29 ms·

The Brexit promise is something nobody can deliver on. It was a lie, you cannot force the EU to accept an unfavorable trade deal. If only for the reason that it

by yholio 8y ago

The Brexit promise is something nobody can deliver on. It was a lie, you cannot force the EU to accept an unfavorable trade deal. If only for the reason that it would set an exceptionally bad precedent and everybody would want their own deal, to pick and choose the parts of EU membership that are favorable to them, leading the EU to implode. Somebody needs to own up to that lie and accept that a "no deal" outcome, which is clearly bad, is still the best thing brexiters can actually deliver. Instead, they are trying to camouflage that reality with a bad deal that keeps Britain shackled to the EU for a number of years while losing all of the (substantial) influence it had over the way EU works. That's an anti-Brexit, the exact opposite of the independence and prosperity promised by brexiters. It was a bad deal and it's good that it failed.

fossuser 8y ago
Maybe? If you think that most of the people are actually looking at or arguing about the implementation of any specific policy (I'd suspect this is the minority). It seems more likely people are just arguing about which tribe they're a part of. In that case nobody cares about what the best outcome is or what the truth is. If you can get a brexit deal passed that still allows the UK to 'brexit' in name only, but otherwise retains all of the actual agreements of being in the EU it could be a win-win. People get to pretend they left, but it doesn't actually change anything. Without this there isn't a good outcome here short of just ignoring the referendum. I think owning the lie is a good idea, but not sure if it would work politically since someone like Nigel Farage can just come back and loudly call you a liar that can't deliver on a 'true brexit'.
- jarcane 8y ago
  Nigel Farage is a media-created bogey man, a hack to the system of “equal time”. He isn’t actually representative of anyone, even his own useless party, as polls and election results have consistently shown.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    He was an MP, is still a MEP, and cofounded a party that once commanded "major party" status and nearly 20% of the vote in 2014. He's clearly representing some folks.
    - simonbyrne 8y ago
      He has never been an MP.
      - Zhyl 8y ago
        There also wasn't an election in 2014. His party won 1 seat in 2015 and got 12.6% of the total vote. 12.6% is really high to be getting only 1 seat, but it definitely isn't 20%.
        mattmanser 8y ago
        He's talking about the MEP elections. It's been very easy to dismiss UKIP's parliamentary holding only because the UK is first past the post, had it been more representative these last few decades, we probably wouldn't be in this mess. Instead we've had two decades of Tory and Labour governments effectively sticking their fingers in their ears and going "lalalalalaaaa, we can't hear you, growth is king" when anyone mentioned the word immigration. Or talking about lower immigration targets, while at the same time the treasury was producing budget forecasts based on mass immigration continuing.
        jimnotgym 8y ago
        I have to agree that it is bizarre that the two main parties were talking all about growth while failing to acknowledge the role immigration was playing in that growth, and especially to the demographics of the workforce. Perhaps if they had been more upfront, discussing how (in a country where we are not so far away from having more retired people than workers), letting more young workers in is playing an important role in the economy. Then you hear that Teresa May herself suppressed reports that stated that the average immigrant was contributing more in terms of taxation (net) than the average Brit (for the demographic reasons above). This suggests that they were not just 'sticking their fingers in their ears', they were actively promoting an anti-immigrant agenda.
- yholio 8y ago
  Some might say that a good outcome is one where the people can freely make their own choices and accept the consequences. The plight of the British might serve as a cautionary tale informing the decisions of some other country, that's certainly a good thing in some sense. Democracy is not guaranteed to deliver prosperity or lead only to the correct decisions, yet it's the best system we have.
  - fossuser 8y ago
    What if the consequences are instability or large scale war?
    - xienze 8y ago
      Well, what if? You're essentially arguing that if our benevolent overlords decide that the democratic process might result in something unfavorable that they should do the wise thing and ignore the will of the people.
      - fossuser 8y ago
        I'm arguing in favor of representative government where elected people decide on what makes the most sense for complex issues. Relying on advice from experts, but ultimately making the call that's in the country's best interest.
        RobertoG 8y ago
        That sounds like a fantastic system, where is being implemented? I would like to move there.
        falsedan 8y ago
        It’s Switzerland.
        sievebrain 8y ago
        So far every expert prediction about Brexit had been wrong. The UK was meant to be in a deep recession by now, remember?
- InclinedPlane 8y ago
  It is not a "win-win" to allow people who vote (and make policy affecting millions of lives) based on a fantasy-ideology to continue in their fantasy.
- nostrademons 8y ago
  Maybe? I get what you're saying, but the confusion of the past 2 years of negotiations and the magnitude of this vote's failure is a pretty strong indication that it'll not be possible to 'Brexit in name only'. The nationalist side will (correctly) point out that if you're still subject to the same regulations & trade deals, you haven't actually changed anything. The EU might go for it, but would probably be like "If you're going to say that you're not part of the EU, we can't realistically give you a voice in shaping EU policy", thus leaving Britain in a worse negotiating position with respect to those trade deals. I thought that was the grandparent's point.
- eli_gottlieb 8y ago
  >It seems more likely people are just arguing about which tribe they're a part of. In that case nobody cares about what the best outcome is or what the truth is. Most of the people I see raging about it are either EU residents of the UK or people who work with EU residents of the UK. They're arguing about concrete impacts on their lives.
  - collyw 8y ago
    They are the ones who's existing rights are being taken away as a result.
- nicoburns 8y ago
  I think you've misread this one. People actually care about the outcome, and are deeply divided on what they think the best solution is. (some) Leavers even now explicitly discuss some deals as being "leaving only in name", and thus as not delivering on what they voted for.
- mikekchar 8y ago
  I don't think what you are saying is correct. Rhetoric aside, I think there are 2 main reasons for leaving: 1. greater autonomy in deciding on laws (especially wrt things like immigration policy), 2. withdrawal of the financial contribution to Europe. Many "remain" people specifically oppose these 2 reasons. They want the European oversight on laws. One of the main reasons for a European Union is to ensure that these kinds of laws are harmonised across Europe. Also, "remain" people feel that the UK actually receives more value than they pay for their European contributions. Specifically, the cost of bureaucracy is necessary to ensure that the UK has a voice in European decision making. They feel that in a "no deal" situation, Europe (being bigger and stronger) will simply dictate the conditions of every agreement. I do remote work for a UK company, though I live in Japan, so I can see this from a slightly removed position (though, please note that I've been hurt economically from the weak pound since Brexit, so I still have a vested interest!) I sympathise with the "leave" goals, but I think the "remain" camp has it right. Brexit is going to cost the UK a lot IMHO and there is no way to have a "pretend leave" that satisfies the "leave" side. The UK may have some extra autonomy after leaving, but the cost will be that they will be tossed around by Europe on virtually every front with no power to respond. Economically, it will also be extremely expensive -- something the market seems to agree with me on, given the state of the pound since the referendum.
