16 ms·

That sinking feeling

161 points by ttepasse 8y ago

arethuza 8y ago
Well, at least well have Tim Shipman to document whatever happens - his previous two books on the Brexit campaigns and May's troubled time as PM are outstanding: https://www.amazon.co.uk/All-Out-War-Britains-Political/dp/0008215170 https://www.amazon.co.uk/All-Out-War-Britains-Political/dp/0... https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fall-Out-Year-Political-Mayhem/dp/0008264384 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fall-Out-Year-Political-Mayhem/dp/0...
kevingadd 8y ago
Political aspects of Brexit aside, I had no idea Britain's food and fuel situation was so dire in the event of a Hard Brexit. I would have assumed they were more self-sufficient - the near-doomsday predictions coming from civil service is really sobering. It sucks that the US is contributing to this problem right now (in many ways, really). Can they disentangle themselves from this even if they manage to get the government to move in this direction? Is starting the process of exiting the EU something that can be taken back, given that it seems to not be a realistic option? I've seen differing opinions on this.
- docdeek 8y ago
  Britain is a new food importer but that’s not entirely unusual in Europe. Sweden and Finland are both somewhere around the British level of food self-sufficiency, and even big European countries like Germany are net importers (though not to the same extent as the UK). Some graphs here (a little dated): http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/06/a_map_of_farmers_in_the_u_s_and_world_.html http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/0...
- pjc50 8y ago
  > Is starting the process of exiting the EU something that can be taken back, given that it seems to not be a realistic option? Yes, if the UK government was willing to be realistic about it. It would probably have to come with a few concessions, such as an agreement not to Article 50 again for a period of time.
- smacktoward 8y ago
  Britain has been dependent on food imports for a long time, ever since the late 19th century. That’s why the U-boat threat in both World Wars was so dangerous — Germany came within an inch or two of sinking enough ships containing food and other vital import goods to starve the country out.
  - sgt101 8y ago
    This is typical of high density population centres - remember that Germany was starved out by the Royal Navy's blockade in 1918.
lozenge 8y ago
Entertaining, but realistically the UK will just get a "bad deal". Life will go on, political parties are blamed, then we get to repeat it all again because the next party to be elected does it on a platform of "renegotiating".
- kevingadd 8y ago
  The article lays out a great many potential outcomes from a bad deal, though. Even if it's not as bad as 'no deal' there are a lot of issues enumerated that would (almost) all need to be mitigated to avoid significant negative impact on the populace and the economy - and tanking the economy and harming the populace is a good way to destabilize a government.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  Realistically the UK is shaping up for no deal. Highly appealing to Rees Mogg and his tax haven based hedge fund, not so good for everyone else. No deal will mean life goes on with tariffs on many goods in either direction. As we have seen over the last two years the Foreign Office has seemingly lost everyone who has diplomatic ability. Funny, they used to be famously good at it. This is not promising for the chances of equitable trade agreements with anyone after Brexit. Life will go on but it appears it'll be a damn sight more expensive. If the next govt wants to renegotiate re-entry to the EU the terms will be much less appealing than first time around.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    It's not so much the tariffs as the customs clearance per se. Everyone seems to have forgotten that transporting goods across a border has VAT implications, and if you don't check and aren't part of the same VAT area there's a huge opportunity for "carousel fraud". And the UK is absolutely not set up to cope with customs checks on every vehicle crossing the Channel. See "operation stack". Oh, and all our international air travel agreements are part of EU membership. Unless something is agreed planes will be grounded.
    - trocadero 8y ago
losvedir 8y ago
I applaud the concrete predictions, but like all the sky-is-falling things I've read about Trump and the tariffs which haven't (yet?) come to pass, I think Stross's are over the top and business will continue as usual. We'll see, it's good he's stockpiling food and medicine since that's consistent with his worldview, but I wonder if we'll learn anything from the outcome since one of us will be very, very incorrect. The Northern Ireland bit was interesting to me. Maybe I misunderstood the tone but it seemed to me that Stross wanted a customs border between Northern Ireland and Britain, and no such border between it and Ireland? That seems bizarre to me if you think of the UK as one country, and Ireland as a different one. Or am I misreading it? If it's untenable for the borders to work that way, it seems to me Northern Ireland isn't (not "shouldn't be" but specifically "isn't") a part of the British people's nation already, and borders should be re-drawn to reflect that.
- kevingadd 8y ago
