that of the US).

Our basic cable reception in the house includes Al Jazeerea, RT and CGTN. I haven't seen much Al Jazeerea but can compare RT and CGTN. CGTN is infinitely more refined. RT tends to have programs on why Trump is awesome and everything in the West sucks. CGTN shows documentaries displays Chinese cultural soft power. I also remember a magnificent piece of sophisticated propaganda, a documentary comparing the way Germany and Japan were dealing with the memory of World War II. The point was to imply that Japan was still fascist at core and never properly digested its past. But they never said that. They just praised Germany unduly, stressing how well things had supposedly been handled here and used Western sources and quotes to paint a negative picture of Japan. You never saw a Chinese person badmouthing Japan, it all looked neutral and professional in tone but ultimately only served to make Japan look bad by comparing it to a highly idealized description of Germany's development after the war and using American anti-Japanese material from the war and immediate post-war period. It was so well -crafted that it was fascinating to look at.

 

[Tellenbach]

I support Brexit because Ringo supports Brexit and he seems like a nice bloke plus nothing interesting goes on in the UK unless some royal gets married and we're all out of those.

 

[ceecee]

I support Brexit because Ringo supports Brexit and he seems like a nice bloke plus nothing interesting goes on in the UK unless some royal gets married and we're all out of those.

He doesn't live there and hasn't for years.

 

[ceecee]

I'm personally fine with their existence but think people need to be more media savy. And I am a big defender of profesional journalism who is annoyed by anyone using the term "mainstream media" (or worse, the abbreviation "Mama") as I see it as a toxic far-right talking point seeping into the middle of society (admittedly the media landscape where I live differs from that of the US).

Our basic cable reception in the house includes Al Jazeerea, RT and CGTN. I haven't seen much Al Jazeerea but can compare RT and CGTN. CGTN is infinitely more refined. RT tends to have programs on why Trump is awesome and everything in the West sucks. CGTN shows documentaries displays Chinese cultural soft power. I also remember a magnificent piece of sophisticated propaganda, a documentary comparing the way Germany and Japan were dealing with the memory of World War II. The point was to imply that Japan was still fascist at core and never properly digested its past. But they never said that. They just praised Germany unduly, stressing how well things had supposedly been handled here and used Western sources and quotes to paint a negative picture of Japan. You never saw a Chinese person badmouthing Japan, it all looked neutral and professional in tone but ultimately only served to make Japan look bad by comparing it to a highly idealized description of Germany's development after the war and using American anti-Japanese material from the war and immediate post-war period. It was so well -crafted that it was fascinating to look at.

There are channels in the US dedicated to nothing but US military/weapons history glorifying - American Hero's Channel. I just smh. Al Jazeerea pulled the plug on their US tv channel, they had good documentaries but they stream so I can still watch. That view of Germany and Japan is absolutely held in the US to this day by more than a few people. Until I started reading more about it, like Operation Gladio (so incredibly crazy yet true) I didn't understand why but you're right, it's very slick, sophisticated propaganda. That's where the Russians learned it and the right wing in Europe and the US that use the same methods. I also support journalism but I wish people did a bit more self -education. It's not that difficult.