Brexit

[SidheLady]

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.

It meant Leave the EU, the same as it means now.

And I do note you dont say anything about the validity of later Referenda.

And I disagree, it's not a case of they can't decide, it's a case of they WONT because they simply dont wish to.

Also, I ask this. It was supposed to be a single, once in a lifetime event the Brexit Refferendum, why should we trust the goverment to abide with the result of any other potential ones?

[Kitteredge]

It meant Leave the EU, the same as it means now.

And I do note you dont say anything about the validity of later Referenda.

And I disagree, it's not a case of they can't decide, it's a case of they WONT because they simply dont wish to.

Also, I ask this. It was supposed to be a single, once in a lifetime event the Brexit Refferendum, why should we trust the goverment to abide with the result of any other potential ones?

'Brexit means Brexit' is nonsense. Just look at Northern Ireland alone. I feel like this conversation is far too late, two years later, but what is supposed to be done there? What does 'Brexit' mean to Northern Ireland?

So... pure driven nonsense. And your views are emblematic of the complete mush that the entire process has degenerated into, I fear. There are real gears and levers that must be considered, with the Good Friday Agreement among the major considerations. You can no longer live in fantasy land.

[SidheLady]

Again, I notice you dont answer questions you have no answers to, or perhaps dont wish to answer.

If you want a more in depth answer how about this. Removal of EU laws and legislation from the places where it supersedes British legality. Reinstatement of British law and border protection, as well as territoriality over it's own waters.
We go to WTO rules, and have a border on Northern Ireland.

These are HARD decisions that will be unpopular that the government doesn't wish to make. They seem to want to cede more and more of their own powers to the law-makers in Europe.

I don't think it will be easy, I don't think it will be fun. But it is what the majority of the population decided on.

I assume from your arguments that you dont agree with Brexit. That is fine, that's your right, but please, don't devolve into personal attacks, and saying I live in a fantasy world is wrong, as while I may not always express a deeper understanding, I do have it.

[gaggedLouise]

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?"

Admittedly that's a harsh thing to say, but in a sense it's true, and it reflects more on the current crop of UK politicians (and some media people) than on simply the voters.

Lots of people clearly voted for Brexit thinking they were opting for a state where Britain would have a customs union or a Norway-like deal, without any real upset to the country's trade, but still would get to pull a quick, clean break at belonging within any EU court jurisdiction and on accepting some free movement of people from the EU (in exchange for Brits being able to travel across the EU without having to hassle with passports, customs and visas all the time) - and cut the "annual fees" to the EU to zero, of course. In reality, such a state of affairs would be a contradiction, it was never going to happen, no matter what people like Boris and Nigel were saying. It was as unrealistic as having three saturdays in a week, but the way the campaign season turned out, many millions of people were not made aware of that - and voted Brexit thinking they were voting for a "soft-but-clear", painless Brexit. When they realized what an exit really would mean, many were appalled.

If the Brexit camp would have had to sell their position as "we want a super-hard Brexit that will tear up all trade deals the UK has on the day we leave, and then we'll start from a blank slate to try to negotiate new deals with the EU, the US, China, Commonwealth countries and everybody else, while many businesses (and banks) are fleeing out of the country, more or less, and it gets harder to hire skilled people from abroad", then they would *never* have got close to a majority.

[SidheLady]

Admittedly that's a harsh thing to say, but in a sense it's true, and it reflects more on the current crop of UK politicians (and some media people) than on simply the voters.

Lots of people clearly voted for Brexit thinking they were opting for a state where Britain would have a customs union or a Norway-like deal, without any real upset to the country's trade, but still would get to pull a quick, clean break at belonging within any EU court jurisdiction and on accepting some free movement of people from the EU (in exchange for Brits being able to travel across the EU without having to hassle with passports, customs and visas all the time) - and cut the "annual fees" to the EU to zero, of course. In reality, such a state of affairs would be a contradiction, it was never going to happen, no matter what people like Boris and Nigel were saying. It was as unrealistic as having three saturdays in a week, but the way the campaign season turned out, many millions of people were not made aware of that - and voted Brexit thinking they were voting for a "soft-but-clear", painless Brexit. When they realized what an exit really would mean, many were appalled.