  Brexit is an entire different category from Trump. I say this as a left-leaning US resident: We're not in nearly the trouble that Britain would be in in the event of the kind of nasty outcome they could get from a bad Brexit agreement. Just northern Ireland alone is a huge risk given how nasty the Troubles were and how fragile that peace is. If you combine shattered peace (and resulting conflict/terrorism spikes) along with difficulty importing food/essentials and the natural spike in xenophobia that tends to come in times of suffering, there's a lot at risk. I think Stross's goal here is to enumerate all of the things that COULD go wrong, and provide a basic explanation of why each one could happen. It does a decent job of that even if it comes off as aggressively alarmist - the reality is that even in the event of a bad deal, not all of them would come to pass. On the other hand, more than a few of them coming to pass at once would be devastating. Just food or medicine shortages would be potentially crippling, the economy is going to suffer no matter what (which will lead to jobs losses), etc.
- arethuza 8y ago
  I don't think Charlie is saying he wants a customs border between NI and the rest of the UK - just that its an option that the DUP would never agree to. While NI is an integral part of the UK it does have an unusual status because of the Good Friday Agreement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement
alexgmcm 8y ago
As someone who emigrated from the UK to the EU, I just hope I receive my Irish passport in time...
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  On the plus side (not that there is really a plus side to this epic stupidity) many many Brits are entitled to an Irish passport.
Symmetry 8y ago
This is from an outsider to UK politics but it seems weird to me that we didn't see the Lib Dems or some other smallish party position themselves as the party of "We won't Brexit" and pick up a lot of the Remain votes?
- roywiggins 8y ago
  That's the Lib Dem position exactly, but they are currently too small to matter.
- pmlnr 8y ago
  They did. People didn't read it.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    People probably didn't trust it. Nick Clegg rather infamously signed a very public pledge to vote against increases in tuition fees[0]. Then voted for tuition fees in coalition. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/nov/12/lib-dems-tuition-fees-clegg https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/nov/12/lib-dems-tu...
- arethuza 8y ago
  Both the Lib Dems and the SNP are pretty clear about not wanting Brexit (possibly some other parties as well) - but this means nothing in the context of UK politics. Given that the current Labour leadership are quietly pro-Brexit and that there is unlikely to be an election anytime soon I don't think there is any chance of an electoral solution to this problem. https://www.libdems.org.uk/exit-brexit https://www.libdems.org.uk/exit-brexit https://www.snp.org/what_is_the_snp_plan_for_brexit https://www.snp.org/what_is_the_snp_plan_for_brexit
  - ethbro 8y ago
    Hypothetically, what's to stop one of the opposition parties from allying with the Conservatives over a watered-down Brexit? (And ignoring DUP) Or once a governing coalition is formed is it "locked in" until new elections?
api 8y ago
I've spoken to people who are cheering for these kinds of effects. An actual quote: "I hope Trump does as much damage as possible." The Trump and Brexit elections were for some people a kind of Luddite revolt -- not against technology per se but against globalization. This was a revolt by the working classes of the developed world against a globalization process that is substantially impoverishing them. I can't say I blame them much. I don't know about the UK but in the USA nobody cares. The American left looks down on the working class for their religious beliefs and hates them for their social conservatism. The American right pretends to care long enough to win an election and then goes back to pursuing policies that hollow out industry in favor of lucrative labor arbitrage profits for major corporations. This could have been avoided, but the time to avoid it was perhaps in the early 2000s. Developed nations that don't have these problems are those that have taken steps to protect (through social safety nets) and retrain those whose jobs are threatened. But here in the US and (AFIAK) UK we have made college dramatically more expensive, allowed housing and health care to inflate far beyond wages, and generally twiddled our thumbs and looked the other way. It's almost like some fraction of the US educated and wealthy classes delight in the economic impoverishment of its middle and have pursued policies designed to do exactly that. I say this because as the effects have become apparent we have doubled down on these policies. What are the victims of these policies going to do? Nobody listens to them. Nobody cares. So in the end all they're left with is political revolts that most of them from what I've read understand are likely impotent, but at least somebody is discussing it. I'm a coastal "tech elite" and I'm writing this post and I wouldn't be if Hillary had won and Brexit hadn't passed. That's democracy I guess. Edit: one more point: During the election I watched a show (Colbert I think but I'm not sure) where Trump supporters and "MAGA" were mocked by walking around and asking them when they thought America was great. None of them had a good off the cuff way to answer the question. Well here's the answer if anyone is curious: http://www.eoionline.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/productivity-versus-wages.jpg http://www.eoionline.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/productivity-... Draw a line through 1973. Before: America was great. After: America is not great. Highly skilled and educated Americans don't get the appeal of MAGA because they have been spared to a much greater extent from this divergence. I would argue they've still felt it but more through indirect means like housing hyperinflation on the coasts, but it hasn't been visceral enough to provoke an extreme response. I'm not and never was a Trump supporter but I totally get the appeal of that slogan and it's not stupid at all. It's very real.
