Brexit

[SidheLady]

Okay, you are talking about recent polling, and lets be honest, polling is notoriously easy to manipulate. We are also talking about a process where since it's inception, the people who wanted to remain have been trying to get it stopped, get a second referendum and many of them dont have a reasoning other than they lost.

The media AND government have been largely anti-brexit, and while everyone talks about the bad of the brexit campaign, please remember the remain one was called project fear.

Brexit for most who voted means one thing.

Leaving the EU.

I dont see why the simple fact of this is difficult. I also dont see why it's wrong to want to put the interests of the people they represent first.

[Kitteredge]

Largely. It is quite apparent that the thing they have in common is the lack of a plan, and the search for somebody (always somebody else, of course) to blame.
We have seen them blame parliament for exercising control, which I suppose we could have expected, but I was genuinely surprised to see some Brexiters,  such as Suzanne Evans, blaming the Queen for not intervening to ensure Brexit does happen. Well, I suppose they are always saying they don't like unelected Europeans.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-no-deal-queen-monarchy-ukip-andrew-lilico-republican-a8862931.html

We see the same thing in the States, a conservative party that excels at delivering ideas and phrases (Brexit means Brexit, MAGA) that are inherently without content but that can be filled up with whatever meaning their followers want, from blue passports to bendy bananas to billions for NHS to jobs coming back. This gets them into power, whereupon they have no idea how to actually govern, everything becomes a shitshow, then they start blaming everyone else. The Republicans call themselves the 'party of personal responsibility,' yet I can't remember the last time they apologized for a mistake much less even admitted one. It's always someone else. Modern conservativism can never fail, it can only be failed.

The amazing thing is people still support this nonsense. I've seen more terrific fantasy from conservative voters, including acquaintances and family, than I expect to see in Game of Thrones.

[Mechelle]

Sidhe Lady, I do take your point, but there have been plenty of pro-Brexit people in the government. The three Brexit secretaries have all been pro Brexit, although you might argue about effective they have been.
The media is largely pro-Brexit too. I don't see how you can argue that most of the press is not pro-Brexit. I am always turning off the BBC news in disgust at its pro-Brexit bias, but as people on the other side complain about it too, that may be a tribute to its neutrality!

The polling isn't very conclusive, I think I agree. There may be a shift in the direction of remain, but it's limited. As you say, I think it depends on just which question is asked.

Finally, if Brexit means leaving the European Union, which I agree it does, you should aim your anger at the ERG who voted against Mrs May's deal, in decreasing numbers as the votes were repeated, even though it would have achieved that, as it wasn't perfect enough for them.

I have just this moment seen that the EU may have agreed to a delay to the end of October, by the way.

[Eye of Horus]

October hmm? Then it will be interesting to see how the European elections fall out. Whether pro- or anti-EU candidates dominate could provide insight into the national mood.

Okay, you are talking about recent polling, and lets be honest, polling is notoriously easy to manipulate.

True to a point, although the general trend has been in place since 2017, lending it some credibility.

We are also talking about a process where since it's inception, the people who wanted to remain have been trying to get it stopped, get a second referendum and many of them dont have a reasoning other than they lost.

From the people I’ve talked to, their reasons range from not wanting to lose an identity and a set of rights (that in most cases they were born with), to believing that the EU never had anything to do with the UK’s big problems to begin with, to wanting to reverse the damage they are seeing being done to their businesses by Brexit uncertainty.

Yes, they all de facto believe that the first referendum “got it wrong” but it’s a little more nuanced than that (people don’t hold onto things for this long simply because they’re sore losers!) They’re just focusing on concerns that are different from the immigration and sovereignty aspects which were more important to most Leavers.

while everyone talks about the bad of the brexit campaign, please remember the remain one was called project fear.

I can agree that both campaigns told a whole pack of exaggerations and lies (which was why I gave up and went away to do my own research), but the reason people still talk about the Leave campaign is more to do with their shady data harvesting (a football competition that gave no indication of being linked to the campaign) and multiple breaches of electoral law (unmarked political ads online, significant overspending through illegal cooperation between campaign groups).

Brexit for most who voted means one thing. Leaving the EU. I dont see why the simple fact of this is difficult.

