Brexit

[Observe]

I wonder what would happen if Brexit was put up for vote again? Is this a possibility? Do you think the interest in leaving EU has faded?

[Antilogic]

Polling projects remain victory in that case currently.

[Stars_InTheirEyes]

I sympathise with May, to a degree. She's been given the impossible task of negotiating a deal which leaves Britain in a better position than it was before and thus appease most parties. The problem is that such a deal is a dream and nothing more.

There's still time for the UK to wake-up from this self-inflicted nightmare. Those who started pouring the gasoline have long since been paid off and run into hiding/obscurity, their job done. I maintain some small glimmer of hope that people will start seeing sense.

[Mightysword]

There's still time for the UK to wake-up from this self-inflicted nightmare.

Is it even possible for you to wake up at this point? I think either way, you either gonna sleep in that nightmare for a while, or wake up with a headache big enough that'll make that nightmare seems preferable.

Those who started pouring the gasoline have long since been paid off and run into hiding/obscurity, their job done. I maintain some small glimmer of hope that people will start seeing sense.

I don't think it's that simple. There are already enough people talking about why a bad Brexit is bad and a hard Brexit is even worse so I won't add to that. But even if you guys call for a 2nd referendum, what would happen? I see at least two problems with that:

- From what I understand, the UK has been traditionally give some kind of special status within the EU and have some leverage in negotiation. But if you decide to walk back, while the EU may be smiling and say "welcome back bro", I doubt in the ruthlessness of politic all with be forgiven and forgotten. At least I think for a long while, the UK will not have the same voice and weight it has on the negotiation table. I had always thought walking the line of "one foot in and one foot out" had given the UK an advantage, with certain decree of appeasement to keep you in. But if they now recognize the UK has no mentality to actually leave, it will make no sense to keep those accommodations in place from the bloc's POV.

- But that's not even the worst problem, what about the UK's Constitution moving forward if you walk back now? From what I understand the referendum had one of the largest if not the largest turn out of voters, what will be the implication going forward? Sure, you may argue the result was based on a campaign of lie ... but that's nothing news in modern politic, lookup and look around and you see that's the norm. But scrapping the result of a legitimate vote with a historical turnout under no legal basic because it's inconvenience? Pretty sure that will be a first, at least among stable democracies. Internationally the UK will lose its voice for a foreseeable future, because even a dictator can point at this and say "you just did that so you have no right to lecture us!". Domestically it'll probably be even a bigger shitstorm. I don't think the result of a second referendum will be even matter. If the leave camp projects that they will certainly lose, they can just decide to boycott and stay home. So even if the result is a 90% to 10%, while that may give some legal basic for the government to scrap the process of leaving, everyone with an iota of common sense will know that's not even the point, since the result will have no democratic legitimacy. When that happens ... good luck with your future elections or voting of any kind.

Ironically the ideal scenario given what already happens is the UK able to negotiate a nice exit deal, the kind that the like of Boris is talking about. But then anyone with a little of common sense know fat chance that gonna happen. The EU will naturally see that as the worst outcome because it'll incentive other to leave (the UK is hardly the only one wanted to leave). But like someone said ealier you can't blame the EU for this, the UK basically paints a bullseye on its back while holding up a sight saying "SHOOT ME IF YOU DARE!", the EU just obliged and pulled the trigger.

[Bishop149]

From what I understand, the UK has been traditionally give some kind of special status within the EU and have some leverage in negotiation. But if you decide to walk back, while the EU may be smiling and say "welcome back bro", I doubt in the ruthlessness of politic all with be forgiven and forgotten. At least I think for a long while, the UK will not have the same voice and weight it has on the negotiation table. I had always thought walking the line of "one foot in and one foot out" had given the UK an advantage, with certain decree of appeasement to keep you in. But if they now recognize the UK has no mentality to actually leave, it will make no sense to keep those accommodations in place from the bloc's POV.