  - jinglebells 8y ago
    > 1. greater autonomy in deciding on laws (especially wrt things like immigration policy) Which turned out to have been possible all along, Theresa May simply didn't implement the EU rules which have already existed when she was home secretary. Immigration can never be solved by leaving the EU because it was already solved. > They want the European oversight on laws. If the last two years have shown us, the UK doesn't have the technical ability to run itself, the government can't even organise leaving let alone the mammoth task of re-implementing the 500-odd trade deals they will lose.
    - mattmanser 8y ago
      Funny, I never knew there were 500 countries in the world.
- njarboe 8y ago
  The whole idea of a following the results of a non-binding referendum that 52% of the people that voted passed for such a major thing as leaving the EU seems quite strange to my American eyes. I would think something as major as joining the EU should have required a super-majority of people voting for it in and a super-majority to leave. Like a US constitutional amendment. I need to read more English history to understand how people think this is the way things should work.
  - wahern 8y ago
    Parliamentary Supremacy: Parliament has the last word on all constitutional matters, whether written or unwritten, and in any event can change any inconvenient aspects of the written constitution (e.g. historical bills and charters) with a simple majority. Historically the House of Lords provided a check on populist sentiment in the House of Commons, but the powers of the House of Lords have slowly been diminished over the past century or two (albeit with their consent, more or less; but it's a one-way street), while also making membership more "democratic" and thus more likely to express populist sentiment.
    - njarboe 8y ago
      So total power, basically, but limited by custom and decorum. If Parliament says that the majority vote on a referendum with decide what they will do, then that can be the way it is. Parliament can also change its mind afterword and not do it, but that would be unlikely as it is not the expected way of behaving.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > the powers of the House of Lords have slowly been diminished over the past century or two (albeit with their consent, more or less; but it's a one-way street) In the most key point, decidedly less: “vote to strip your powers or the monarch will create enough new peers that will vote the right way that the measure will pass anyway” isn't real consent.
  - cardinalfang 8y ago
    The details are specified in the specific Act of Parliament allowing the vote. The 1979 Scottish devolution referendum required a minimum 40% of the electorate vote Yes, so it failed, despite a 52% Yes vote, due to insufficient turnout.
- rmc 8y ago
  > If you can get a brexit deal passed that still allows the UK to 'brexit' in name only, but otherwise retains all of the actual agreements of being in the EU it could be a win-win. People get to pretend they left, but it doesn't actually change anything. I don't think that would work. All it takes is the EU to pass a law saying "all speed limits must be in kmph", or "You're not allowed sell goods in imperial units". The UK would then have to do that change, and that'd drive the Brexiters mad.
mrec 8y ago
> they are trying to camouflage that reality with a bad deal They're not, May is, and May is not a Brexiter. The Brexiters generally are pushing to leave on WTO terms, not so much as a preferred end state but in recognition of the fact that only a genuine commitment to doing so has any chance of convincing the EU to agree to sensible terms such as Canada+. If the EU can keep the UK under its thumb forever then of course it will, and it would be unreasonable to expect it to do otherwise.
- notahacker 8y ago
  It stretches credulity beyond breaking point to suggest that the UK reneging on all its existing commitments to the EU in a fit of jingoistic pique whilst suffering the consequences of not having properly prepared for that outcome is a situation likely to lead to the EU offering more favourable trading terms.
- yholio 8y ago
  There is no Canada+ on the table and there never was, it's just "Canada" without the "+": a set of trade liberalization measures that cover some physical goods and very few services. It's a bad match for Britain's needs: http://www.policyreview.co.uk/eu-uk-canada/ http://www.policyreview.co.uk/eu-uk-canada/ It's hard to understand why Germany or France, who stand to gain from excluding the powerful UK service sector from the EU financial markets, would think that adding the "plus" to a Canada type deal is a "sensible" thing. It's sensible only for the brexiteers who peddled Canada+ as a real thing. Never-mind the fact that, in order to export to the EU market, UK still needs to respect the EU regulations, like any other trade partner of the EU. Only now, they no longer have any say over those regulations.
  - mrec 8y ago
    Donald Tusk has repeatedly offered "Canada +++" to Great Britain. (Not to the United Kingdom, as part of their "we're going to annex Northern Ireland as a punishment beating" approach.) > UK still needs to respect the EU regulations WHEN EXPORTING TO THE EU, yes. The ~90% of UK businesses that don't do any trade with the EU do not. Those trading with the rest of the world outside the EU - a majority of the UK's trade, and rising steadily - do not.
petre 8y ago
A no deal is better than a bad deal.
- vixen99 8y ago
  You can't say that on HN.
  - 6nf 8y ago
    Anything remotely pro-Brexit is right out
  - rezeroed 8y ago
    Exactly. Going through this thread and voting people back up. From my multiple accounts. An excess of clueless remainers babbling in here.
hazeii 8y ago
>The Brexit promise is something nobody can deliver on.. I would - respectfully - point out that's not the situation. It is (was?) a promise in the sense that the government is there to enact the will of the people. The majority of people who voted, voted to leave (personally I was in the minority). So now (in engineering terms) it's pretty simple. If everyone sits on their hands, the UK will leave the UK as scheduled in March (and so fulfil the wish of the people). The actuality is the unedifying spectacle of lots of shuffling, muddying of the waters and lining of pockets as anyone with skin in the game scrabbles for whatever they feel is to their own advantage.
- paxys 8y ago
  Brexit itself can of course be delivered, but the larger promise sold to voters - that the country would be able to negotiate favorable trade deals, that it would directly result in increased NHS funding, that it would lead to reduced immigration without affecting free movement for workers, that customs and border control would be seamless, that European court of justice would stop having jurisdiction in UK affairs etc. - was the lie.
  - hazeii 8y ago
