Brexit - general discussion thread

Yeah. A large number of Leavers voted for a deal that would, as you put it, “Give everyone a unicorn”. They may not have been quite so explicit about it, but that’s definitely what happened. They voted for something they couldn’t get, and now at least some people have wised up to this.

What really pisses me off is people like this asshole.

A no-deal Brexit is predicted to cause a severe economic shock and shortages of food, fuel, and medical supplies. “I am perfectly prepared to accept there will be some friction and bumps,” Jenkin said. Arch-Brexiteers see leaving the E.U as a moment of national rebirth, in which Britain can find its way back to a path that it abandoned at the end of the Cold War, when Margaret Thatcher fell. There is bound to be some pain along the way. With this in mind, they find it almost impossible to talk about Brexit without referring to the country’s previous military or moral successes.

Bernard Jenkin is a tory MP. Regardless of how well or poorly Brexit goes, odds are very good that this rich white guy is going to be just fine. Absolute worst case scenario is that Brexit is such a disaster that he gets voted out (imagine that - leavers having an epiphany like that), and then he’s still a moderately wealthy white guy. Of course he’s not worried about “friction and bumps”, the bourgeoisie prick.

How can you say that the situation hasn’t changed?

The situation when the referendum happened was that people were promised a relatively easy process, few downsides and that we’d be better off as other countries would be queuing up to trade with us.

The situation now is that the best case scenario (May’s deal) has few benefits, leaves us worse off, and due to the Good Friday agreement, leaves us still partially linked to the EU but with no say in it’s rules. Also most countries have said that a trade deal would have to come with some sort of immigration deal, which is the main thing that Leavers are against. Worst case scenario is that we crash out and wreck our economy for the next 10 years.

If people are as adamant about leaving as you say, then a second referendum would reinforce that, but if they have changed their minds why should they not have the option to change their vote. People who voted in the 2015 election were given the chance to change their minds in the 2017 election (and many did) because the situation had changed and more information was available. The only people against this are the hardcore leavers who are afraid the public has turned against them, and that they won’t get what they want.

May seems to have staked everything on the Withdrawal Agreement as it stands. I suspect she will try to buy the votes of the DUP (how much did it cost last time?) She seems to be campaigning by appealing to the Tory party members rather than the MPs hoping that they will influence the way they vote.

I am wondering how these forthcoming votes are going to work. I guess there will be a series of proposals for amendments to a Bill?

When will the battle be lost and won?

Hold the front page! Politicians make promises of ease! News at 11!

Both sides made many statements. Remember the threats of global financial collapse and WW3? Remain were caught out in too many obvious lies. The Leave side presented no plans for Leave - that was their genius as they knew they’d fall out immediately after the vote. Indeed they learnt from the SNP who did present comprehensive plans only to have umpteen holes poked in their plans.

But what the UK public could see was the poor deal the UK got from the EU and the contempt in which the EU and UK elites held the UK public. And the British public reacted.

this is exactly why his arguments and using rhetoric like respecting democracy are completely incoherent and illogical.

There is no “democracy logic” against a 2nd consultation, in fact there is every logic for it.

It is only the Soviet Style People’s Republic “democracy” logic that is against it.

It is certainly an article of the one true faith for the English Brexiters - you keep asserting this, but like your comment about Cameron and the pat on the head, it does not stand up to any logical analysis (as a poster you never replied to responded on that last point, in fact the UK got most of what Cameron wanted - it is only in a logic of Totalitarian results that one can say the UK has not gotten very good deals out of the EU).

the contempt… it seems to me in fact it is a certain kind of xenophobic english that has the contempt for all the things foreign and thus EU which they fear and hate for some reason.

Oh come on. It’s one thing to overpromise somewhat. If the promise had been what it was and the reality had been, “Okay, we’re not getting all of what we want, but we’re getting most of it, and we’ll have to pay more for German cars or French wine”, your statement would make some sense. But… that’s not what happened. Instead, the UK was promised an end to european immigration, more money for the sick, and more independence for Britain outside of the stuffy EU system. And they got…

…fucked. They got fucked. That’s the long and short of it. This isn’t simply “overpromising”, this is promising a moonshot and delivering a trip down to the local Tesco in your mom’s minivan which then loses a wheel and careens into a ditch.

And the funniest part was, this really wasn’t hard to see coming. It didn’t take an “expert” (although the experts were pretty much on point with this) to realize that unilaterally abandoning a trade union that makes up your largest market for all of your most important exports and imports is a really fucking stupid idea! Especially when those imports include things which are literally necessary for survival - medicine, food, etc.