It’s mostly because “the EU” isn’t one simple entity, it’s 40 years worth of treaties, laws and trade agreements. So does “leaving the EU” mean leaving the single market? The four freedoms? The European Parliament? The ECJ? Interpol? The existing trade deals with the rest of the world? The European bank? The data-sharing aspects? The agricultural agreements? The fishing agreements? The climate agreements? The low-carbon infrastructure programme?

Some of those, all of them, none of them? And what is the impact of each on U.K. citizens in both the short and long term?

Trying to unpick these questions is one of many reasons why the government is having such trouble.

[SidheLady]

The media is largely pro-Brexit too. I don't see how you can argue that most of the press is not pro-Brexit. I am always turning off the BBC news in disgust at its pro-Brexit bias, but as people on the other side complain about it too, that may be a tribute to its neutrality!


Finally, if Brexit means leaving the European Union, which I agree it does, you should aim your anger at the ERG who voted against Mrs May's deal, in decreasing numbers as the votes were repeated, even though it would have achieved that, as it wasn't perfect enough for them.

I have found the media the opposite, and especially the BBC has been pro-remain, giving more credance to those who look at the worst possibilities of leaving.

And Mrs Mays deal wasn't brexit by any stretch of the imagination.

It’s mostly because “the EU” isn’t one simple entity, it’s 40 years worth of treaties, laws and trade agreements. So does “leaving the EU” mean leaving the single market? The four freedoms? The European Parliament? The ECJ? Interpol? The existing trade deals with the rest of the world? The European bank? The data-sharing aspects? The agricultural agreements? The fishing agreements? The climate agreements? The low-carbon infrastructure programme?

Some of those, all of them, none of them? And what is the impact of each on U.K. citizens in both the short and long term?

Trying to unpick these questions is one of many reasons why the government is having such trouble.

You are talking about aspects of a singular political entity.

Interpol is not part of the EU

So, yes. I mean leaving it all.

[Eye of Horus]

Interpol is not part of the EU

You’re right, my apologies - I was thinking of the European Arrest Warrant.

So, yes. I mean leaving it all.

So a WTO / “No Deal” Brexit.

I totally agree that British people should have more control over their own laws (currently about ~87% domestic and ~13% in the EU, where it should be noted British MEPs have very rarely voted against a law that was passed) and I can appreciate how the average Brit feels cut off from this process. Unfortunately the government of the last ten years (and arguably the governments of the last 30, since they have all been big-state neoliberal) have shown that this isn’t something they care about when it comes down to voting. Thatcher massively centralised power in Westminster, stopped public housebuilding and rebalanced the whole economy around London. Blair continued the neoliberal mania and the overheated property market, and used the welfare state to try and mask its effects. Cameron crushed calls for electoral reform and slashed local government budgets, essentially passing the buck on austerity. May won’t listen to anyone outside her own cabinet, let alone the people of Scotland and Northern Ireland (and the effects of WTO Brexit on Northern Ireland, though remote from most Brits’ concerns, could be an essay in itself). The laws that have repeatedly sidelined and screwed over British people - that have, to borrow a phrase from Tamhansen’s Jonathan Pie video, “broken the social contract” - were all passed here, in Britain.

Brexit, WTO or otherwise, will have no effect on this inherent sickness within the UK. At the least - the absolute least - we need to elect a government with different priorities.

I also recognise the need for every country to be able to control its own borders, and at face value ending Free Movement seems like an easy way to do this - the thing is, the EU has always had provisions on Free Movement (see the “rights and obligations” section here) that the UK has never opted to use. The EU weren’t able to force people on us during the refugee crisis either. Something else is going on here.

The fact of the matter is that it is UK government policies, not EU rules, that are responsible for our current level of immigration - whatever they might say, our MPs will not legislate against it because immigration increases our GDP and alleviates an ageing population (things that matter to MPs, but perhaps less to people on the street). That in itself wouldn’t have generated a crisis, but the Conservatives have also created a totally avoidable strain on housing, schools and hospitals by opting for incessant cuts to local councils rather than investment, and by sticking to a property-heavy economy that requires a shortage of housing to keep prices high. I simply don’t trust the Conservatives to change their decades-long operating model just because of Brexit. If anything, a WTO Brexit is likely to encourage them towards more cuts and more cheap-labour immigration to try and counter the predicted slowdown of the economy.