    Indeed; a lot of people subscribe to the view that the vote delivered the 'incorrect' result because one side was more effective at lying than the other side. Very difficult to know where to draw a line; my feeling is that even if history shows the people were wrong the government should not be allowed to (directly or indirectly) do something other than what they were elected to do - i.e. serve the people (on a plate, it seems). And I write this from the losing side (in the referendum); about the only way it could get worse if it turns I'm on the winning side in the end (cf. Boaty McBoatface; the people were asked to vote for the name of the vehicle, but the powers that be didn't like such a frivolous name so they reneged and called it the RRS Sir David Attenborough instead. The parallel should be obvious). Edit: toned down the rhetoric.
    - vkou 8y ago
      > Very difficult to know where to draw a line; my feeling is that even if history shows the people were wrong the government should not be allowed to (directly or indirectly) do something other than what they were elected to do - i.e. serve the people (on a plate, it seems). Governments do this all the time, though. Campaign promises are often just that.
mandeepj 8y ago
> you cannot force the EU to accept an unfavorable trade deal source? The deal failed inside UK parliament and not at EU.
- paganel 8y ago
  Juncker tweeted about an hour ago that “time is almost up” for the UK. That means that the EU won’t sweeten the proposed deal.
  - sparkie 8y ago
    They will make concessions. I'll put money on it. The UK leaving with no deal would be the beginning of the end of the EU. There is already growing anti-EU sentiment in Italy (4th largest economy in the block), Hungary, Austria, Poland. The UK leaving could set off a chain reaction which would either end the EU project or drastically reduce its size. The EU simply can't afford to have the UK leave completely, because any measure of success it might have as an independent nation will compel other members to take the idea seriously too.
    - jandrese 8y ago
      That sort of assumes that the UK is all hunky dory after it leaves. If it gets slammed with an immediate recession/raising unemployment/etc... then that's leverage the EU has to convince other members to stay.
      - n4r9 8y ago
        Agreed, and frankly, the whole process has been such a calamity that if I were an EU country leader I wouldn't even attempt to exit without a very strong mandate for a detailed, specific and clear process of leaving.
      - sparkie 8y ago
        That's certainly a possibility too, but do you think it's one that EU leaders are willing to bet the future of their superstate on? The UK has a lot going for it. It might not be hunky-dory immediately after leaving, but there's plenty to suggest that the UK will do just fine in the medium to long term.
philwelch 8y ago
> If only for the reason that it would set an exceptionally bad precedent and everybody would want their own deal, to pick and choose the parts of EU membership that are favorable to them, leading the EU to implode. The UK already picked and chose the parts of EU membership they wanted. They opted out of the Euro, they opted out of Schengen, they opted out of the Charter of Fundamental Rights--all of this, and more, on the threat of leaving the EU.
- hardlianotion 8y ago
  Those negotiations were not made on the basis of threatening to leave the EU. (edited for clarity)
  - philwelch 8y ago
    British Euroskepticism has been a political force for decades and the risk of a Brexit has always been an implicit source of negotiating leverage for the UK.
    - hardlianotion 8y ago
      Skepticism is a force, yes, but otherwise your claim looks very much like post-hoc reasoning. This is simply not the case.
    - stephen_g 8y ago
      I think people undersell this - I can't find the really good analysis I recall reading about this right now, but what it said was polling over the last couple of decades shows there has actually been majority support (often over 60%!) to at least reduce participation in the EU for the last 20 years. According to this other polling [1], the appetite to do a full exit has not been as high, but still close to 50/50. I think in general people are doing a massive disservice to their own understanding when they try and take a minority "fringe racist" view and try to say that is the reason for all voters of Brexit, when reality is more complex and long-term. (I say this not really having a horse in this race, never having even been to the UK and only having been to Europe a few times). 1. https://theconversation.com/polling-history-40-years-of-british-views-on-in-or-out-of-europe-61250 https://theconversation.com/polling-history-40-years-of-brit...
jpfr 8y ago
> A "no deal" outcome, which is clearly bad, is still the best thing brexiters can actually deliver. It could go much much worse than just "bad". The UK imports a lot of food from EU neighbors. In case of a hard Brexit, this will just ... stop. The question is whether all supermarkets can immediately redo their supply chains. That is not likely. Especially since the UK will loose all trade agreements with the non-EU countries as well. Because they had been made by the EU with the UK participating. Our western societies are very efficient but also very fragile. If supermarkets can no longer fill up their shelves, people go hungry fast. If supermarkets can only fill 80% of shelves, people panic and start hoarding food. Those who are too late to the party go hungry. With enough people hungry for a few days, society collapses. Like ... corpses in the streets. We know what happened when the Soviet Union went down and shelves went empty. This scenario would end a lot worse for the UK. The Soviets had massive redundancies, inefficiencies and fallbacks that could be exploited. Such as people growing potatoes in their Dachas. See the material by Dmitry Orlov on how the "soviet scenario" would play out in a western country: https://www.resilience.org/stories/2006-12-04/closing-collapse-gap-ussr-was-better-prepared-collapse-us/ https://www.resilience.org/stories/2006-12-04/closing-collap... http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2009/02/social-collapse-best-practices.html http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2009/02/social-collapse-best-p... Update: What do you think "chaos at the border" means? Everybody will try to get as much stuff over the border as possible. Everybody will work together. The EU, the UK, the US, everybody. With the best intentions. But this could still go very very bad. Every truck, train and ship has to get the papers checked where they could just drive through before. But there are not enough qualified officers to actually check all the papers. So goods will come in at a trickle. Even with the best intentions. This the UK governments own statement. Chaos at the border for six months: > Britain’s government has revised its worst-case Brexit scenario estimates for chaos at the country’s borders, which it now expects to last for six months rather than six weeks, the political editor of The Sun newspaper said. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-borders/uk-now-sees-six-months-of-border-chaos-in-no-deal-brexit-the-sun-idUSKBN1O617U https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-borders/uk-now...
- lurquer 8y ago
  Corpses in the street? The UK imports around 25% of food-related commodities from the EU. Even with no deal, these imports will continue (as the EU has to sell them to someone.) Even if the EU stopped, there would not be corpses in the street as there happens to be a very wealthy English-speaking country not too far away that happens to produce more food than any country on the planet and is more than willing to trade with the UK.
growlist 8y ago
I voted leave, and would be quite happy with no deal - and the gangsterism of the EU in the negotiations has only stiffened my resolve, and I gather there are plenty of others that feel similarly; this is one of the reasons that some remainers are scared of a second referendum - their is a chance the leave vote might actually increase, and then they'll really be up the spout because any further shenanigans on their part will make it transparently obvious that they don't give a fig about democracy.
- pas 8y ago