I don't think this would be a problem, at least not right away
The EU's court has ruled that the UK can revoke article 50 unilaterally. If that happens then everything will simply default back to exactly where we were before this whole sorry mess started, at least initially.
However you are probably right that the UK's reputation is Europe will have been badly damaged and I can't see them being particularly happy if we start acting all "we're special!" again. I'd expect the following years would see much politicking with the objective of making Britain fall more in line a regular EU member

- But that's not even the worst problem, what about the UK's Constitution moving forward if you walk back now? From what I understand the referendum had one of the largest if not the largest turn out of voters, what will be the implication going forward? Sure, you may argue the result was based on a campaign of lie ... but that's nothing news in modern politic, lookup and look around and you see that's the norm. But scrapping the result of a legitimate vote with a historical turnout under no legal basic because it's inconvenience? Pretty sure that will be a first, at least among stable democracies. Internationally the UK will lose its voice for a foreseeable future, because even a dictator can point at this and say "you just did that so you have no right to lecture us!". Domestically it'll probably be even a bigger shitstorm. I don't think the result of a second referendum will be even matter. If the leave camp projects that they will certainly lose, they can just decide to boycott and stay home. So even if the result is a 90% to 10%, while that may give some legal basic for the government to scrap the process of leaving, everyone with an iota of common sense will know that's not even the point, since the result will have no democratic legitimacy. When that happens ... good luck with your future elections or voting of any kind.

Firstly we don't have a written constitution which is at least part of the reason why we're in such a mess. If we had one maybe it would have contained sensible rules about how and when referenda should be run.
Parliament has the power to ignore the vote, it had no legal power and was only ever "advisory", however you are right that if they did that at this stage we'd most definitely have a constitutional crisis on our hands.
If we had another referendum and went the other way they could then simply cancel brexit without causing any major constitutional problems.
We have a long tradition in this country of just completely ignoring the views of those that refuse to vote out of protest (one of many flaws in our democracy), I don't see that this would be any different.
There would be much braying and yelling, it would kill the careers of some politicians stone dead and probably screw the conservative party at the polls for years to come* . . . . . but no more than they deserve for foisting this disaster on us in the first place and then playing internal party politics with it.

*This in my opinion is probably the only reason they haven't called one.
They're torn, on the one hand if Brexit happens they will have initiated, delivered and presided over the biggest economic disaster since the war and 48% of the country will never forgive them for it.
A second referendum gives them a way out from that, but then a majority of their own voter base will see this as the worst possible betrayal and never vote for them again.
They're f***ed.

[JSDD]

I wonder what would happen if Brexit was put up for vote again? Is this a possibility? Do you think the interest in leaving EU has faded?

england wants to leave
scotland wants to stay
the percentages may differ, but the results would likely be the same as before ...

[Observe]

I wonder what would happen if Brexit was put up for vote again? Is this a possibility? Do you think the interest in leaving EU has faded?

england wants to leave
scotland wants to stay
the percentages may differ, but the results would likely be the same as before ...

I apologize, I have little understanding about Brexit, or the history of the EU. I do wonder however, if this is the beginning of the end of the EU altogether? Given the rising popularity of right-leaning conservatism in several EU countries, I wonder how long before the last person turns off the EU lights?

[Observe]

[EDIT] Double-posted for some reason. Deleted.

[Chips]

I wonder what would happen if Brexit was put up for vote again? Is this a possibility? Do you think the interest in leaving EU has faded?

england wants to leave
scotland wants to stay
the percentages may differ, but the results would likely be the same as before ...

Erm, that's not necessarily accurate.

The results were revealed on Channel 4 in a live debate show, Brexit: What the Nation Really Thinks, on Monday.

Analysis carried out by the polling company showed that 105 council areas that voted Leave in 2016 would now vote Remain.

https://www.channel4.com/news/major-new ... rds-remain

You could, of course, question whether 20,000 is a sufficient number (as well as online polling).


As for Brexit and it's current state, I gave up wasting emotions on it a fair while back.

[Morkonan]

I found a pic of Brexit negotiations...


(Sorry for "Giphy.")

...I apologize, I have little understanding about Brexit, or the history of the EU. I do wonder however, if this is the beginning of the end of the EU altogether? Given the rising popularity of right-leaning conservatism in several EU countries, I wonder how long before the last person turns off the EU lights?

I think it might give some current political movements some "justification" for wanting to leave the EU, but I think the reality might be that they're too tied up with the EU for such action. Look at what the UK is going through, right now. Anyone who suggests leaving the EU is going to have that sort of issue to deal with. And, how many Nationalist movements are in countries that may not have the leverage that the UK does? How many have benefited from their membership much more than even the UK?

It all depends on how fervent and impractical any "grass roots" Nationalism movements become. How many of them will have the facts and understand the impact of essentially handicapping themselves in some respects for a gain that isn't much more than being able to say they did it?