Overseas, meanwhile, we have secured some agreements to maintain current trade flows, but the new free-trade treaties that would eventually need to be struck would force the UK to make concessions to practically every country we want to strike a new deal with (see the US already trying to put our farmers out of business and limit our future relationships with both the EU and China), which is a far bigger attack on our sovereignty than anything in our current status quo. The only real way to insulate against this is to remain in the EU market sphere to one degree or another.

I’m trying to limit my arguments to the issues that matter to Leavers (sovereignty / independence and immigration), but I also think it’s important to consider the opinions of people with skin in the game (businesses) and relevant in-depth knowledge (lawyers) - both of these groups are overwhelmingly against a WTO Brexit.

Ironically, were a WTO Brexit to become the only alternative, many MPs have said they would take the previously unthinkable step of revoking Article 50 and having no Brexit at all.

[SidheLady]

Honestly, I think the whole process has shown one thing without any sort of doubt.

The entire system needs to be shaken up, politicians need to remember that they represent their constituents, they are not an elite who always knows best.

[Eye of Horus]

Absolutely correct. Whether we ultimately leave the EU or not, politics can’t go back to business as usual.

[Mechelle]

It will be very interesting how it pans out. We have the new Change UK group, but so much of British politics is tribal and it's very hard to break through that resistance to, er, change. I also note that many of the prominent Tory leavers such as Jacob Rees-Mogg and Graham Brady among others represent constituencies which voted to remain, although they are not held to account for that by the media.
The European elections, where you vote for parties, not people, and where non British EU citizens can vote, are intriguing. I expect the smaller parties (both pro- and anti- EU) to take votes off Labour and Conservatives.
Meanwhile, the government, after spending £4billion, has now suspended preparations for the consequences of a no-deal Brexit.

[Kitteredge]

The farce of Tory leadership has paid off. The majority of British voters now think the referendum was a bad idea. Impressively, more Conservative voters now think so than don't, too.

The EU providing a vastly extended timeline might have been a masterstroke. It defused all the squabbling idiocy and may have let everybody recognize what a mess the last three years are. Does anyone have the stomach for more? Does anyone legitimately think May, or any Tory in power, will do any better next time?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/27/public-thinks-eu-referendum-was-a-bad-idea-says-poll

[Mechelle]

Even though the British government still say a withdrawal agreement may be reached which would cancel them, most people expect the European elections to take place next month.

I had earlier mentioned that I thought some of the newer parties would make gains, but Change UK (the pro-EU party) have had a strangely lacklustre campaign, and have had not attempted to target continental citizens who live in Britain.
The Conservatives are doing badly too, in the polls, while UKIP's vote has slumped, following their lurch to the far right. Labour are jostling with Nigel Farage's new Brexit Party for the lead. I wonder, and hope (no doubt in vain), if the increased media scrutiny on the latter will destroy them. Here in the north west, a woman called Claire Fox is standing on the Brexit slate. She is a former member of the Revolutionary Communist Party, who, along with a group of others around the Spiked online magazine, have shifted far, far to the right, although they still say they are Marxists, sometimes at least.

In the context of this election, Warrington is part of the constituency, and there was a particularly notorious bombing by the IRA in the 1990's in which two children were killed (one of whom was a relation of somebody I know). Even Gerry Adams said that some of the things done in the name of Irish Republicanism were difficult to bear when he met friend's family, but the RCP said that they were entitled to carry out whatever actions that they thought were justified in pursuit of their cause, and I don't believe they have ever withdrawn that.

Sorry to go off on something of a rant, but I think it is worth mentioning some of the people in Farage's party, especially when you consider the treatment given to Corbyn for his Sinn Fein contacts.

[SidheLady]

Okay, this is slightly off topic, but, it is kinda interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOKZ7Fb0whI


I am no expert but, it might be worth considering

[Mechelle]

It waa interesting, but the commentary was distinctly in favour of Brexit, and I think some of her characeristics are just her normal, slightly awkward, manner rather than anything to do with delivering a Brexit message which she found unpalatable.

