KevinC
3484
They’re not equatable. You’re right, they’re very different things. It’s more just an example of how the world is different now than it was then. Yes, everyone got along fine without the internet and people were still able to live out their lives. But now that the internet is a thing and it is embedded in the way we do things from online shopping to financial transactions to you name it, I think you will agree it’s not a trivial thing to simply unplug a country from the internet and just do without, even though we all lived fine without it before.
That’s why I brought it up in response to you saying the UK existed and did fine prior to the EU. It sure did, but that does not mean that exiting the EU – especially without a well-thought out plan on how it is all going to work – is going to be fine now that it has been part of that entity for some time. No, I don’t think leaving the EU would be nearly as disruptive as unplugging from the internet or abolishing electricity, but I think it can and likely will have some major consequences. I think this will be especially true for the next several years after a hard exit.
draxen
3485
I think my timeline would be different. Give it a few years then another referendum but I would find that acceptable. That way the original referendum result is upheld and it gives people another say. I would support that position.
Sharpe
3486
I think draxen is correct in one way in that No Deal Brexit is the outcome (of the possible outcomes in reality) that the UK voted for in 2016.
Yes, voters were lied to. Yes, there was vast propaganda and misinformation. Yes, voting for No Deal Brexit was intensely foolish. But it is, IMO what they voted for.
The referendum was on “leave the EU” versus “remain in the EU” and any reasonable voter with halfway decent critical thinking skills with even a modest knowledge of history would know there was no way that the EU would ever agree to any kind of one-sided non-reciprocal “the UK get’s to have it’s cake and eat it too” type of super-awesome-all-the sovereignty-of-going-solo-PLUS-all-the perks-of-multi-lateral-cooperation fantasy deal. The voters were deceived to a large degree but that’s the problem with democracy: they still voted for it and now IMO they need to own that.
Second, from a legalistic “legislative interpretation” standpoint, the correct interpretation of the “leave” versus “remain” referendum question is that, since the terms of the question did not include any deal, the plan language of the referendum includes No-Deal Brexit. In fact, a truly hardcore legalistic interpretation is that only No Deal Brexit would satisfy the wording of the referendum (which is a big reason why May is such as idiot).
Note, I am not advocating for No Deal Brexit; I hate the idea and would never have voted for it, or for “leave”. But I do think that, sadly, this is what the idiot voters of the UK, using their sovereign democratic power, in all their laughable foolishness, voted for.
So let them bear the burdens of the natural and foreseeable consequences of their voting actions.
I mean, sure, if sanity prevails and article 50 is revoked I’m all for that, but I don’t think that’s going to happen, which means No Deal Brexit is coming. And it was IMO pretty much inevitable.
Troy to Vietnam to Brexit. So nuts.
I think a decision can either be democratic or unchangeable, but not both. If the country cannot change its mind - either through MPs, or another vote - it’s no longer a democracy.
Catching up with the news this morning, I actually find myself feeling grudging respect for May’s negotiating skills. She’s had to play a long game, and make herself look ridiculous time after time, but it seems like she could actually succeed in bullying together a coalition of MPs who feel obliged to hold their noses and vote for her deal as the least bad option. (Unless the Speaker decides it’s breaking the rules of the House to present the same motion for a third time. Which would be super-interesting, but is it really likely?)
On the one hand, ERG members are now showing signs of preferring a yes vote to May’s deal over the possibility of an extension. On the other hand, anyone who voted against her deal because they wanted something better (customs union, EEA, 2nd referendum) might also feel like her deal is still better than the no deal that could happen by default whatever last night’s votes said.
spiffy
3491
Well, that’s it. Without the danger of No Deal, she has no leverage, so no strategy was going to work until the deadline was looming. Hence all her delays.
I think you’re correct. And - as is obvious - there are so, so many people (including 308 MPs) who still don’t grasp the consequences of Brexit. Which is perhaps not surprising, because - of course - no one can predict with certainty what is going to happen with the complexities involved in the situation and the uncertainties of the future.
That being said, there are some things which are obvious:
- Trade with EU, with which the UK runs a huge trade surplus, will suffer; there is, quite simply no way to negotiate a better trade deal than the current. Also, the UK is going to be screwed in whichever trade agreement is made. The EU has all the aces: time, expert trade negotiators, and greater economic power; and it won’t be afraid to use those muscles. The UK is going to get screwed either way, but “no deal” is the absolutely worst-case for UK trade negotiators, as it gives them zero leverage to work with.
- Industry that has the majority of its sales to the EU will relocate. That can be staved off - possibly - but the consequence of doing so would be billions of pounds of tax relief to compensate the companies for the losses they’ll take in trade duties, so either way the UK is screwed out of billions.
- The London financial services sector is going to lose out big-time. It is as strong as it is, thanks to the EU, and it will suffer irrespective of the type of Brexit; and there is literally nothing the UK can do to compensate that loss.
And all those guaranteed negatives should really be more than enough to give anyone pause.