  > gangsterism could you explain that a bit?
  - growlist 8y ago
    The EU's plan from the start has been to make the process so painful as to dissuade anyone else from trying. Martin Selmayr was boasting that he has managed to trap the UK.
    - buttcoinslol 8y ago
      Of course, why would the EU adopt any other strategy if their goal is to keep the EU together?
      - drilldrive 8y ago
        Because their goal should be what is best for Europe, not what is best for the EU.
        Aeolun 8y ago
        Following that logic, don’t you think the UK is just a tad hypocritical? Brexit wasn’t ever any good for Europe. It was always only about the British.
        8y ago
accnumnplus1 8y ago
No. You seem very confused. Brexiters have not been doing any delivering. Brexiters want a WTO exit (aka "no deal"). The government are not brexiters - PM Theresa May is claiming her daft deal is brexit - she and a few of her supporters only - it is not what brexiters want.
pron 8y ago
> a "no deal" outcome, which is clearly bad, is still the best thing brexiters can actually deliver I don't see the logic here. The deal (let's call it D), is clearly worse than staying in the EU (let's call that option E). From that relation D < E it does not follow that no-deal (N) is better than a deal, i.e. D < N. It may well be that N < D < E. So I don't see how no-deal is the "best the brexiteers can delliver."
- Kudos 8y ago
  They said "can actually deliver", not "could technically possibly deliver".
  - pron 8y ago
    They could have actually delivered the deal had they voted in favour -- and it would have been better than no-deal -- but many leavers voted against.
- int_19h 8y ago
  It's the best deal they can deliever that's still meaningfully a Brexit (i.e. it achieves other political goals that were the reason for it in the first place).
- mr_toad 8y ago
  Because they can’t agree on D. So they end up with N. Worse, some of them seem to be deluded into thinking they can get some sort of D+ or D* or D’, even though the EU has made it clear they will not renegotiate. I believe one MP likened that scenario to the likelihood of Scarlet Johansen riding in on a unicorn.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
Your comment is highly misleading to the point that it is possibly the 'lie' you mean to make us wary of. The evidence against your comment is in plain sight: a 'deal' is on the table right now, which some on 'both sides' just happen to not want for various reasons, but it could very well have passed. The notion that there is only 'hard Brexit' or 'full EU' participation plainly not true, to even the most casual spectator, to imply such is an ugly, ideological misrepresentation of the facts, tantamount to the lie you're ostensibly loathing. The 'deal' in place, which you suggest is 'the worst of both worlds' is plainly not. That the UK would be subject to EU rules during a period of negotiation is actually not very onerous. The UK was only one voice of a couple of dozen, to mostly lose that voice for 1-3 years is not a nation 'saddled with the EU' for any degree of time. If the deal were to have been passed in Parliament - then some kind of trade negotiation would be worked out over the coming years, and then there'd be a fairly orderly Brexit: no UK in the EU, but some kind of 'decent trade deal' as some would want. The EU has made things difficult in purpose, because they definitely don't want people thinking of leaving their club on purpose. There is ample evidence of this, but I can point to one suitable clause in the current 'deal' in the table, which is that that the UK would not be able to exit the EU without permission of the EU itself, which is utterly unacceptable. It's a small but important clause, that should not be there. This small clause has been enough to throw some Brexit Tories against the deal. This small issue - in addition to the weirdly intractable problem of the 'Irish Border' and it's related backstop, is enough to make it 'hard'. Without that clause, and without the Ireland border weirdness ... the deal in place would probably have passed.
Iv 8y ago
That's because brexiter politicians are not looking for a good outcome. They are looking for power. Brexit is a good vehicle for that: make a brand of being a "Brexiter" and sell it as an utopia. Demand it be delivered then point politicians' incompetence when they fail despite trying. Then use your reputation as a "serious" brexiter to gain power and show them "how it is done".
- thirdsun 8y ago
  Except when it was time to show "how it's done" they all stepped down and hid away.
justaguyhere 8y ago
This should be a lesson for all voters across the world - think for a minute before voting. At least try to understand what you're voting on. We can blame all we want on the media, politicians etc etc, but in the end, we can't deny Brexit is the result of a properly, democratically conducted election - voters need to take at least some responsibility. No amount of "voters' remorse" is going to help now.
- microcolonel 8y ago
  This form of condescension is a major part of why remainers have utterly failed to make their case. Remainers clearly believe they are better than brexiters, but do not address the issues which matter (lack of control on political matters which affect the lives of average people: trade, standards, communications, intellectual property, immigration) to the people they are ostensibly trying to convince. The Brexit referendum had among the highest turnouts of all British votes in history, there was a considerable amount of media produced to explain each side (and many more remain arguments and endorsements were aired on radio, television, and through social media advertising campaigns), and the opinion was nonetheless trending further toward Brexit on the eve of the vote. It is just about as democratic as it could possibly be. I honestly don't know where this theme of regret is coming from, because among the people I know who supported Brexit, none of them have expressed anything other than ongoing support, and a desire to see the original intent of the referendum respected by the parliament (as it clearly wasn't respected by the Prime Minister).
  - dTal 8y ago
    The original intent? What original intent was that? Brexit was always light on detail, and that is coming home to roost. When pressed, most Brexit supporters I've spoken to show absolutely no interest in the dismal nitty gritty of politics, preferring to spout shallow platitudes like "why can't they just get on with it". The silence from chief Brexiteers Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson has been profoundly deafening.
    - madaxe_again 8y ago
microcolonel 8y ago
> The Brexit promise is something nobody can deliver on. It was a lie, you cannot force the EU to accept an unfavorable trade deal. If only for the reason that it would set an exceptionally bad precedent and everybody would want their own deal, to pick and choose the parts of EU membership that are favorable to them, leading the EU to implode. The EU is not being asked to accept any trade deal at all (hence no deal). A no-deal outcome is actually just fine, under the standard rules, the cost of food and other commodities is likely to decrease for consumers, and the EU is not going to blockade the UK. The UK hosts a considerable number of financial institutions which are crucial to the EU, so if they know what's good for them, they won't mess around with that too much either. Altogether it seems that the downsides are acceptable, and the upsides are the same as they were when it was called to a vote. I don't really see what the problem is. The UK is going to do just fine, and so are the EU member states (whether they're in or out). I don't get why people have to make it out to be a catastrophe.
- Aeolun 8y ago
  As far as I understand it. It won’t be an immediate catastrophe, it’ll just slowly leech the UK influence worldwide and in Europe.
  - microcolonel 8y ago
