Brexit, aka, the UK Shoots Itself



Oh, and are this threads American readers aware of what happened to UKIP, the party of Nigel Farage and the party of Brexit?

Or should I say the former party of Nigel Farage?

Well, they got taken over by get this… a joint venture between PrisonPlanet, Gamergate and other alt right figures, and the British neonazis, nationalists and professional racists centred around Tommy Robinson

They were changing leaders every few weeks, with a succession of ever more comically hopeless loons and racists as leader until the latest bloke won, and he brought in PJW and Carl of Swindon/Sargon of Akkad, the racist Youtuber who taught his pug to give nazi salutes, and the EDL/BNP diehards around Tommy Robinson and now the party are an openly ethno-nationalist white supremacist party.

Crypto-racists like Farage have media based incomes depending on them not quite being openly Nazi, so once he realised that actually, the entire existing memberbase doesnt have a problem with this, they were actually super-sekrit Nazis all along and this was the new face and direction of UKIP now, he had to quit.


Yea that’s kinda like Rudolf Hess acting all surprised at where Nazism ultimately went.


Farage was caught marching and singing the Horst Wessel song in his youth if you want another connection to Hess. He’s always been a racist, he’s just clever enough to only engage in dogwhistle racism in recent years though.


Wait, isn’t Jeremy Corbyn pro-Brexit? I don’t know if he campaigned for it, but it seems to me that some of the blame for Brexit can be laid at the feet of leftists unwilling to oppose it.


He spent decades opposing EU, a few weeks campaigning for Remain, a month on holiday, a few more weeks campaigning for it, entered a voting booth and did… something. Insisted government invoke Article 50 the day after the ref and has more or less been aligned with hard no deal Brexit and/or spending a few years dodging any serious questions. The true answer I guess is… “dunno”. The one only verified fact is that on Brexit, the government doesnt have an opposition, at least Opposition with a capital O.

edit: oh Lexit is so niche I’m not sure how much blame is with the hard left on this. The left itself, i.e the voterbase and memberbase is gloriously pro-EU. Labour is like 60% Remain right now. People keep dropping pollings from Labour voters in Islington in Corbyn’s lap and they must be putting the shitters up him.

Corbyn’s “Look!!! behind you!!! [/runs]” tactics will really tread a fine line if we have a General Election because 80% pro-EU Islington is not an constituency where he can push for no referendum hard no deal Brexit the noisy cranks keep insisting The People want.


/makes long whistling sound

Hold on tight its Mr Bones Wild Ride and no ones getting off.


Wait, does this mean there will be ANOTHER no confidence vote?


Yes, but instead of a private internal Tory vote, its a Parliamentary vote and gigantic shit flinging contest.


Oh shitsnacks.


  1. You’re being the one study guy. Any serious scientific question has a literature, and in general if you want to know what the actual scientific view on the subject is you need some kind of sampling or overview. And almost every open scientific question is disputed, so you don’t know the strength of a claim unless you’ve researched the opposing view. All you’ve done is found the one study with the conclusions you want and some nice incendiary quotes to copy-paste. And in this case it’s one from a low-impact online-only journal. One day I actually hope that all science is done the online open-source way. Until that revolution happens, that makes it the kind of study that couldn’t get published in any of the journals with reputation and impact that university libraries actually buy.

  2. Social Psychology absolutely has well-documented problems with reproducibility, bias (the vast number of practitioners come from one side of the political spectrum - attested to in the peer-reviewed literature, not my own assertion) and outright academic fraud.

  3. You can see the motivated reasoning in the terms of art used in that paper. We don’t measure “authoritarianism”, only “right-wing authoritarianism”. We ask a bunch of questions about “my national group” but then use them to rate people on their “Collective Narcissism”. (What a surprise that this shifts the statistical results away from national identity towards the new category with the not at all prejudicial namel). All munged through some super-complicated (and therefore unintelligible) statistical process but based on a sample size that opinion pollsters would laugh at.

It’s bollocks. And relying on it just boils down to an appeal to authority as an alternative to making an argument.


I’m pretty sure that most people who’ve lived through or followed this long process recognises the positions those sentences point to. Perhaps you might consider that you don’t know enough of the context, rather than assuming that they’re meaningless?

So back to my example, what you’re saying is that that Mexican isn’t allowed to reject the offer to join the United States, because he sees himself as Mexican not American. He’s not permitted to enjoy his sense of who he is and reject an external attempt to change it, because only racists do that.

This is so obviously untrue. A shared language, a shared history, shared entertainment media, shared education and a whole shared set of ideas about what an American is. The differences you’re implying are tiny compared to the difference between Britishness and Germanness, or Germanness and Greekness. And as I implied in my previous example about Germans and Greeks, the clearest indicators of a shared sense of identity are the ones that happen when shared identity become expensive. Large expenditures on transfer payments to poorer areas and disaster relief are routine and largely uncontroversial (with exceptions) in the US.

Yes, there was quite a lot of nasty, dishonest populist rhetoric during the campaign. I’m not sure how that’s relevant to the argument, though.


I’m not assuming that they’re meaningless. I’m saying that they are plainly empty of content. What is it that the EU has become that the speaker doesn’t like? What does the speaker mean in saying he doesn’t identify with Europeans? Do you know the answers to those questions, because without them, you can’t judge whether those reasons are ‘valid’.

When did I say anyone wasn’t allowed to vote for Brexit?


Yep, unsolidarity and economic protectionism (I never voted for this Europe but I was ok with it until it doesn’t benefit me enough), and cultural/ethnonationalism (I feel British, not European is a by the book definition of a cultural/ethnonationalistic stance).

Nationalism of all kinds needs to die a slow and painful dead, special the cultural and ethnically varieties (which are basically the same under a different guise, specially in Europe), and be substituted again by civic patriotism.


You’re wasting your time here. His posts are littered with alt right/ethno-nationalist talking points and syntax. Ie “just a different opinion” is pure alt right and echoes anything PJW or Sargon use to defend their ethno-nationalism, as is the erasure and denial of racism and the wilful blindness to any of our data and evidence. It’s alot easier to no-platform the Brexiters and Trumpstaffel. It’s worked in the Trump threads.


I find it ironic that you display the same type of fanaticism and hatred that I associate with the far right.
I’m not even sure what the term is to describe this type of politics. Loony left?


He does attack the hard left equally viciously.


I’m going to stick to the politics, rather than engage in the ongoing forum party game of ‘no, you’re a racist!’. I hope that’s okay!

One effect of these no-confidence motions - especially from the opposition - is that it appears to be rallying Tory MPs and even the DUP.

Maybe May’s deal will pass after all? The clock will have done a lot more ticking by late January.


@Mark_Weston, would you mind providing sources to back up your stance on social psychology? I am always curious about the limitations of the different fields of psychology.