I don’t remember the threats of World War 3. I remember mostly level-headed experts warning that this would be bad for the economy and that Britain has zero leverage against the EU and that the financial sector would leave Britain if it can’t trade with the EU. Y’know, stuff that’s actually happening. There were some exaggerations, sure - find a large enough crowd and you can nutpick whatever you want. But we don’t have to nutpick to find the dishonesty or insanity on the leave side - their leading argument, slapped on the side of a fucking bus, was an intentional lie; a promise memory-holed the moment the vote ended.

Honestly, when you start saying that remain was caught in too many obvious lies, and then follow that up with this:

…Well, I have to wonder if there isn’t some cognitive dissonance here.

Also, waitaminute - don’t you support these people? Because to me, this reads as an incredibly damning condemnation - “Yeah, they lied and shirked on the details about what they wanted, because they knew if they didn’t, people would point out the numerous serious problems involved and they wouldn’t get support.” Yeah, no, that’s a really bad thing. You’re essentially bragging about how clever the people who swindled you were. (Which is also silly because they weren’t particularly clever, either!)

Ah yes. How did the leavers put it? “Britain has had enough of experts.” Such a shitty, anti-intellectual statement. There’s little reason to believe that the EU and UK elites held the UK public in contempt in any meaningful way, mind you (although idiots who want to consider themselves important are very quick to believe this chestnut, making it a populist standby - and I say populist in the most derogatory way possible). If they weren’t contemptful before, I bet they are now, and rightfully so!

This version of events paints the leavers in entirely too kind of a light. “They saw the poor deal” - but the deal wasn’t poor. It wasn’t a bad deal to begin with, and it’s definitely a better deal than whatever the UK is going to get after Brexit. You admit it yourself - they didn’t put forward an actual Brexit plan because no such plan would have survived scrutiny. This, to me, is proof positive that Brexit is, was, and always has been a terrible fucking idea! It also means it’s absolutely no surprise that, years down the road, Britain is struggling to cut any deal with the trade union they just left (that holds all the cards, as predicted), in large part because any deal that isn’t a catastrophic “hard brexit” comes with conditions set by the aforementioned trade union about things like immigration.

The kindest thing I can say about leavers (i.e. “this is how I explain their insanely irrational actions without just calling them evil racists and calling it a day”) is that they were fooled by propaganda and didn’t stop to think or consult the experts on what might happen if the UK left the EU. (At this point I feel I’d be remiss to not at least mention the different types of brexiteers.) That’s the nicest thing I have on offer, because Brexit was always a fucking terrible idea. And if it were possible to short a country on the stock market, I feel like that would be an easy and obvious investment to make. Brexit is like Trump’s tariffs: a massive and stupid self-destructive own goal where the best possible scenario is “only slightly worse” and the worst possible scenario is “massive catastrophe”, depending on how badly it’s handled - and how well they’ve been handled thus far does not inspire confidence.

On your part, because:

As I’ve repeatedly said, Brexit is a decision I respect. That does not mean like. The UK has made a democratic decision to leave. So leave we shall. And you’re right, I am damning them, but I’m damning Remain even more.

Look, let me give an example closer to my home: up until 2015 we had an excellent MP, Dame Anne Begg, and I voted for her in 2015. She was defeated in the 2015 election by the SNP candidate. I didn’t rant and rave and demand a new election. Instead I wrote to Dame Anne thanking her for having been my MP and asking her to stand the next time around. And I got a very nice letter back in which she declined.

It’s a long shot, but it doesn’t seem to have received much coverage so far:

Brexit: High Court to rule if referendum vote ‘void’ as early as Christmas after Arron Banks investigation

Potentially dramatic, but I’d ratchet back the tension-building background music. For one thing, his was only one campaign organisation, and not the official Leave campaign. For another, would it not have to be proven that his campaign’s financing shenanigans had a significant effect on the outcome?

But your “damnation” of Leave involves a lot of excuses for their serious flaws while your damnation of Remain involves spectacular levels of exaggeration. You say you “remember” “threats of global financial collapse and WW3”. Who was making those statements? Can you provide any cites for them? Certainly there were claims of a massive hit to the London and European financial markets, and that’s still a very likely possibility. Certainly Brexit is already stirring up sectarian tensions in Northern Ireland again. But WW3? I’d like to see a citation for that.

And what were these “too many obvious lies” the Remain campaign were “caught” in? I personally remember you and other Leavers claiming that various Remain statements were lies, but most of them have held up pretty well in the post-referendum, pre-Brexit world.

Meanwhile the Leave campaign went around with a massive lie printed on the side of their goddamn bus, and continued to repeat this lie even in the face of contrary evidence right up to the morning after the election. They promised the government would make up the difference for any area that had been receiving EU funding (a lie). They claimed there would be no free movement of workers into the UK, that the EU need the UK more than the UK needs the EU trade-wise, that businesses wouldn’t leave (lie, lie, lie). Hell, they claimed that there would be millions of Turks flooding NHS hospitals and foreign rape gangs roaming the street of our neighbourhoods if we Remained in the EU (not so much lies as paranoid delusions).