bharam 8y ago
Any article which devolves to name calling within a few paragraphs (the Nazi stuff) lacks credibility and can safely be dismissed. It won't win anyone over and just looks like someone who is preaching to the choir.
- hudibras 8y ago
  It's called "hyperbole" and it's been a pretty standard rhetorical device for several thousand years.
  - bharam 8y ago
    Yes and when it's used in an argument it's a sign of weakness. It's similar to resorting to shouting in a verbal discussion.
jbb67 8y ago
More lies from sore losers.
- dang 8y ago
  If you keep posting unsubstantive comments to HN, we will have to ban you. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
coldtea 8y ago
>The Electoral Commission has uncovered evidence of electoral spending irregularities in the Leave.UK and Vote Leave campaigns serious enough to justify criminal investigation and possible prosecution Somehow those kinds of probes only conveniently find "irregularities" from the sides that the political elites are against... UK is supposedly a democracy (and thus such matters are to be decided by popular vote), but the pro-EU side has brought a strong TINA approach over the whole thing -- as it's not just a choice with pros and cons, that can be debated, and eventually go either way (even if it has a cost), but some kind of historical inevitability for the UK to be in the EU. And anyone against is a bad person, and/or racist, and/or baseless (if not an agent). This demonising will continue to hurt the Bremain in the UK (and the ruling classes in general) and the Democrats in the US. You cannot rule a people, or have a united country, unless you understand "how the other side lives" and their grievances. And all of that after a long period where the legitimacy of the EU was in question, the Euro in the crapper, and fiscal policies made to benefit a few big gorilla countries (if not a single one). (And after 2 decades of power elites getting their way with the Maastricht treaty, the Lisbon treaty and so on, untangling 50+ years of social protections in the process -- and after time after time, the popular vote for the EU constitution, policies and other matters has been against when it was asked for in a referendum (e.g. in France, Ireland, Spain, Italy, Greece, etc). (This is of course not a popular approach for the upper middle class, mobile, HN crowd). >On a micro scale: I'm stockpiling enough essential medicines to keep me alive for six months, and will in due course try and stockpile enough food for a couple of weeks. Rather, on a micro and macro scale: nothing much will change. The "end is coming" survivalist fantasies will be laughed at 2-3 years from now. I'm saving this post, let's check back and see who was right.
- EliRivers 8y ago
  UK is supposedly a democracy (and thus such matters are to be decided by popular vote) I disagree; that's not true at all. The UK generally does not have such matters decided by popular vote. An actual referendum is a very unusual thing in the UK.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    Well, there was the Scottish independence referendum. (Had it gone for independence, we'd still be hearing how the Scots where deluded, how the independent Scotland side had "electoral spending irregularities" and such, how they are racist and backwards, etc. Now that we hear about it again in the face of Brexit -- where Scottish independence would be interpreted as "Scotland in the EU" -- the same people would say the opposite). But I was speaking of the people voting in general, not a referendum. UK still has elections IIRC.
bilbo0s 8y ago
Just an outsider's opinion, but I think that they had a vote. They probably should not have voted "Leave", but they did. So now you have to get on with the business of implementing the will of the people. It might come out just as the author has outlined, or it might not be that bad, or it might be far worse than even the author has envisioned. The thing is, whatever the consequences and benefits are, they are consequences and benefits for which the people voted. I think as democratic stewards and public servants, the only thing you can do is implement the Brexit to the best of your ability. Even in the face of the many grave personal reservations you may hold as to the wisdom of that Brexit.
- Sniperfish 8y ago
  What good is a vote if the choices aren't honestly presented?
  - jlavine 8y ago
    What vote in any democracy has not been surrounded by misrepresentations by advocates of different sides? There was no censorship in the Brexit campaign. All sides were free to make their case for months during the campaign. There were plenty of false and misleading claims on both sides, as well as attempted debunking of these claims on the opposing sides. The Brexit debates were far more thorough, fair, and civil than anything you ever see in the US or most other democratic countries. The notion that the electorate shouldn't have been trusted to sort through all of this, and requires a set of true facts cultivated by some elite group, undermines the entire premise of democracy.
- karmajunkie 8y ago
  The problem is that it wasn't a legitimate vote, free off outside influence. The Russian troll factory was hard at work influencing the outcome of that referendum. So what's the actual will of the people?
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    You need to prove that. It hasent been.
consto 8y ago