If the Brexit camp would have had to sell their position as "we want a super-hard Brexit that will tear up all trade deals the UK has on the day we leave, and then we'll start from a blank slate to try to negotiate new deals with the EU, the US, China, Commonwealth countries and everybody else, while many businesses (and banks) are fleeing out of the country, more or less, and it gets harder to hire skilled people from abroad", then they would *never* have got close to a majority.

two words. Citation. Needed

You have made assumptions on people's thinking and motives things you -cannot- possibly know.

This is an argument which legitimately makes me angry, I try very hard not to assume the WHY of someone voting, just HOW.

[gaggedLouise]

two words. Citation. Needed

You have made assumptions on people's thinking and motives things you -cannot- possibly know.

This is an argument which legitimately makes me angry, I try very hard not to assume the WHY of someone voting, just HOW.

Lots and lots of people came out on social media in the days following the referendum, or were interviewed by newspapers and on the radio, saying things like "WHAT?! This is awful, I never figured a Brexit would mean I can't go on a vaction to the Med without taking my passport and trundling through customs, OF COURSE we don't want that!", "what do you mean things would become more expensive after a hard Brexit because of customs?", "what's this about people who have lived and worked hard here for decades having to reestablish their residendy status when we're leaving the EU?" etc. I don't need to look up articles about t, it was all over the place and it was not any kind of fear-mongering. Millions of people who have lived and worked legit in the UK fo decades have been worrying over the last three years, or keeping up correspondence with various bureaucrats, about how to assure they can remain in the UK after a Brexit. The application of rules for that is anything but clear in practice.

The campaign should have focused on economy and trade, and on what could realistically happen after a Brexit - or happen to political legacies the UK hads gathered up while a member of the EU, such as the peace process in Northern Ireland and the defusing of the IRA, therefore "no hard border in Ireland" - but instead it made a hard right-turn to being about migration and dreams of Britain getting back to a lost golden age once they were out of the EU's clutches. Just because the Brexit side managed to get to 51% doesn't mean they had managed to convince a majority of people for a credible position. Much of what they had said didn't make much sense, and the bane of that has flowed into the aftermath of the referendum right up till now.

[SidheLady]

If we are playing should have we can do this.

The EU should have had a clear and predecided method of leaving the EU, if it was truly an option.

Lots and lots of people came out on social media in the days following the referendum, or were interviewed by newspapers and on the radio, saying things like "WHAT?! This is awful, I never figured a Brexit would mean I can't go on a vaction to the Med without taking my passport and trundling through customs, OF COURSE we don't want that!", "what do you mean things would become more expensive after a hard Brexit because of customs?", "what's this about people who have lived and worked hard here for decades having to reestablish their residendy status when we're leaving the EU?" etc. I don't need to look up articles about t, it was all over the place and it was not any kind of fear-mongering. Millions of people who have lived and worked legit in the UK fo decades have been worrying over the last three years, or keeping up correspondence with various bureaucrats, about how to assure they can remain in the UK after a Brexit. The application of rules for that is anything but clear in practice.

The Media is biased, and has always been heavily biased against brexit. They have been part of the campaign to poison the well over the last three years.

As for social media, how do you delineate between those who legitimately regret voting brexit and those remainers moaning about the consequences of loosing the vote?

The campaign should have focused on economy and trade, and on what could realistically happen after a Brexit - or happen to political legacies the UK hads gathered up while a member of the EU, such as the peace process in Northern Ireland and the defusing of the IRA, therefore "no hard border in Ireland" - but instead it made a hard right-turn to being about migration and dreams of Britain getting back to a lost golden age once they were out of the EU's clutches. Just because the Brexit side managed to get to 51% doesn't mean they had managed to convince a majority of people for a credible position. Much of what they had said didn't make much sense, and the bane of that has flowed into the aftermath of the referendum right up till now.

We had "experts" from both sides both pre and post referendum arguing and telling us different things about what was going to happen, the extent and the rest of it.

No-one, and I mean NO ONE has any idea of what was going to happen, it was always best guess.

[gaggedLouise]

If we are playing should have we can do this.

The EU should have had a clear and predecided method of leaving the EU, if it was truly an option. 

Even if there had been an easier path to leaving the EU - the treaties Britain signed, and actually helped prepare, are clear about the basic process that's actually been followed post May invoking article 50, but I suspect what you mean is that the process should have given the UK equal power to all the rest of the EU together while negotiating, given the UK better cards by default - there would never ever be an outsome where a state that was leaving would get to keep all the good and tasty benefits from EU membership but throw out all obligations it didn't like, and of course get all this without any membership fees. If that kind of an outcome had been on the table, then no member state would have seen any point in staying in the EU at all! Why stay when you can get all the good things you want for free, and without restrictions, as a non-member?