    I think that Brexit is more about promoting the UK's influence in the UK, than about promoting it outside the UK.
la6470 8y ago
The EU is and was a system. If the British politicians would have genuinely wanted they could have decided to stay within the system and improve it. But they either to grab power by playing to the fears of the people or to show contempt decided to fan the flames and lead UK down the wrong path. Similar is also the situation in USA where Trump has also done the same where he has led the nation toward a path of greater alienation from the world.
venantius 8y ago
I'm not sure I agree that a no-deal Brexit is such a good idea - given the (now exposed) lies of the Leave campaign, a second referendum seeems pretty reasonable. At any rate - the idea that there is an alternative deal that someone can deliver on persists even now, which is insane. My favorite quote on this came from Michael Gove: > “It’s a bit like a load of people in their mid-fifties at a swingers’ party holding out for Scarlett Johansson to arrive,” Mr Gove said. > Amber Rudd, work and pensions secretary, added: “Or Pierce Brosnan.” > Meanwhile David Gauke, justice secretary, claimed Labour’s Brexit policy was so fanciful it was “like hoping Scarlett Johansson is going to turn up on a unicorn”.
davedx 8y ago
> Somebody needs to own up to that lie See David Lammy MP's speech on the 10th about exactly this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XEj64IFzQ8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XEj64IFzQ8 Some of our politicians are not afraid to tell the truth.
lmm 8y ago
> Instead, they are trying to camouflage that reality with a bad deal that keeps Britain shackled to the EU for a number of years while losing all of the (substantial) influence it had over the way EU works. That's an anti-Brexit, the exact opposite of the independence and prosperity promised by brexiters. It was a bad deal and it's good that it failed. It's a compromise, as all good deals are. Fundamentally it delivers what the democratic majority wants: continued free trade (which means alignment with EU technical regulations but not with general policy), but limited movement of people. It's not unfavourable to either side, it doesn't undermine the EU position (which already has an agreement with Turkey on very similar terms). I hope that parliament can reconsider once it becomes clear that the alternative to this deal is a hard brexit. The deal was defeated only by an alliance of those who thought defeating it meant hard brexit and those who thought defeating it was somehow going to mean remain. At least one of those is wrong.
TheBobinator 8y ago
The EU has been a deal with the devil; foreigners flooding in, fertility rates dropping, business owners having their businesses traded off for political favors, chunks of the lower classes of society abandoned, government debt. That list goes on and on. And sure, you can make an arguement some of it existed before the EU but here's the key observation; It's difficult to make an argument the EU is beneficial to its member states because of the political manuvering that goes on behind closed doors is not documented or public and because of that, it's excessively easy to find statistics that blame them for a host of things which they may or may not have any part in. And that in of itself will be the downfall of the EU. Not just the lack of transparency, but the lack of public involvement in dealmaking and the fact the EU has become one gigantic boot on the neck of the public. And also the kinds of deals made. When you trade your fishermen's business for a political favor, well, why the hell run a business? That act shows a fundemental disrespect for self-interest. And the public mind you, can react two ways to that; the first is revolution in which, 19 of 20 times you don't get George Washigton. You generally get Pol Pot and Hitler, some group of society gets blamed for all its woes and eliminated, and the new boot takes over and often has a monopoly of force and buries the body count statistics. The second way is their concept of self-respect and dignity is destroyed, people end up with no interest in self-preservation, and without self-interest, they become dis-interested in self-investment. The kings often don't realize they're being drug into idiocracy with everyone else, and that in turn rots society from the inside out. Generally speaking, some foreign power steps in at that point and begins running things for their own profit. Or they just wipe the whole society out and kill everyone. That happens too. We've got a whole thread on this board going about Russian involvement. Keep in mind, if the Russians understand anything really well, its what happens when society collapses and what oppertunties that collapse presents.
robertony 8y ago
The Brexit promise was to leave the EU and open better trading options with the rest of the world. Outside of the EU, there is no issue reducing VAT, customs fees etc. In fact, WTO rules even allow more competitive options between countries if the UK chooses to lower associated fees in the WTO. Additional the UK is able to negotiate trade deals for it's own interests rather than concerns about protectionism for the EU. None of this can be done by the UK in the EU.
- walkingolof 8y ago
  >The Brexit promise was to leave the EU and open better >trading options with the rest of the world. One would think that the EU would be in a better position to get better deals than a single country.
  - kristianc 8y ago
    > One would think that the EU would be in a better position to get better deals than a single country. One would think, but the EU has been trying and failing to secure any kind of a trade deal with the US, largely due to Europe's instinctive love of protectionism.
    - hkt 8y ago
      protectionism/standards. Remember, our cheese doesn't come out of a tube, usually.
      - robin_reala 8y ago
        I was going to use Primula as a counter-example, but then I remembered it’s Norwegian.
      - kristianc 8y ago
        If I was French I'd be convinced that our finest Brillat-savarin would outcompete anything that came out of a tube. I don't think it's a lack of plastic cheese alternatives that has people buying French cheese.
gadders 8y ago
I think there are multiple issues that have led to the UK being in the situation it is in: 1) The UK wanting to negotiate an amicable parting, but the EU actually wanting to punish the UK and negotiated in bad faith 2) Not starting No Deal preparations immediately. Standard negotiating tactic is to have a "BATNA" - best alternative to a negotiated agreement. Not beginning No Deal preparations prevented that. 3) Having a UK civil service that is largely in favour of remaining in the EU 4) Having a Prime Minister that was a remainer.
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  1) Not true, there were multiple good deals presented including this one which the Parliament voted against - provided Northern Ireland situation is solved in a satisfactory way. This specific point was the keystone and why many early proposals failed. 2) There was no plan and no negotiations before incoming the article or trying the referendum. If the were serious plans before, situation would be different. 3, 4) Yes, but apparently even having someone doing Leave is no good either. It is a mess. The most vocal and radical proponents of it have left the scene.
  - gadders 8y ago
    The deal isn't satisfactory at all, as it offers no legally binding way for the UK to decide to leave without the EU's permission. The EU could string out border and trade discussions for years and the EU would be defacto in the EU but without a vote. David Cameron tried to discuss reform with the EU before the referendum, but was rebuffed.
    - Tomte 8y ago
      Of course it does. The UK only has to guarantee they won't do anything that means "hard border in Ireland". They choose not to guarantee that.