While the article may seem alarmist, considering how little the government has achieved in the 762 days since the referendum, I too have little hope of any meaningful progress being made. We have 240 days left, little idea what the government even wants, and Theresa May is in the headlines for snatching milk from children. Not that the opposition is in much better shape. I do not know what Brexit the UK will get, but it will be a lazy, half-arsed Brexit. My prediction is either the UK will crash out entirely leaving the country in the chaos described in the article, give in to essentially all of the EU's demands in the last few days or weeks to save face, or give up entirely and call the whole thing off. When was the last time any UK government pulled of something this big this quickly? I am probably going to stockpile medicines, food, and essentials late Winter.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  > When was the last time any UK government pulled of something this big this quickly? Suez?
  - arethuza 8y ago
    And look how that turned out....
- EliRivers 8y ago
  When was the last time any UK government pulled of something this big this quickly? Operation Corporate, South Atlantic, 1982? Although a small war isn't nearly so big a deal as Brexit.
- afsina 8y ago
  Alarmist is an understatement. Especially last part sounds like delusional to me.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    I've already had the experience of "no fresh food in the shops", and it was earlier this year when we had two feet of snow. Supply chain disruption to some extent somewhere for at least a few days looks extremely likely to me. What I'm worried about is "cascade failure". So far there's been very little street violence, apart from the murder of Jo Cox. I'm worried about what might happen if, say, the Met accidentally kill someone and set off a riot at the same time as all this is happening.
TorKlingberg 8y ago
I am quite sure the author is exaggerating the risks here. But, it scares me that there are people who think you can just close the borders and everything will be fine. Worse, those people might be running the country.
Chris_Chambers 8y ago
Orange man bad.
brandmeyer 8y ago
What exactly are the EU red lines in the brexit negotiations?
- pjc50 8y ago
  Indivisibility of the four freedoms: of movement for goods, services, capital and people. The UK seems to be determined to end free movement of people, largely out of anti-slavic racism and systematic misinformation about how the system works by the press.
  - kazen44 8y ago
    breaking up the four freedoms is very unlikely, mainly because it is a foundation principle of the EU.
kzrdude 8y ago
Just because of a customs border, one doesn't have to have road blocks and controls. Seems to be an assumption, but I don't agree, one can keep an opening border anyway, even if you have customs.
- AndrewDucker 8y ago
  You need to have _something_ because otherwise you have a gateway for smuggling.
  - justinclift 8y ago
    > You need to have _something_ because otherwise you have a gateway for smuggling. How would you describe the current situation then? :)
    - detaro 8y ago
      In the current situation, there's no customs border, so what exactly would you want to avoid by "smuggling", and how would your "smuggling" differ from "I legally transport goods from here to there"?
      - justinclift 8y ago
        Yes, that was my point. :)
        detaro 8y ago
        I don't get what your point is then, sorry. That the UK should stay in the customs union?
- EliRivers 8y ago
  I think that falls foul of WTO rules. https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-what-are-the-options-for-the-irish-border-after-brexit https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-what-are-t...
ethbro 8y ago
Is "Tangerine Shitgibbon" a normal British colloquialism? All this time, and I'm still learning things about the Queen's English...
xamuel 8y ago
My sinking feeling comes from seeing democracy dying, replaced by "right answers" declared from on high. Suppose the UK held a referendum about whether RSA encryption should be legal. The voters narrowly vote to keep it legal. Suddenly the press, the universities, celebrities and think-tanks start proclaiming the voters were mis-informed. That foreign powers deceived voters to keep RSA encryption legal. That the vote should be re-held because voters have changed their minds. Suddenly, you can't post a tweet in favor of RSA encryption without a brigade shaming you and demanding you be fired. Can't you see how wrong this is?
- nicktelford 8y ago
  The chief problem with Brexit is the ambiguity of the referendum question. "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?" The problem with this is that if you interpret it literally, the outcome is to leave the European Union, but remain in the EEA (single market), potentially also the ECJ and a number of other treaties. This is why so many commentators have argued that no one really knows "what kind of Brexit" the public voted for. The question was proposed with the expectation of a Remain vote. No one expected the Leave result, and as such, hadn't planned for what that even meant, let alone actually executing on it.
  - xamuel 8y ago
    That's a very good point, thanks. But just in this thread, I see many other arguments to invalidate the vote: * Arguments that economics make Remain "right" (assuming economic considerations overrule votes; if economists proved the economic thing was to kill one half the population, does that mean that's the "right" choice?) * Arguments that since the vote, Leavers have died while Remainers have come of age. This kind of reasoning blatantly disenfranchises an entire section of demographics, and no-one sees a problem with that?? * That the margins were too close and this somehow invalidates the vote. This is "complaining about the rules of Monopoly after you've lost the game". * That the public is not qualified to vote on this question. This is insulting and highlights what I said about democracy dying. * That the result is invalidated by outside meddling. Others have already pointed out how ridiculous this is.