Talking of unpalatable, but people, rather than messages, Colin Parry, whose young son was murdered by the IRA in the Warrington bombing, has challenged the Brexit Party's Claire Fox, over her support for the bombing. She has rrsponded, indirectly, by saying that she has the greatest sympathy for the Parry family, as for all victims of violence during the truubles, but did not actually condemn the killing.

[Eye of Horus]

The Withdrawal Agreement is being brought back in June for a final, last-ditch vote! This is regardless of whether Labour and the Conservatives reach an agreement by then.

The Lib Dems have signalled they would support the bill if a People’s Vote was codified into it. Still unknown if Labour are pushing for this in the ongoing talks, though widespread speculation is that they are.

Meanwhile the usual nonsense from the backbenches, such as Owen Patterson demanding that we threaten the EU with no deal (which is...basically what May has already been doing, and it hasn’t worked), and Peter Bone wants May to resign before the EU elections next week.

On the subject of the EU elections, polls show the new, single-issue Brexit party looks set to clean up the Leave vote, which Nigel Farage is (of course) using as a personal vehicle to try and demand power for himself in the ongoing talks. Labour meanwhile still has an eye on a possible general election so won’t commit solidly to Leave or Remain, which is understandable but likely to cost them in an election that, by its very nature, cannot be about anything other than Brexit. The Lib Dems are lobbying hard for the People’s Vote / Remain base, to the point of encouraging tactical voting against the Green Party (their rationale is that May will proclaim Green votes to be for climate policy, not for Remain). Which is a shame because I like the Greens, and for me the Lib Dems’ Brexit policy is the only good thing going for this otherwise Tory-lite party.

[Mechelle]

I had my first two pamphlets for the European election today; from the Brexit Party (where Claire Fox who I mentioned two posts back is the first candidate on their list - she has since spoken to Colin Parry for which he gave her credit, but she still did not repudiate her support for the IRA), and from Tommy Robinson who is standing as an independent. Great!

I expect I will get something from the Liberal Democrats, who  are having a decent campaign, but I think Labour and the Conservatives may not even bother.

[gaggedLouise]

I had my first two pamphlets for the European election today; from the Brexit Party (where Claire Fox who I mentioned two posts back is the first candidate on their list - she has since spoken to Colin Parry for which he gave her credit, but she still did not repudiate her support for the IRA), and from Tommy Robinson who is standing as an independent. Great!

I expect I will get something from the Liberal Democrats, who  are having a decent campaign, but I think Labour and the Conservatives may not even bother.

I wonder who these guys could be supporting - certainly not Tommy Robinson though! ;)

(Found the single at a charity shop last week and bought it - this is a real mood raiser of a song, still holds up) :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar_saHB60qU

[Mechelle]

I wonder who these guys could be supporting - certainly not Tommy Robinson though! ;)

(Found the single at a charity shop last week and bought it - this is a real mood raiser of a song, still holds up) :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar_saHB60qU

Yes, the coincidence of their names matching has been mentioned - and I am sure it is just a coincidence as I believe Tommy Robinson, the right wing agitator, took his nom de guerre from one of his former associates who he fell out with. It is funny though! Thanks for reminding us.

Anyway, one of my friends found a good use for Tommy Robinson's leaflet. It was the perfect size for ushering a bee of the house without harm to human or bee .

[gaggedLouise]

The Brexit talks between Labour and Tories collapsed again, leaving May in a weaker position than ever. She's still planning to have a fourth vote in the Commons over her deal in early June though.


https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/17/uk/brexit-cross-party-talks-break-down-gbr-intl/index.html?adkey=bn

[Thera Regina]

I don't know a bloody thing about politics, but what I do know is that...because we're now going to have to go through the European Elections, that means that we're probably not going to get out of the EU for another 4 years. Which, isn't really fair considering the majority of the UK voted to leave the EU.

[gaggedLouise]

I don't know a bloody thing about politics, but what I do know is that...because we're now going to have to go through the European Elections, that means that we're probably not going to get out of the EU for another 4 years. Which, isn't really fair considering the majority of the UK voted to leave the EU.

The trick is though, the vote never defined anything of *how* the UK would exit the EU, in what way and what the relationship was going to look like afterwards: would there be negotiations aiming for some sort of close-but-free relationship, or should the UK just throw the kitchen sink at the EU, pose ultimative demands and go for a really hard Brexit (the way Boris and Trump would have preferred it to happen)?