by yholio 8y ago

fossuser 8y ago

Maybe? If you think that most of the people are actually looking at or arguing about the implementation of any specific policy (I'd suspect this is the minority). It seems more likely people are just arguing about which tribe they're a part of. In that case nobody cares about what the best outcome is or what the truth is. If you can get a brexit deal passed that still allows the UK to 'brexit' in name only, but otherwise retains all of the actual agreements of being in the EU it could be a win-win. People get to pretend they left, but it doesn't actually change anything. Without this there isn't a good outcome here short of just ignoring the referendum. I think owning the lie is a good idea, but not sure if it would work politically since someone like Nigel Farage can just come back and loudly call you a liar that can't deliver on a 'true brexit'.

jarcane 8y ago
Nigel Farage is a media-created bogey man, a hack to the system of “equal time”. He isn’t actually representative of anyone, even his own useless party, as polls and election results have consistently shown.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  He was an MP, is still a MEP, and cofounded a party that once commanded "major party" status and nearly 20% of the vote in 2014. He's clearly representing some folks.
  - simonbyrne 8y ago
    He has never been an MP.
    - Zhyl 8y ago
      There also wasn't an election in 2014. His party won 1 seat in 2015 and got 12.6% of the total vote. 12.6% is really high to be getting only 1 seat, but it definitely isn't 20%.
      - mattmanser 8y ago
        He's talking about the MEP elections. It's been very easy to dismiss UKIP's parliamentary holding only because the UK is first past the post, had it been more representative these last few decades, we probably wouldn't be in this mess. Instead we've had two decades of Tory and Labour governments effectively sticking their fingers in their ears and going "lalalalalaaaa, we can't hear you, growth is king" when anyone mentioned the word immigration. Or talking about lower immigration targets, while at the same time the treasury was producing budget forecasts based on mass immigration continuing.
        jimnotgym 8y ago
        I have to agree that it is bizarre that the two main parties were talking all about growth while failing to acknowledge the role immigration was playing in that growth, and especially to the demographics of the workforce. Perhaps if they had been more upfront, discussing how (in a country where we are not so far away from having more retired people than workers), letting more young workers in is playing an important role in the economy. Then you hear that Teresa May herself suppressed reports that stated that the average immigrant was contributing more in terms of taxation (net) than the average Brit (for the demographic reasons above). This suggests that they were not just 'sticking their fingers in their ears', they were actively promoting an anti-immigrant agenda.
yholio 8y ago
Some might say that a good outcome is one where the people can freely make their own choices and accept the consequences. The plight of the British might serve as a cautionary tale informing the decisions of some other country, that's certainly a good thing in some sense. Democracy is not guaranteed to deliver prosperity or lead only to the correct decisions, yet it's the best system we have.
- fossuser 8y ago
  What if the consequences are instability or large scale war?
  - xienze 8y ago
    Well, what if? You're essentially arguing that if our benevolent overlords decide that the democratic process might result in something unfavorable that they should do the wise thing and ignore the will of the people.
    - fossuser 8y ago
      I'm arguing in favor of representative government where elected people decide on what makes the most sense for complex issues. Relying on advice from experts, but ultimately making the call that's in the country's best interest.
      - RobertoG 8y ago
        That sounds like a fantastic system, where is being implemented? I would like to move there.
        falsedan 8y ago
        It’s Switzerland.
      - sievebrain 8y ago
        So far every expert prediction about Brexit had been wrong. The UK was meant to be in a deep recession by now, remember?
InclinedPlane 8y ago
It is not a "win-win" to allow people who vote (and make policy affecting millions of lives) based on a fantasy-ideology to continue in their fantasy.
nostrademons 8y ago
Maybe? I get what you're saying, but the confusion of the past 2 years of negotiations and the magnitude of this vote's failure is a pretty strong indication that it'll not be possible to 'Brexit in name only'. The nationalist side will (correctly) point out that if you're still subject to the same regulations & trade deals, you haven't actually changed anything. The EU might go for it, but would probably be like "If you're going to say that you're not part of the EU, we can't realistically give you a voice in shaping EU policy", thus leaving Britain in a worse negotiating position with respect to those trade deals. I thought that was the grandparent's point.
eli_gottlieb 8y ago
>It seems more likely people are just arguing about which tribe they're a part of. In that case nobody cares about what the best outcome is or what the truth is. Most of the people I see raging about it are either EU residents of the UK or people who work with EU residents of the UK. They're arguing about concrete impacts on their lives.
- collyw 8y ago
  They are the ones who's existing rights are being taken away as a result.
nicoburns 8y ago
I think you've misread this one. People actually care about the outcome, and are deeply divided on what they think the best solution is. (some) Leavers even now explicitly discuss some deals as being "leaving only in name", and thus as not delivering on what they voted for.
mikekchar 8y ago
I don't think what you are saying is correct. Rhetoric aside, I think there are 2 main reasons for leaving: 1. greater autonomy in deciding on laws (especially wrt things like immigration policy), 2. withdrawal of the financial contribution to Europe. Many "remain" people specifically oppose these 2 reasons. They want the European oversight on laws. One of the main reasons for a European Union is to ensure that these kinds of laws are harmonised across Europe. Also, "remain" people feel that the UK actually receives more value than they pay for their European contributions. Specifically, the cost of bureaucracy is necessary to ensure that the UK has a voice in European decision making. They feel that in a "no deal" situation, Europe (being bigger and stronger) will simply dictate the conditions of every agreement. I do remote work for a UK company, though I live in Japan, so I can see this from a slightly removed position (though, please note that I've been hurt economically from the weak pound since Brexit, so I still have a vested interest!) I sympathise with the "leave" goals, but I think the "remain" camp has it right. Brexit is going to cost the UK a lot IMHO and there is no way to have a "pretend leave" that satisfies the "leave" side. The UK may have some extra autonomy after leaving, but the cost will be that they will be tossed around by Europe on virtually every front with no power to respond. Economically, it will also be extremely expensive -- something the market seems to agree with me on, given the state of the pound since the referendum.
- jinglebells 8y ago
  > 1. greater autonomy in deciding on laws (especially wrt things like immigration policy) Which turned out to have been possible all along, Theresa May simply didn't implement the EU rules which have already existed when she was home secretary. Immigration can never be solved by leaving the EU because it was already solved. > They want the European oversight on laws. If the last two years have shown us, the UK doesn't have the technical ability to run itself, the government can't even organise leaving let alone the mammoth task of re-implementing the 500-odd trade deals they will lose.
  - mattmanser 8y ago
    Funny, I never knew there were 500 countries in the world.
njarboe 8y ago
The whole idea of a following the results of a non-binding referendum that 52% of the people that voted passed for such a major thing as leaving the EU seems quite strange to my American eyes. I would think something as major as joining the EU should have required a super-majority of people voting for it in and a super-majority to leave. Like a US constitutional amendment. I need to read more English history to understand how people think this is the way things should work.
- wahern 8y ago
  Parliamentary Supremacy: Parliament has the last word on all constitutional matters, whether written or unwritten, and in any event can change any inconvenient aspects of the written constitution (e.g. historical bills and charters) with a simple majority. Historically the House of Lords provided a check on populist sentiment in the House of Commons, but the powers of the House of Lords have slowly been diminished over the past century or two (albeit with their consent, more or less; but it's a one-way street), while also making membership more "democratic" and thus more likely to express populist sentiment.
  - njarboe 8y ago
    So total power, basically, but limited by custom and decorum. If Parliament says that the majority vote on a referendum with decide what they will do, then that can be the way it is. Parliament can also change its mind afterword and not do it, but that would be unlikely as it is not the expected way of behaving.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > the powers of the House of Lords have slowly been diminished over the past century or two (albeit with their consent, more or less; but it's a one-way street) In the most key point, decidedly less: “vote to strip your powers or the monarch will create enough new peers that will vote the right way that the measure will pass anyway” isn't real consent.
- cardinalfang 8y ago
  The details are specified in the specific Act of Parliament allowing the vote. The 1979 Scottish devolution referendum required a minimum 40% of the electorate vote Yes, so it failed, despite a 52% Yes vote, due to insufficient turnout.
rmc 8y ago
> If you can get a brexit deal passed that still allows the UK to 'brexit' in name only, but otherwise retains all of the actual agreements of being in the EU it could be a win-win. People get to pretend they left, but it doesn't actually change anything. I don't think that would work. All it takes is the EU to pass a law saying "all speed limits must be in kmph", or "You're not allowed sell goods in imperial units". The UK would then have to do that change, and that'd drive the Brexiters mad.