161 points by ttepasse 8y ago

Well, at least well have Tim Shipman to document whatever happens - his previous two books on the Brexit campaigns and May's troubled time as PM are outstanding: https://www.amazon.co.uk/All-Out-War-Britains-Political/dp/0008215170 https://www.amazon.co.uk/All-Out-War-Britains-Political/dp/0... https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fall-Out-Year-Political-Mayhem/dp/0008264384 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fall-Out-Year-Political-Mayhem/dp/0...

kevingadd 8y ago

Political aspects of Brexit aside, I had no idea Britain's food and fuel situation was so dire in the event of a Hard Brexit. I would have assumed they were more self-sufficient - the near-doomsday predictions coming from civil service is really sobering. It sucks that the US is contributing to this problem right now (in many ways, really). Can they disentangle themselves from this even if they manage to get the government to move in this direction? Is starting the process of exiting the EU something that can be taken back, given that it seems to not be a realistic option? I've seen differing opinions on this.

docdeek 8y ago
Britain is a new food importer but that’s not entirely unusual in Europe. Sweden and Finland are both somewhere around the British level of food self-sufficiency, and even big European countries like Germany are net importers (though not to the same extent as the UK). Some graphs here (a little dated): http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/06/a_map_of_farmers_in_the_u_s_and_world_.html http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/0...
pjc50 8y ago
> Is starting the process of exiting the EU something that can be taken back, given that it seems to not be a realistic option? Yes, if the UK government was willing to be realistic about it. It would probably have to come with a few concessions, such as an agreement not to Article 50 again for a period of time.
smacktoward 8y ago
Britain has been dependent on food imports for a long time, ever since the late 19th century. That’s why the U-boat threat in both World Wars was so dangerous — Germany came within an inch or two of sinking enough ships containing food and other vital import goods to starve the country out.
- sgt101 8y ago
  This is typical of high density population centres - remember that Germany was starved out by the Royal Navy's blockade in 1918.

lozenge 8y ago

Entertaining, but realistically the UK will just get a "bad deal". Life will go on, political parties are blamed, then we get to repeat it all again because the next party to be elected does it on a platform of "renegotiating".

kevingadd 8y ago
The article lays out a great many potential outcomes from a bad deal, though. Even if it's not as bad as 'no deal' there are a lot of issues enumerated that would (almost) all need to be mitigated to avoid significant negative impact on the populace and the economy - and tanking the economy and harming the populace is a good way to destabilize a government.
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Realistically the UK is shaping up for no deal. Highly appealing to Rees Mogg and his tax haven based hedge fund, not so good for everyone else. No deal will mean life goes on with tariffs on many goods in either direction. As we have seen over the last two years the Foreign Office has seemingly lost everyone who has diplomatic ability. Funny, they used to be famously good at it. This is not promising for the chances of equitable trade agreements with anyone after Brexit. Life will go on but it appears it'll be a damn sight more expensive. If the next govt wants to renegotiate re-entry to the EU the terms will be much less appealing than first time around.
- pjc50 8y ago
  It's not so much the tariffs as the customs clearance per se. Everyone seems to have forgotten that transporting goods across a border has VAT implications, and if you don't check and aren't part of the same VAT area there's a huge opportunity for "carousel fraud". And the UK is absolutely not set up to cope with customs checks on every vehicle crossing the Channel. See "operation stack". Oh, and all our international air travel agreements are part of EU membership. Unless something is agreed planes will be grounded.
  - trocadero 8y ago

losvedir 8y ago

I applaud the concrete predictions, but like all the sky-is-falling things I've read about Trump and the tariffs which haven't (yet?) come to pass, I think Stross's are over the top and business will continue as usual. We'll see, it's good he's stockpiling food and medicine since that's consistent with his worldview, but I wonder if we'll learn anything from the outcome since one of us will be very, very incorrect. The Northern Ireland bit was interesting to me. Maybe I misunderstood the tone but it seemed to me that Stross wanted a customs border between Northern Ireland and Britain, and no such border between it and Ireland? That seems bizarre to me if you think of the UK as one country, and Ireland as a different one. Or am I misreading it? If it's untenable for the borders to work that way, it seems to me Northern Ireland isn't (not "shouldn't be" but specifically "isn't") a part of the British people's nation already, and borders should be re-drawn to reflect that.