The Media is biased, and has always been heavily biased against brexit. They have been part of the campaign to poison the well over the last three years.

As for social media, how do you delineate between those who legitimately regret voting brexit and those remainers moaning about the consequences of loosing the vote?

Unfortunately you're just venting at the news media out of a feeling that they're "not on your side".

We had "experts" from both sides both pre and post referendum arguing and telling us different things about what was going to happen, the extent and the rest of it.

No-one, and I mean NO ONE has any idea of what was going to happen, it was always best guess.

Nope, there are credible experts and on the other hand there are mere propagandists or people who didn't bother to check anything, whether actual facts or their own reasoning. Also, real experts are often more willing to take their views into a real debate (not just a shit-slinging match) and let different arguments meet one another, and in that way people are enlightened.

It is perfectly possible to make valid conclusions about what are and are not likely outcomes of different Brexit scenarios, or Brexit in general. Or that some things really can't and won't happen under a hard or no-deal Brexit.

IMO people like Boris Johnson or the ERG faction (radical Tory Brexiteers) were and are political snake-oil sellers, and their arguments about how a Brexit would play out never held up.

[SidheLady]

Even if there had been an easier path to leaving the EU - the treaties Britain signed, and actually helped prepare, are clear about the basic process that's actually been followed post May invoking article 50, but I suspect what you mean is that the process should have given the UK equal power to all the rest of the EU together while negotiating, given the UK better cards by default - there would never ever be an outsome where a state that was leaving would get to keep all the good and tasty benefits from EU membership but throw out all obligations it didn't like, and of course get all this without any membership fees. If that kind of an outcome had been on the table, then no member state would have seen any point in staying in the EU at all! Why stay when you can get all the good things you want for free, and without restrictions, as a non-member?

I have no idea where you think this comes from.

If there had been a proper procedure for leaving then there would have been no negitations at all, they would have been un-necessary. And that is what I meant, a step by step guide to leaving. As in "you do x, we do x, x is tallied, x is signed and ratified, and your out"

Leaving means Leaving, and please enlighten me to what the good things are, because I truly cannot think of any.

Unfortunately you're just venting at the news media out of a feeling that they're "not on your side".

The definition of Bias there

Nope, there are credible experts and on the other hand there are mere propagandists or people who didn't bother to check anything, whether actual facts or their own reasoning. Also, real experts are often more willing to take their views into a real debate (not just a shit-slinging match) and let different arguments meet one another, and in that way people are enlightened.

It is perfectly possible to make valid conclusions about what are and are not likely outcomes of different Brexit scenarios, or Brexit in general. Or that some things really can't and won't happen under a hard or no-deal Brexit.

IMO people like Boris Johnson or the ERG faction (radical Tory Brexiteers) were and are political snake-oil sellers, and their arguments about how a Brexit would play out never held up.

How can there be credible experts to a process which has never been done before? This is like saying there are credible experts on intergalactic flight. They might have idea's, they might have theories, but they are not real world tested.

You are fully entitled to your opinions, however, the method to leave was never discussed BY EITHER SIDE. The question was simply "Should we"?

[gaggedLouise]

You are fully entitled to your opinions, however, the method to leave was never discussed BY EITHER SIDE. The question was simply "Should we"?

Yeah, and that was one of the key flaws of the 2016 referendum. 

Off to bed now. I'm sorry I've sounded rough on many politicians and some other people of the UK, but the way Britain (or we could almost say England, because it is an English issue) has handled this affair has been a real disgrace. It's just shocking how little the UK political elite has been able to rise to the occasion; it makes one feel that what's been playing out over the last year or so is a case of serious, rising political psychosis.

[SidheLady]

Yeah, and that was one of the key flaws of the 2016 referendum. 

Off to bed now. I'm sorry I've sounded rough on many politicians and some other people of the UK, but the way Britain (or we could almost say England, because it is an English issue) has handled this affair has been a real disgrace. It's just shocking how little the UK political elite has been able to rise to the occasion; it makes one feel that what's been playing out over the last year or so is a case of serious, rising political psychosis.