"YAY! We did the thing!"

"But, now stuff sucks..."

"But, we did the thing! YAY!"

Personally, I'm not in favor of a nation giving up its ability to manipulate its own currency. However, as I understand it, the UK retained much of that capability during its membership. (Corrections welcomed.) If the UK could do that, maybe it was a case that others benefited more from adopting a new standard or, perhaps, that the UK was one of the few that commanded enough economic power to retain that ability where others could not?

To me, that's the primary consideration that governs a country's consideration of EU membership "in full" with the adoption of a new standard. All the rest is basically just a bonus to me. I can't find the downsides that people are complaining about with Brexit membership and, thus, don't understand why there was a movement to leave it in the UK to begin with... I have read the "whys" put forth, of course, but they don't make a bunch of sense to me given the opportunities membership opens up. (Provided control over a nation's own currency is maintained to certain extents. It's a too strong an economic tool to ignore.)

[BugMeister]

we've been here before:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReIAna459sg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iAzIkjO3G0

Mike Harding speaks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H31p46iZqKw

Stephen Fry speaks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYonSZ8s3_o

[JSDD]

england wants to leave
scotland wants to stay
the percentages may differ, but the results would likely be the same as before ...

I apologize, I have little understanding about Brexit, or the history of the EU. I do wonder however, if this is the beginning of the end of the EU altogether? Given the rising popularity of right-leaning conservatism in several EU countries, I wonder how long before the last person turns off the EU lights?

what i meant was, the results of the previous referendum were very clear, most of englend except london wanted out, scotland on the other hand wanted to stay within the EU. i suppose a new referendum wouldnt change much ...

nothing could be better than the end of the EU. i´m saying that as a "friend" of europeans cooperation ... the EU has some serious flaws, among them the tax "evasion" problem (luxembourg, ireland and others with their race to the bottom), there is no common law or constitution that binds countries together, regarding immigration everyone just does whatever fits to them (lawlessness), no bigger plan on how to develop the EU further on which all members actually agree ... these are just a few problems.

my hope is to crush this undead zombi structure, and rebuild it from scratch like an actual state (example is of course the U.S.). whoever (= that is european country) wants to join is free to do so (i think of turkey), but has to surrender some of their sovereignty (by referendum of course) beforehand. no negotiations, no backdoor politics, nothing that can be attacked by any nigel farrage as "undemocratic" ...

but thats just my dream ...


i dont think that brexit is the beginning of the end however, without britain (of england/london), there is more room for cooperation for the rest of us ... solving the the economic problem in the south is far more critical

[CBJ]

what i meant was, the results of the previous referendum were very clear, most of englend except london wanted out, scotland on the other hand wanted to stay within the EU

Those are very blanket statements which, while accurate when it comes to the democratic result, gloss over the fact that in any one of those regions nearly half of the population voted against that result. Anyone who mentions this gets dismissed as a "remoaner" or undemocratic by people who are happy with the result, yet the people doing the dismissing are often the very same people who raise the point about certain elements of the population being disenfranchised to explain the surge in populist politics in various places around the world. Well if that's the case, then what about the thoroughly disenfranchised 73% of British people under the age of 25 who voted to remain? Sauce for the goose, and all that.

A significant proportion of the 48% who voted against this must be looking at the current shambles and shaking their heads, wondering what on earth those who voted in favour of leaving thought was going to happen. With the Irish border issue, the EU's understandably intransigent position and the fractured state of the main political parties all abundantly clear beforehand, the current situation was utterly predictable, but just like the danger of a no-deal Brexit, it was all dismissed as "fearmongering". The most ironic part of this is that it's the politicians who were the most staunch supporters of leaving, and the ones who shouted "fearmongering" the loudest, who are primarily responsible for ensuring that the worst-case scenario with the most damaging economic effects is the one that is now looking most likely to happen.

[Golden_Gonads]

I wonder what would happen if Brexit was put up for vote again? Is this a possibility? Do you think the interest in leaving EU has faded?

I think if it were to go to the vote again, the remain camp would win. I also think it would spark some pretty serious riots.

That said, if what I read a while back is right, if we were to revoke leaving now, we'd lose just about every perk the UK has garnered over the last few decades.

[felter]

Can I ask what do the pro brexiteers actually think is going to happen when we leave the EU, because reading JSDD he gives me the impression that he seems to think that everything will get better once we leave, that the EU are responsible for all bad thing that is happening in the UK and that all of those problems will just automatically disappear when we leave.