kevingadd 8y ago
Brexit is an entire different category from Trump. I say this as a left-leaning US resident: We're not in nearly the trouble that Britain would be in in the event of the kind of nasty outcome they could get from a bad Brexit agreement. Just northern Ireland alone is a huge risk given how nasty the Troubles were and how fragile that peace is. If you combine shattered peace (and resulting conflict/terrorism spikes) along with difficulty importing food/essentials and the natural spike in xenophobia that tends to come in times of suffering, there's a lot at risk. I think Stross's goal here is to enumerate all of the things that COULD go wrong, and provide a basic explanation of why each one could happen. It does a decent job of that even if it comes off as aggressively alarmist - the reality is that even in the event of a bad deal, not all of them would come to pass. On the other hand, more than a few of them coming to pass at once would be devastating. Just food or medicine shortages would be potentially crippling, the economy is going to suffer no matter what (which will lead to jobs losses), etc.
arethuza 8y ago
I don't think Charlie is saying he wants a customs border between NI and the rest of the UK - just that its an option that the DUP would never agree to. While NI is an integral part of the UK it does have an unusual status because of the Good Friday Agreement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement

alexgmcm 8y ago

As someone who emigrated from the UK to the EU, I just hope I receive my Irish passport in time...

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
On the plus side (not that there is really a plus side to this epic stupidity) many many Brits are entitled to an Irish passport.

Symmetry 8y ago

This is from an outsider to UK politics but it seems weird to me that we didn't see the Lib Dems or some other smallish party position themselves as the party of "We won't Brexit" and pick up a lot of the Remain votes?

roywiggins 8y ago
That's the Lib Dem position exactly, but they are currently too small to matter.
pmlnr 8y ago
They did. People didn't read it.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  People probably didn't trust it. Nick Clegg rather infamously signed a very public pledge to vote against increases in tuition fees[0]. Then voted for tuition fees in coalition. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/nov/12/lib-dems-tuition-fees-clegg https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/nov/12/lib-dems-tu...
arethuza 8y ago
Both the Lib Dems and the SNP are pretty clear about not wanting Brexit (possibly some other parties as well) - but this means nothing in the context of UK politics. Given that the current Labour leadership are quietly pro-Brexit and that there is unlikely to be an election anytime soon I don't think there is any chance of an electoral solution to this problem. https://www.libdems.org.uk/exit-brexit https://www.libdems.org.uk/exit-brexit https://www.snp.org/what_is_the_snp_plan_for_brexit https://www.snp.org/what_is_the_snp_plan_for_brexit
- ethbro 8y ago
  Hypothetically, what's to stop one of the opposition parties from allying with the Conservatives over a watered-down Brexit? (And ignoring DUP) Or once a governing coalition is formed is it "locked in" until new elections?

api 8y ago

I've spoken to people who are cheering for these kinds of effects. An actual quote: "I hope Trump does as much damage as possible." The Trump and Brexit elections were for some people a kind of Luddite revolt -- not against technology per se but against globalization. This was a revolt by the working classes of the developed world against a globalization process that is substantially impoverishing them. I can't say I blame them much. I don't know about the UK but in the USA nobody cares. The American left looks down on the working class for their religious beliefs and hates them for their social conservatism. The American right pretends to care long enough to win an election and then goes back to pursuing policies that hollow out industry in favor of lucrative labor arbitrage profits for major corporations. This could have been avoided, but the time to avoid it was perhaps in the early 2000s. Developed nations that don't have these problems are those that have taken steps to protect (through social safety nets) and retrain those whose jobs are threatened. But here in the US and (AFIAK) UK we have made college dramatically more expensive, allowed housing and health care to inflate far beyond wages, and generally twiddled our thumbs and looked the other way. It's almost like some fraction of the US educated and wealthy classes delight in the economic impoverishment of its middle and have pursued policies designed to do exactly that. I say this because as the effects have become apparent we have doubled down on these policies. What are the victims of these policies going to do? Nobody listens to them. Nobody cares. So in the end all they're left with is political revolts that most of them from what I've read understand are likely impotent, but at least somebody is discussing it. I'm a coastal "tech elite" and I'm writing this post and I wouldn't be if Hillary had won and Brexit hadn't passed. That's democracy I guess. Edit: one more point: During the election I watched a show (Colbert I think but I'm not sure) where Trump supporters and "MAGA" were mocked by walking around and asking them when they thought America was great. None of them had a good off the cuff way to answer the question. Well here's the answer if anyone is curious: http://www.eoionline.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/productivity-versus-wages.jpg http://www.eoionline.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/productivity-... Draw a line through 1973. Before: America was great. After: America is not great. Highly skilled and educated Americans don't get the appeal of MAGA because they have been spared to a much greater extent from this divergence. I would argue they've still felt it but more through indirect means like housing hyperinflation on the coasts, but it hasn't been visceral enough to provoke an extreme response. I'm not and never was a Trump supporter but I totally get the appeal of that slogan and it's not stupid at all. It's very real.