I Agree completely there.

I dont know if this is true, but I have heard that originally the Torries offered the referendum because UKIP was gaining power and influence with a similar idea, they wanted to nip it in the bud, but were confident it would never pass. This is mostly because the UK government has a hard time seeing the country past London and the home counties.

This is why Cameron left, because he knew it was going to be a mess, but it'd be worse if he didn't follow through with the promise.

[Eye of Horus]

I dont know if this is true, but I have heard that originally the Torries offered the referendum because UKIP was gaining power and influence with a similar idea, they wanted to nip it in the bud, but were confident it would never pass. This is mostly because the UK government has a hard time seeing the country past London and the home counties.

Pretty much true - the Tories decided some time after 2010 to actively court the angry working-class voters who were switching towards UKIP, which on a certain level made sense: these people would traditionally be targeted by Labour, so they weaken their main opponent, and getting on board with the EU / immigrant scapegoating stops them from having to admit that it’s their own austerity policies that are responsible for the voters’ grievances about jobs and public services.

However, in the long run they made it worse for themselves by persisting with austerity, and are haemorrhaging more “moderate” Tory voters and lobbyists from their centre-right base. And since 2017 they are even more dependent on the “blue-KIP” demographic, without whom they would have been wiped out in the last election (note how the fall in UKIP vote closely correlates with the increase in Conservative vote, particularly with the over 50s).

Cameron hoped to destroy UKIP with the EU referendum the same way he’d destroyed the Lib Dems on election reform, but he catastrophically underestimated the depth of resentment that he (and Tony Blair before him) had created against the status quo.

This is why Cameron left, because he knew it was going to be a mess, but it'd be worse if he didn't follow through with the promise.

It’s also reasonably common for a PM to resign when they lose on a flagship piece of legislation that they’ve staked their personal reputation on (in this case the referendum), but yes this is likely the reason. As soon as he realised that the government was going to have to work out the details of a mandate that was never about the complexity of UK / EU relations, he must have known that the writing was on the wall for whoever was the figurehead of the process.

And, by and large, he’s gotten away with it. Some people might still remember him as the hubristic fool who kicked it all off, but since then it’s been the hapless May who has been catching most of the flak for Brexit, while Cameron himself retires with a hefty pension and regular invites to give talks at business events for six-figure sums. He certainly hasn’t been tarred with the kind of enduring public hate that, say, Thatcher was for gutting UK industry, or Blair was for the Iraq War.

[Mechelle]

We have had something of a troubling craze of right-wing Brexit politicians being covered in milkshakes recently. This has happened to 'Tommy Robinson', Carl Benjamin and now Nigel Farage. Carl Benjamin is the UKIP candidate and social media provocateur who joked about raping Labour MP Jess Phillips.

Farage doesn't seem so bad, now, compared to the other two (and I am sure he finds it advantageous when there are more extreme candidates against whom he contrast himself), although I can't forget his own remarks about picking up a rifle, nor the fact that a vote for the Brexit Party in my constituency would elect a former Revolutionary Communist who has refused to condemn the political violence of the IRA. Strange times, especially when former deputy Prime Minister Michael Heseltine (very much pro-EU) has been denied the whip in the House of Lords by the Conservative Party as he says he cannot vote for them in this election. David Cameron, meanwhile, is set to produce his memoirs, and seems quite oblivious to this crisis which he caused, then walked away from.

Anyway, what I was meaning to say, before going off on a tangent, was that I hoped that anyone reading this, reagrdles of which side you are on, would agree that this milkshaking should stop, or it will escalate - we had one assassination in the last referendum and really don't want another.

[gaggedLouise]

We have had something of a troubling craze of right-wing Brexit politicians being covered in milkshakes recently. This has happened to 'Tommy Robinson', Carl Benjamin and now Nigel Farage. Carl Benjamin is the UKIP candidate and social media provocateur who joked about raping Labour MP Jess Phillips.

Farage doesn't seem so bad, now, compared to the other two (and I am sure he finds it advantageous when there are more extreme candidates against whom he contrast himself), although I can't forget his own remarks about picking up a rifle, nor the fact that a vote for the Brexit Party in my constituency would elect a former Revolutionary Communist who has refused to condemn the political violence of the IRA. Strange times, especially when former deputy Prime Minister Michael Heseltine (very much pro-EU) has been denied the whip in the House of Lords by the Conservative Party as he says he cannot vote for them in this election. David Cameron, meanwhile, is set to produce his memoirs, and seems quite oblivious to this crisis which he caused, then walked away from.