mrec 8y ago

> they are trying to camouflage that reality with a bad deal They're not, May is, and May is not a Brexiter. The Brexiters generally are pushing to leave on WTO terms, not so much as a preferred end state but in recognition of the fact that only a genuine commitment to doing so has any chance of convincing the EU to agree to sensible terms such as Canada+. If the EU can keep the UK under its thumb forever then of course it will, and it would be unreasonable to expect it to do otherwise.

notahacker 8y ago
It stretches credulity beyond breaking point to suggest that the UK reneging on all its existing commitments to the EU in a fit of jingoistic pique whilst suffering the consequences of not having properly prepared for that outcome is a situation likely to lead to the EU offering more favourable trading terms.
yholio 8y ago
There is no Canada+ on the table and there never was, it's just "Canada" without the "+": a set of trade liberalization measures that cover some physical goods and very few services. It's a bad match for Britain's needs: http://www.policyreview.co.uk/eu-uk-canada/ http://www.policyreview.co.uk/eu-uk-canada/ It's hard to understand why Germany or France, who stand to gain from excluding the powerful UK service sector from the EU financial markets, would think that adding the "plus" to a Canada type deal is a "sensible" thing. It's sensible only for the brexiteers who peddled Canada+ as a real thing. Never-mind the fact that, in order to export to the EU market, UK still needs to respect the EU regulations, like any other trade partner of the EU. Only now, they no longer have any say over those regulations.
- mrec 8y ago
  Donald Tusk has repeatedly offered "Canada +++" to Great Britain. (Not to the United Kingdom, as part of their "we're going to annex Northern Ireland as a punishment beating" approach.) > UK still needs to respect the EU regulations WHEN EXPORTING TO THE EU, yes. The ~90% of UK businesses that don't do any trade with the EU do not. Those trading with the rest of the world outside the EU - a majority of the UK's trade, and rising steadily - do not.

petre 8y ago

A no deal is better than a bad deal.

vixen99 8y ago
You can't say that on HN.
- 6nf 8y ago
  Anything remotely pro-Brexit is right out
- rezeroed 8y ago
  Exactly. Going through this thread and voting people back up. From my multiple accounts. An excess of clueless remainers babbling in here.

hazeii 8y ago

>The Brexit promise is something nobody can deliver on.. I would - respectfully - point out that's not the situation. It is (was?) a promise in the sense that the government is there to enact the will of the people. The majority of people who voted, voted to leave (personally I was in the minority). So now (in engineering terms) it's pretty simple. If everyone sits on their hands, the UK will leave the UK as scheduled in March (and so fulfil the wish of the people). The actuality is the unedifying spectacle of lots of shuffling, muddying of the waters and lining of pockets as anyone with skin in the game scrabbles for whatever they feel is to their own advantage.