[RegisterMe]

Can I ask what do the pro brexiteers actually think is going to happen when we leave the EU, because reading JSDD he gives me the impression that he seems to think that everything will get better once we leave, that the EU are responsible for all bad thing that is happening in the UK and that all of those problems will just automatically disappear when we leave.

Good question.

[Morkonan]

...nothing could be better than the end of the EU. i´m saying that as a "friend" of europeans cooperation ... the EU has some serious flaws, among them the tax "evasion" problem (luxembourg, ireland and others with their race to the bottom), there is no common law or constitution that binds countries together, regarding immigration everyone just does whatever fits to them (lawlessness), no bigger plan on how to develop the EU further on which all members actually agree ... these are just a few problems.

I don't understand this opinion.

Admittedly, I am only A Stoopid 'Murican ™, so my opinion isn't worth as much as it is in every other area of expertise... I have no direct experience living within the bounds of the E.U.

But, it seems to me that the E.U. is a "Trade Federation" and/or an "Economic Cooperative" more than any "Union" of independent governments. (Confederacy) There are the trappings of a combined government, with shared requirements for certain laws and the movement of peoples, which touches lightly upon the sovereign control of borders. But, only lightly, being a requirement of willing members within the E.U. A truly unified "Currency" is there, but it's somewhat weakened IMO.

But, what you suggest, like "tax" issues and a "constitution that binds countries together" and issues surrounding "immigration"... These are issues of an "Empire." The E.U. isn't designed to be an Empire. It's basically designed to increase collective bargaining, reduce needless impediments to trade, streamline a lot mundane issues and act to promote certain shared values. It is not an Empire dictating citizenship rights, the collection and assignment of "taxes," the assignation of centralized power governing "all things."

In short, what I'm saying is that the E.U. does not seem intended to address some of the issues you are criticizing it for nor should it, IMO. Where these issues bear on economics, shared values, and all the things that promote what constitutes an economic bloc of power, then they're appropriate.

And, I'm not sure where the fault lies, here. Is it that the E.U., in your opinion, is trying to be something it should not be or is it that the people in the member-nations of the E.U think it is something that it is not? Or, what am I missing, here? Is there some shadowy purpose underpinning the E.U. that I am not aware of due to ignorance, willful or accidental?

my hope is to crush this undead zombi structure, and rebuild it from scratch like an actual state (example is of course the U.S.). whoever (= that is european country) wants to join is free to do so (i think of turkey), but has to surrender some of their sovereignty (by referendum of course) beforehand. no negotiations, no backdoor politics, nothing that can be attacked by any nigel farrage as "undemocratic" ...

but thats just my dream ...

You would be considered to be guilty of treason... Take care, for the night is dark and full of intelligence agencies...

i dont think that brexit is the beginning of the end however, without britain (of england/london), there is more room for cooperation for the rest of us ... solving the the economic problem in the south is far more critical

I think it's a dumb idea. I think it would have been much more advantageous for the UK to work towards more favorable policies while it had the power to do so. Now, it's clawing at the fleeting remains of E.U. influence as it fights for some crappy exit plan that it has absolutely no real authority, within E.U. law, to effect. Dumb. Dumb, dumb, dumb...

The advantage of "threat:"

"We're thinking about leaving the E.U. What will you offer us to get us to stay?"

vs

"We're leaving the E.U. What will you give us as we walk out the door?"

I wonder which question gets the response of "Go screw yourself."

[BugMeister]

I agree, change comes from within..
by leaving, we just make ourselves look stupid by criticizing the EU..
and, given the enormous toll it will take on the UK economy, can only be described as a massive dereliction of duty..

[Mightysword]

But, what you suggest, like "tax" issues and a "constitution that binds countries together" and issues surrounding "immigration"... These are issues of an "Empire." The E.U. isn't designed to be an Empire. It's basically designed to increase collective bargaining, reduce needless impediments to trade, streamline a lot mundane issues and act to promote certain shared values. It is not an Empire dictating citizenship rights, the collection and assignment of "taxes," the assignation of centralized power governing "all things."

In short, what I'm saying is that the E.U. does not seem intended to address some of the issues you are criticizing it for nor should it, IMO. Where these issues bear on economics, shared values, and all the things that promote what constitutes an economic bloc of power, then they're appropriate.