So come on, Quartz - show us these “lies” that the Remain campaign were caught out in that were somehow worse than the massive steaming pile of shit the Leave campaign sold us. Or admit that you’re not remotely objective on this subject and never have been.

That’s lovely but has fuck-all to do with the umpteen ways BPC just took apart your argument.

Why should we take Quartz seriously on these things when he’s already made a fool of himself with ignorant statements about fishing?

He claims he was a Remain supporter but now ‘respects’ the vote, but I haven’t seen a fibre of remain reasoning in his posts. No remorse, no ‘it’s sad, but it has to happen’. It’s all gung-ho, as rabid as the most rabbit brexiter.

Sometimes I feel a Pitting is coming on.

Here is Cameron claiming Brexit could cause war.

Here is Cameron being interviewed by Faisal Islam on Sky being asked about global financial collapse and WW3.

Because I haven’t made ignorant statements about fishing. You should look upthread and remind yourself. Locals here are seriously concerned. Fishing was, in fact, a key part of May’s speech - at which I was present - when she campaigned hereabouts.

Well sure. But as an outsider looking in, this has “save face” written all over it.

Do remind the Dope of all the wonderful things I’ve said about a post-Brexit future.

the claim is as believable as his characterizations of the UE negotiations and similar.

A well know balanced journal, the UK tabloid the Mirror… but it seems to me of the similar accuracy as the earlier characterization you shared about the results achieved as pat on the head from the UE negotiations by him…

If you’ve got nothing positive to say about it, why do you insist on it being honoured for reasons of democracy, when the sheer impossibility of achieving it in the way sold at the referendum makes it not a democratic imperative?

Just a page or so over, dude, when you implied military ships could be used to enforce the maritime border.

Yes, fishing is important to some. But, frankly, I object to holding the country hostage to a niche industry that thinks brexit will solve it’s problems. For this specific reason, fuck fishermen and fuck the delusions they bought into.

Now, do I think fishermen are hard done by, and need support? Absolutely. But the solutions are found in Westminster, and the fact that it’s been Westminster - not the EU - that’s screwed them over for decades. Like in so many cases, those responsible have used the EU as a convenient scapegoat while they pick the pockets of the poor.

For the umpteenth time, we get to vote again every few years. When a politician lies to you you can choose to vote differently next time. You aren’t stuck with that politician for the rest of time.

First of all, we haven’t left yet but already many large companies have announced plans to move, customs problems aren’t being sold, and the country is having to stockpile food and medicine. “Global financial collapse” is an exaggeration (if indeed that’s what was said), but certainly devastation to the UK economy.

As for “WW3”, if you actually read\watched your own cites you’d see that Cameron doesnt claim we’ll have World War Three, but rather that the EU was formed to improve relations between countries, and that leaving would make us less secure. Again, the immediate danger was exaggerated, but one look at Russia’s actions since Brexit show that he wasn’t wrong.

Bollocks. While some hardcore Leavers may have wanted “No Deal” all along, most of the public had been sold a “Norway style” deal. [Open Britain Exposes All The Times Brexiters Promised We Wouldn't Leave The Single Market | HuffPost UK Politics](Heres a video ) showing many Leavers, both from the official campaign and the likes of Farage, stating that it would be the only sensible way to leave. Strangely as soon as the referendum results came out they all changed their mind and decided leave meant “No Deal”.

What was this “poor deal” the EU gave us. We had a better deal than any other country. Do you have any cites for the EU holding the public in contempt? The Conservatives quite clearly do, but the EU not so much. Unless you think saying no to us occaisionally is some sort of insult.

Of course you were asked earlier why Cameron’s negotiations pre-ref were a failure, and you provided a cite showing how successful he’d been, so I’m not expecting a coherant answer.

Why?

To both statements, really. Seriously.

What does it mean for you to “respect” a decision? To acknowledge that it happened? That makes sense, that’s just living in reality. To acknowledge that the people who voted against you have legitimate point? Err… No. The people who voted against you fell for stupid propaganda and voted for a very bad idea. Do you “respect” your friend’s decision to jump into the pool from the third story roof after the 10th beer? I fucking wouldn’t, I’ll tell you that much.

And how the hell is “remain” somehow more damnable in this? “Leave” has started a process it has no idea how to stop and which will suck no matter what. “Remain” didn’t want any of this shit.

Okay. Now imagine for a moment that she didn’t lose to an SNP candidate, but rather a BNP candidate. Would you still “respect” that decision? Or would you shake your head and wonder how in god’s name your neighborhood ended up full of nazis?