bharam 8y ago

Any article which devolves to name calling within a few paragraphs (the Nazi stuff) lacks credibility and can safely be dismissed. It won't win anyone over and just looks like someone who is preaching to the choir.

hudibras 8y ago
It's called "hyperbole" and it's been a pretty standard rhetorical device for several thousand years.
- bharam 8y ago
  Yes and when it's used in an argument it's a sign of weakness. It's similar to resorting to shouting in a verbal discussion.

jbb67 8y ago

More lies from sore losers.

dang 8y ago
If you keep posting unsubstantive comments to HN, we will have to ban you. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

coldtea 8y ago

>The Electoral Commission has uncovered evidence of electoral spending irregularities in the Leave.UK and Vote Leave campaigns serious enough to justify criminal investigation and possible prosecution Somehow those kinds of probes only conveniently find "irregularities" from the sides that the political elites are against... UK is supposedly a democracy (and thus such matters are to be decided by popular vote), but the pro-EU side has brought a strong TINA approach over the whole thing -- as it's not just a choice with pros and cons, that can be debated, and eventually go either way (even if it has a cost), but some kind of historical inevitability for the UK to be in the EU. And anyone against is a bad person, and/or racist, and/or baseless (if not an agent). This demonising will continue to hurt the Bremain in the UK (and the ruling classes in general) and the Democrats in the US. You cannot rule a people, or have a united country, unless you understand "how the other side lives" and their grievances. And all of that after a long period where the legitimacy of the EU was in question, the Euro in the crapper, and fiscal policies made to benefit a few big gorilla countries (if not a single one). (And after 2 decades of power elites getting their way with the Maastricht treaty, the Lisbon treaty and so on, untangling 50+ years of social protections in the process -- and after time after time, the popular vote for the EU constitution, policies and other matters has been against when it was asked for in a referendum (e.g. in France, Ireland, Spain, Italy, Greece, etc). (This is of course not a popular approach for the upper middle class, mobile, HN crowd). >On a micro scale: I'm stockpiling enough essential medicines to keep me alive for six months, and will in due course try and stockpile enough food for a couple of weeks. Rather, on a micro and macro scale: nothing much will change. The "end is coming" survivalist fantasies will be laughed at 2-3 years from now. I'm saving this post, let's check back and see who was right.

EliRivers 8y ago
UK is supposedly a democracy (and thus such matters are to be decided by popular vote) I disagree; that's not true at all. The UK generally does not have such matters decided by popular vote. An actual referendum is a very unusual thing in the UK.
- coldtea 8y ago
  Well, there was the Scottish independence referendum. (Had it gone for independence, we'd still be hearing how the Scots where deluded, how the independent Scotland side had "electoral spending irregularities" and such, how they are racist and backwards, etc. Now that we hear about it again in the face of Brexit -- where Scottish independence would be interpreted as "Scotland in the EU" -- the same people would say the opposite). But I was speaking of the people voting in general, not a referendum. UK still has elections IIRC.

bilbo0s 8y ago

Just an outsider's opinion, but I think that they had a vote. They probably should not have voted "Leave", but they did. So now you have to get on with the business of implementing the will of the people. It might come out just as the author has outlined, or it might not be that bad, or it might be far worse than even the author has envisioned. The thing is, whatever the consequences and benefits are, they are consequences and benefits for which the people voted. I think as democratic stewards and public servants, the only thing you can do is implement the Brexit to the best of your ability. Even in the face of the many grave personal reservations you may hold as to the wisdom of that Brexit.

Sniperfish 8y ago
What good is a vote if the choices aren't honestly presented?
- jlavine 8y ago
  What vote in any democracy has not been surrounded by misrepresentations by advocates of different sides? There was no censorship in the Brexit campaign. All sides were free to make their case for months during the campaign. There were plenty of false and misleading claims on both sides, as well as attempted debunking of these claims on the opposing sides. The Brexit debates were far more thorough, fair, and civil than anything you ever see in the US or most other democratic countries. The notion that the electorate shouldn't have been trusted to sort through all of this, and requires a set of true facts cultivated by some elite group, undermines the entire premise of democracy.
karmajunkie 8y ago
The problem is that it wasn't a legitimate vote, free off outside influence. The Russian troll factory was hard at work influencing the outcome of that referendum. So what's the actual will of the people?
- ThomPete 8y ago
  You need to prove that. It hasent been.