The problem is that it’s not as obvious to people that the benefits they think they’re getting are either “maybes” or plain just don’t exist. For example, the sovereignty that @draxen thinks the UK is getting, which is just hilarious. The EU is, by a humongous margin, the UK’s biggest trading partner. Trade (esp services) require a common rule book; which means, de facto, the EU rule book. Which means UK industry will be forced to follow literally thousands of EU decrees and regulations (all the ones they already follow, plus a few extra piled on as various EU countries exploit the UK’s weakness), with the big difference post-Brexit being zero ability to influence that legislation. The UK is basically gaining sovereignty to do exactly as the EU dictates.
As Sir Rogers points out, the only thing that the UK is really gaining (and for which it is willing to throw everything else overboard), is the ability to close the UK’s borders to immigrants they don’t want.
It’s hard to understand how people look at that equation and can still think “Leave” makes any kind of sense, but it just goes to show that the world is 50% full of:
- Racists (i.e., those who think it is worth it, no matter the cost, to keep the foreigners out).
- Optimists (i.e., “it looks bad, but we survived two world wars, we’ll survive this”)
- Truthers (i.e., the alternative “I feel my facts are better than your facts” crowd).
This and @Mark_Weston’s posts are very good, thanks. And it looks like Tusk is (perhaps) trying to help May pass her deal, by signaling acceptance of a long delay; which is sure to encourage Brexiters to try to avoid any delay request.
I can’t help feeling that 4 years is nicely calculated to guarantee that there has to be a general election and a new UK government before the next deadline expires.
Banjax
3495
But you’ll be able to confirm the will of the people! Despite two years of Tory mismanagement, Walter Mitty ERG, MPs who don’t understand a representative representative democracy. I thought all Brexiteers loved the will of the people but then as i’ve been told time and time again over the l ‘I just don’t get it.’
Somebody that is having fun at the moment is John Bercow:
He may not get to go the ‘other place’ but I’m sure that there are lots of ERG MPs would currently like to see him in hell.
For those not paying close attention Mark Francois is that MP who complained he wasn’t going to be bullied by Germans as ‘my dad is bigger than your dad and he fought in WWII’ and had a staring contest with Will Self after we discovered that he couldn’t pass an 11 plus English Comprehension test.
Let’s get Farage and another batch of EU hating kippers in there, I’m sure that’s going to make the EU run better, they can team up with the liberal EU hating politicians that are sure to join and really make a mess of the whole thing.
rho21
3497
Some excellent points above.
I’d be a little less castigating about the 308 MPs. The bill they were voting against had just been amended from “don’t leave without a deal on 29th March” to “never ever leave without a deal”. Still seems a reasonable thing to vote for, but the government position was to vote it down and they were whipping (out of desperation afaict), so Tories voting for the motion were putting their jobs on the line. I’m very happy enough of them decided to approve it anyway. I’m pretty sure the unamended bill would have passed by at least 200.
Or as The Independent put it: “Theresa May planned to defeat herself, then decided not to defeat herself by defeating herself, then lost. To herself.”
Heh. A Danish news anchor talking about yesterday, basically apologized “It’s not on purpose that we’re making it this confusing, dear viewers - that’s just how it is.”
I love Sabine Weyand’s quote (EU’s deputy chief negotiator): Voting to rule out no deal, she said, was “like the Titanic voting for the iceberg to get out of the way.”
It’s fun to laugh at, but it is missing the point. Motions rejecting a “no deal” exit are Parliament expressing its wishes to her Majesty’s government, not some kind of attempt to change reality.
No, I think the point is Parliament offers no clear alternative. No deal is inevitable without some alternative, and voting against it while failing to coalesce around something else is, well, risible.
Edit: It’s of a kind with pretending that an open NI border is somehow compatible with exiting the customs union / common market, while offering no explanation of how that would work other than waving one’s hand vaguely in the direction of unspecified ‘technical’ solutions. The whole thing is an exercise in failing to come to grips with the essential problem: That Brexit is premised on false promises that can’t be met.
No, I think you’re missing the constitutional point I was making, and the nature of the communication that’s happening between Parliament and HM Government. Parliament is not negotiating with the EU, and doesn’t have an opportunity to build alternative plans or negotiating positions because in general Government sets the agenda for Parliamentary business.
Parliament is instructing the government as to what is an acceptable outcome, and it’s the government, in its negotiations with the EU, that’s being asked / told to achieve it. And we all know that the government does have options it can use to achieve that outcome (article 50 extension, withdrawal of article 50 and reconsideration, changing its own negotiating position, etc).
Your second para just seems to be more generalised anti-brexit sentiment without any relation to the point we were actually talking about.
Edit: Also, there’s the simple point that they haven’t actually finished. It’s not like they voted no to “no deal” and moved on to something else.
No, I grasp that point quite well, but think it is irrelevant to the question of whether many MPs should be mocked. Those MPs seem able to say only what they do not want (e.g. May’s deal or no deal or canceling Brexit), not what they actually do want. And there are mechanisms by which Parliament can wrest control of the agenda from the Government, which I know because people have been pointing at them for weeks, if not months. If someone has a better answer for an achievable deal than May’s deal, they are sure keeping quiet about it.
Yes, that’s fair, but the likely outcome is they’ll ask for the can to be kicked down the road a bit.
jpinard
3503
There was massive Russian interference and half the basis of getting people to vote for Brexit was lies (the red NHS bus). I don’t know how you can call it “Democracy” when the foundation of this movement was built on deceit.