Anyway, what I was meaning to say, before going off on a tangent, was that I hoped that anyone reading this, reagrdles of which side you are on, would agree that this milkshaking should stop, or it will escalate - we had one assassination in the last referendum and really don't want another.

Yeah, there was an article on CNN (I think) about how when Farage was to hold an election meeting in a square in Edinburgh, the police motioned the McDonald's at said square to stop selling milk-shakes and ice-cream for the day, so that people wouldn't walk in, buy the refreshments and then run out to toss them at Farage. I'll admit I thought that was a weirdly funny story because it was so absurd, but the cops clearly had reasons to take this step. 

[SidheLady]

I think it needs to stop, reguardless of the side it's done to, because it will begin to escalate and soon enough, we wont be able to stop it.

Also, Tommy Robinson had bricks thrown at him

[Mechelle]

Burger King announced at the same time that they were still selling milkshakes in an odd publicity stunt or to show that they were 'woke'.

As I say, I agree with Sidhe Lady that it should stop; I hadn't heard about 'Robinson' having bricks thrown at him.

[Kitteredge]

To paraphrase Malcolm X, the ballot or the milkshake...?

[Sara Nilsson]

https://splinternews.com/this-is-the-greatest-thing-happening-in-politics-today-1834888289

I don't know. I think the whole.. it is going to escalate is too similar to the slippery slope argument people always make. And it is rarely an ok argument to make.

[Oniya]

But do the milkshakes bring all the boys from the Yard?

(I am a very, very weak person...)

[gaggedLouise]

But do the milkshakes bring all the boys from the Yard?

(I am a very, very weak person...)

...or do they bring all the noise to Farage?

I've seen a couple of milkshake puns already underneath Youtube videos of the splash attack on Nigel Farage.

[Mechelle]

Somebody has now been rightly charged with common assault for milkshaking (if that's a verb) Farage. I am glad I condemned the assault along with Sidhe Lady, and most people in general, yesterday, as I can't be charged with hypocrisy. The same can't be said of Farage and co. though, as, just the day before, his leave.eu campaign had produced a "funny" video which includes Farage and Widdicombe throwing drinks over people!

https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/status/1130051947925577728

Politicians' reaction to this sort of assault can be telling. Some years ago, John Prescott simply punched his attacker. Ed Miliband laughed and made a joke of it. Jeremy Corbyn didn't seem to do anything. 'Tommy Robinson's' supporters attacked the culprit, while Nigel Farage blamed his staff and left.

In other news, Theresa May made an important speech to try and get her EU withdrawal bill through, possibly allowing for a second referendum, but it all seemed to fall apart within an hour...

[Silk]

https://splinternews.com/this-is-the-greatest-thing-happening-in-politics-today-1834888289

I don't know. I think the whole.. it is going to escalate is too similar to the slippery slope argument people always make. And it is rarely an ok argument to make.

Regardless of the odds of it "might" escalating, the notion that it might escalate is enough to warrant some concern. Especially since the UK not only has a bit of a recent trend with attacks on politicians, but also things such as acid attacks. Could result in someone coming down with a cup of acid hidden inside a milkshake cup for example. Might just be some work I do in security making me think that way but it's always a constant escalation of warfare regarding that sort of thing. You always need to think about what will be tried next.

[Mechelle]

I do agree, and am worried by the aggressive language used by politicians such as Farage and his supporters' video, as I mentioned in my earlier post. I am sure there has been similar intemperate language from other sid,but he sticks in my mind.

Today, there appeared to be a half-attempt at a coup by Conservative cabinet members  to dethrone May, but it also seemed  to end up with Brexiter Andrea Leadsom (Leader of the House) resigning. All on the day before the European election, displaying the dysfunctionality of this party.

[Mechelle]

"From other sid" should have read "from the other side." Cursed predictive text!

[gaggedLouise]

Today is MAYDAY for May. After Andrea Leadsom left the government - the 36th minister to exit since May was sworn in! - she is facing near-open rebellion both from within her circle and from the wider party. Several ministers have told the BBC they told May she can't stay on any longer.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48374841

What an irony if Trump arrives for his state visit just a week after May had to leave and with parliament in meltdown...