consto 8y ago

While the article may seem alarmist, considering how little the government has achieved in the 762 days since the referendum, I too have little hope of any meaningful progress being made. We have 240 days left, little idea what the government even wants, and Theresa May is in the headlines for snatching milk from children. Not that the opposition is in much better shape. I do not know what Brexit the UK will get, but it will be a lazy, half-arsed Brexit. My prediction is either the UK will crash out entirely leaving the country in the chaos described in the article, give in to essentially all of the EU's demands in the last few days or weeks to save face, or give up entirely and call the whole thing off. When was the last time any UK government pulled of something this big this quickly? I am probably going to stockpile medicines, food, and essentials late Winter.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
> When was the last time any UK government pulled of something this big this quickly? Suez?
- arethuza 8y ago
  And look how that turned out....
EliRivers 8y ago
When was the last time any UK government pulled of something this big this quickly? Operation Corporate, South Atlantic, 1982? Although a small war isn't nearly so big a deal as Brexit.
afsina 8y ago
Alarmist is an understatement. Especially last part sounds like delusional to me.
- pjc50 8y ago
  I've already had the experience of "no fresh food in the shops", and it was earlier this year when we had two feet of snow. Supply chain disruption to some extent somewhere for at least a few days looks extremely likely to me. What I'm worried about is "cascade failure". So far there's been very little street violence, apart from the murder of Jo Cox. I'm worried about what might happen if, say, the Met accidentally kill someone and set off a riot at the same time as all this is happening.

TorKlingberg 8y ago

I am quite sure the author is exaggerating the risks here. But, it scares me that there are people who think you can just close the borders and everything will be fine. Worse, those people might be running the country.

Chris_Chambers 8y ago

Orange man bad.

brandmeyer 8y ago

What exactly are the EU red lines in the brexit negotiations?

pjc50 8y ago
Indivisibility of the four freedoms: of movement for goods, services, capital and people. The UK seems to be determined to end free movement of people, largely out of anti-slavic racism and systematic misinformation about how the system works by the press.
- kazen44 8y ago
  breaking up the four freedoms is very unlikely, mainly because it is a foundation principle of the EU.

kzrdude 8y ago

Just because of a customs border, one doesn't have to have road blocks and controls. Seems to be an assumption, but I don't agree, one can keep an opening border anyway, even if you have customs.

AndrewDucker 8y ago
You need to have _something_ because otherwise you have a gateway for smuggling.
- justinclift 8y ago
  > You need to have _something_ because otherwise you have a gateway for smuggling. How would you describe the current situation then? :)
  - detaro 8y ago
    In the current situation, there's no customs border, so what exactly would you want to avoid by "smuggling", and how would your "smuggling" differ from "I legally transport goods from here to there"?
    - justinclift 8y ago
      Yes, that was my point. :)
      - detaro 8y ago
        I don't get what your point is then, sorry. That the UK should stay in the customs union?
EliRivers 8y ago
I think that falls foul of WTO rules. https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-what-are-the-options-for-the-irish-border-after-brexit https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-what-are-t...

ethbro 8y ago

Is "Tangerine Shitgibbon" a normal British colloquialism? All this time, and I'm still learning things about the Queen's English...

xamuel 8y ago

My sinking feeling comes from seeing democracy dying, replaced by "right answers" declared from on high. Suppose the UK held a referendum about whether RSA encryption should be legal. The voters narrowly vote to keep it legal. Suddenly the press, the universities, celebrities and think-tanks start proclaiming the voters were mis-informed. That foreign powers deceived voters to keep RSA encryption legal. That the vote should be re-held because voters have changed their minds. Suddenly, you can't post a tweet in favor of RSA encryption without a brigade shaming you and demanding you be fired. Can't you see how wrong this is?

nicktelford 8y ago
The chief problem with Brexit is the ambiguity of the referendum question. "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?" The problem with this is that if you interpret it literally, the outcome is to leave the European Union, but remain in the EEA (single market), potentially also the ECJ and a number of other treaties. This is why so many commentators have argued that no one really knows "what kind of Brexit" the public voted for. The question was proposed with the expectation of a Remain vote. No one expected the Leave result, and as such, hadn't planned for what that even meant, let alone actually executing on it.
- xamuel 8y ago
  That's a very good point, thanks. But just in this thread, I see many other arguments to invalidate the vote: * Arguments that economics make Remain "right" (assuming economic considerations overrule votes; if economists proved the economic thing was to kill one half the population, does that mean that's the "right" choice?) * Arguments that since the vote, Leavers have died while Remainers have come of age. This kind of reasoning blatantly disenfranchises an entire section of demographics, and no-one sees a problem with that?? * That the margins were too close and this somehow invalidates the vote. This is "complaining about the rules of Monopoly after you've lost the game". * That the public is not qualified to vote on this question. This is insulting and highlights what I said about democracy dying. * That the result is invalidated by outside meddling. Others have already pointed out how ridiculous this is.