[SidheLady]

The trick is though, the vote never defined anything of *how* the UK would exit the EU, in what way and what the relationship was going to look like afterwards: would there be negotiations aiming for some sort of close-but-free relationship, or should the UK just throw the kitchen sink at the EU, pose ultimative demands and go for a really hard Brexit (the way Boris and Trump would have preferred it to happen)?

I think this is quite a disingenuous backdoor way of not leaving.

The default should have been a no deal brexit, with trade deals being done AFTER we left.

A total disengagement from the EU and it's politics and laws.

Also, let me ask this, what would make a second referendum more valid than the first? What would happen if we had a second leave victory? Would we need a third?

Perhaps a more valid question should be, what should be done if the government doesn't deliver on brexit

[Eye of Horus]

The default should have been a no deal brexit, with trade deals being done AFTER we left

Well technically that is the current default - which is why everyone has been scrambling around to avoid it.

Partially it’s because it never has been and never will be as simple as “just leave” because the EU isn’t a single entity; it’s forty years worth of laws, ties, agreements and dependencies that no-one seems to really knows how things are supposed to work without.

And partially it’s because almost no-one with skin in the game wants it (bar the fruitcake fringe of Tory backbenchers who don’t actually have to do any of the negotiating, and the foreign-based vulture capitalists who look forward to asset-stripping the UK while we run around desperate for new trade deals at any cost). May’s attempt to threaten No Deal as the alternative to her deal didn’t work on either side of the Channel because everyone called her bluff - you may have noticed that in recent weeks she’s been saying it’s her deal or no Brexit instead.

Also, let me ask this, what would make a second referendum more valid than the first? What would happen if we had a second leave victory? Would we need a third?

The only time I could see a second referendum being greenlit would be as a vote of confidence in a finalised Brexit deal. While it could be a three-way question, I highly doubt that No Deal would make it onto the ballot because, like I said above, literally no-one with skin in the game wants it.

If the referendum is therefore on Deal or Remain, there won’t be a third one. If Deal wins then we leave on those terms, end of story; if Remain wins, no prime minister will want to reopen that can of worms for at least a generation.

Perhaps a more valid question should be, what should be done if the government doesn't deliver on brexit

Probably a new prime minister, probably a hard Brexiteer, certain to have no more luck unpicking the Gordian Knot than their predecessor. I tend to look at the bookies as well as the news for such things, since they’ve actually got money riding on them, and the current favourite is (urgh) the malignant narcissist Boris Johnson.

Another election is still possible, though even if Labour take over they’ll face all the same unsolvable problems.

[Kitteredge]

I think this is quite a disingenuous backdoor way of not leaving.

The default should have been a no deal brexit, with trade deals being done AFTER we left.

A total disengagement from the EU and it's politics and laws.

Also, let me ask this, what would make a second referendum more valid than the first? What would happen if we had a second leave victory? Would we need a third?

Perhaps a more valid question should be, what should be done if the government doesn't deliver on brexit

Total disengagement from the EU with no trade deals would be absolutely devastating to the UK. In any case, I believe they revert to WTO rules at that point, which would be extremely bad as it is. Britain doesn't even make enough food to feed itself.

A second referendum would ostensibly do what the first one didn't -- be a vote when people actually know what is at stake. The first one, to the benefit of the Brexiteers, was able to mean absolutely anything to anybody. Now, with it much clearer, a new referendum would be much more honest.

[SidheLady]

But what makes it more valid?

It's a simple question. You say that "now people know what is at stake" which I think is an awful thing to say, assuming people didn't understand before.

And again, if the Remain lost, would you want a third? because "people still didn't understand?"

[Kitteredge]

But what makes it more valid?

It's a simple question. You say that "now people know what is at stake" which I think is an awful thing to say, assuming people didn't understand before.

And again, if the Remain lost, would you want a third? because "people still didn't understand?"

No one knew what Brexit meant during the first referendum. It certainly wasn't "Just leave the EU tomorrow," because that is meaningless. Now that we know the enormous difficulties of deciding what it is supposed to be, why not let the people decide? Certainly the politicians can't. Definitely the Tories can't. I think it's perfectly irresponsible to dither and muck about without input now that the misleading fantasies have been swept away.