And, I'm not sure where the fault lies, here. Is it that the E.U., in your opinion, is trying to be something it should not be or is it that the people in the member-nations of the E.U think it is something that it is not? Or, what am I missing, here? Is there some shadowy purpose underpinning the E.U. that I am not aware of due to ignorance, willful or accidental?

It seems to be the case of either people want to have a cake and eat it too, or just don't want to admit the big elephant in the room. Regarding your first paragraph, the United States basically have all that, because we are a "country". But in return, each states must willfully and forcefully complies to the common rule, and it's also "enforceable". Probably not the way some will put it, but remember the last time someone tried to break away from the union they were brought back at gun point, and told not to do it again.

My mother never really believed in the Europe dream. She was an accountant and a banker, overall a pretty smart lady with a good understanding of how the economy works, and her company had a lot of dealing with European telecom companies. However, she was also living in a backwater Asian country at the time with minimal access to outside information. So things like European's politic and rule set are alien to her. Yet, her judgement was made base on one very simple reason: the EU model doesn't make an ounce of sense to her. In fact, now that I think about it, maybe because her judgement was made in ignorant of politic, it is actually an objective one from a pure economy POV. Basically, she believes that no matter how much short term benefit the EU can demonstrate, it will never sustainable long term. Without a golden-unified-enforcable rule set, cracks will destine to appear and fester. She was especially thought the idea behind the common currency is stupid. She believe you can only do something like that once you bring every member economy to the same structure and similar level, not one where eveyrone do their own thing. Look at the Greece's crisis ... it's hard to argue with her on that point.

Now I'm not saying her opinion is entirely correct of course, like I said it was one made without a lot of contextual information. But I still think it makes sense, I think each member of the EU are not willing to give up enough individually to realize the vision that they want. Everyone want to have the benefit of such a Union has to offer, but at the sametime want to selfishly keep to their own convenience (the Brexit basically is the prime example of this). "Finding a rule that can work for everyone" is a wishful and pleasant thought, but my mother said that's actually not an important priority. She said: "it's about to write a rule and make everyone follow".

[JSDD]

Can I ask what do the pro brexiteers actually think is going to happen when we leave the EU, because reading JSDD he gives me the impression that he seems to think that everything will get better once we leave, that the EU are responsible for all bad thing that is happening in the UK and that all of those problems will just automatically disappear when we leave.

Good question.

about the EU in general:
it was said that first we do the "economic union", and the "political union" will automatically follow.

Wrong.

now we have a economic "part-time union" (some have the euro, others dont), and noone really cares about deepening the political union (the right to collect taxes, build a joint army, maybe a european FBI so that we dont have to wait for americans to get the crooked FIFA boss ^^, in short: giving the EU permission to act like a country), in fact many EU countries complain about it if we want to create legislation so that the EU actually acts like a union. for example: migration, the polish dont want a single refugee, germany took a million (or more), italy has a big chunk too. waht about sharing responsibility? nope, if there´s no gain, noone participates ... the question i´m asking myself is: WTF is this union for? shouldnt we just replace it with a simple free trade agreement (like we now have with japan or so)? why the euro? it brings more problems than benefits (just take a look to south europe and their inability to devalue their own currency in order to stay competitive).
the current situation is just f***ked up, so: either improve it quite a bit, or if thats not possible (blocking members), destroy it, in order to rebuild it with those members that want a real union (maybe spain, france, germany, italy?, belgium, netherlands, ... i dont know)

about britains role in the EU:
britain is known to hold the EU back in many topics (as if we dont have any other problems to solve ^^), especially in financial regulations. it too doesnt really want to share the burden of refugees and closes its border. britain has its own currency and is better of with it instead of the euro.

why should britain leave?
--> i dont really know, but without britain, there is 1 country less that blocks deepening the EU.
--> if britain wants to leave (referendum results), then just let them ...
--> i dont care about who voted, the age structure of those who voted for remain within, and all that
--> 1 man 1 vote, no matter how old the guy is.
--> in democracy the mayority decides what happens, if thats 50.001%, so what ...

is there a benefit for britain in leaving?
--> with deal? i guess no, it will stay as it is now .. except britain has no say in the EU parliament
--> without deal? i guess no, trade will become a bit more difficult ... thats about it

=> and whats the point?
britain voted to leave. now leave! ... was is an uninformed decision? i dont know/care.