paxys 8y ago
Brexit itself can of course be delivered, but the larger promise sold to voters - that the country would be able to negotiate favorable trade deals, that it would directly result in increased NHS funding, that it would lead to reduced immigration without affecting free movement for workers, that customs and border control would be seamless, that European court of justice would stop having jurisdiction in UK affairs etc. - was the lie.
- hazeii 8y ago
  Indeed; a lot of people subscribe to the view that the vote delivered the 'incorrect' result because one side was more effective at lying than the other side. Very difficult to know where to draw a line; my feeling is that even if history shows the people were wrong the government should not be allowed to (directly or indirectly) do something other than what they were elected to do - i.e. serve the people (on a plate, it seems). And I write this from the losing side (in the referendum); about the only way it could get worse if it turns I'm on the winning side in the end (cf. Boaty McBoatface; the people were asked to vote for the name of the vehicle, but the powers that be didn't like such a frivolous name so they reneged and called it the RRS Sir David Attenborough instead. The parallel should be obvious). Edit: toned down the rhetoric.
  - vkou 8y ago
    > Very difficult to know where to draw a line; my feeling is that even if history shows the people were wrong the government should not be allowed to (directly or indirectly) do something other than what they were elected to do - i.e. serve the people (on a plate, it seems). Governments do this all the time, though. Campaign promises are often just that.

mandeepj 8y ago

> you cannot force the EU to accept an unfavorable trade deal source? The deal failed inside UK parliament and not at EU.

paganel 8y ago
Juncker tweeted about an hour ago that “time is almost up” for the UK. That means that the EU won’t sweeten the proposed deal.
- sparkie 8y ago
  They will make concessions. I'll put money on it. The UK leaving with no deal would be the beginning of the end of the EU. There is already growing anti-EU sentiment in Italy (4th largest economy in the block), Hungary, Austria, Poland. The UK leaving could set off a chain reaction which would either end the EU project or drastically reduce its size. The EU simply can't afford to have the UK leave completely, because any measure of success it might have as an independent nation will compel other members to take the idea seriously too.
  - jandrese 8y ago
    That sort of assumes that the UK is all hunky dory after it leaves. If it gets slammed with an immediate recession/raising unemployment/etc... then that's leverage the EU has to convince other members to stay.
    - n4r9 8y ago
      Agreed, and frankly, the whole process has been such a calamity that if I were an EU country leader I wouldn't even attempt to exit without a very strong mandate for a detailed, specific and clear process of leaving.
    - sparkie 8y ago
      That's certainly a possibility too, but do you think it's one that EU leaders are willing to bet the future of their superstate on? The UK has a lot going for it. It might not be hunky-dory immediately after leaving, but there's plenty to suggest that the UK will do just fine in the medium to long term.

philwelch 8y ago

> If only for the reason that it would set an exceptionally bad precedent and everybody would want their own deal, to pick and choose the parts of EU membership that are favorable to them, leading the EU to implode. The UK already picked and chose the parts of EU membership they wanted. They opted out of the Euro, they opted out of Schengen, they opted out of the Charter of Fundamental Rights--all of this, and more, on the threat of leaving the EU.

hardlianotion 8y ago
Those negotiations were not made on the basis of threatening to leave the EU. (edited for clarity)
- philwelch 8y ago
  British Euroskepticism has been a political force for decades and the risk of a Brexit has always been an implicit source of negotiating leverage for the UK.
  - hardlianotion 8y ago
    Skepticism is a force, yes, but otherwise your claim looks very much like post-hoc reasoning. This is simply not the case.
  - stephen_g 8y ago
    I think people undersell this - I can't find the really good analysis I recall reading about this right now, but what it said was polling over the last couple of decades shows there has actually been majority support (often over 60%!) to at least reduce participation in the EU for the last 20 years. According to this other polling [1], the appetite to do a full exit has not been as high, but still close to 50/50. I think in general people are doing a massive disservice to their own understanding when they try and take a minority "fringe racist" view and try to say that is the reason for all voters of Brexit, when reality is more complex and long-term. (I say this not really having a horse in this race, never having even been to the UK and only having been to Europe a few times). 1. https://theconversation.com/polling-history-40-years-of-british-views-on-in-or-out-of-europe-61250 https://theconversation.com/polling-history-40-years-of-brit...

jpfr 8y ago

> A "no deal" outcome, which is clearly bad, is still the best thing brexiters can actually deliver. It could go much much worse than just "bad". The UK imports a lot of food from EU neighbors. In case of a hard Brexit, this will just ... stop. The question is whether all supermarkets can immediately redo their supply chains. That is not likely. Especially since the UK will loose all trade agreements with the non-EU countries as well. Because they had been made by the EU with the UK participating. Our western societies are very efficient but also very fragile. If supermarkets can no longer fill up their shelves, people go hungry fast. If supermarkets can only fill 80% of shelves, people panic and start hoarding food. Those who are too late to the party go hungry. With enough people hungry for a few days, society collapses. Like ... corpses in the streets. We know what happened when the Soviet Union went down and shelves went empty. This scenario would end a lot worse for the UK. The Soviets had massive redundancies, inefficiencies and fallbacks that could be exploited. Such as people growing potatoes in their Dachas. See the material by Dmitry Orlov on how the "soviet scenario" would play out in a western country: https://www.resilience.org/stories/2006-12-04/closing-collapse-gap-ussr-was-better-prepared-collapse-us/ https://www.resilience.org/stories/2006-12-04/closing-collap... http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2009/02/social-collapse-best-practices.html http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2009/02/social-collapse-best-p... Update: What do you think "chaos at the border" means? Everybody will try to get as much stuff over the border as possible. Everybody will work together. The EU, the UK, the US, everybody. With the best intentions. But this could still go very very bad. Every truck, train and ship has to get the papers checked where they could just drive through before. But there are not enough qualified officers to actually check all the papers. So goods will come in at a trickle. Even with the best intentions. This the UK governments own statement. Chaos at the border for six months: > Britain’s government has revised its worst-case Brexit scenario estimates for chaos at the country’s borders, which it now expects to last for six months rather than six weeks, the political editor of The Sun newspaper said. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-borders/uk-now-sees-six-months-of-border-chaos-in-no-deal-brexit-the-sun-idUSKBN1O617U https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-borders/uk-now...

lurquer 8y ago
Corpses in the street? The UK imports around 25% of food-related commodities from the EU. Even with no deal, these imports will continue (as the EU has to sell them to someone.) Even if the EU stopped, there would not be corpses in the street as there happens to be a very wealthy English-speaking country not too far away that happens to produce more food than any country on the planet and is more than willing to trade with the UK.

growlist 8y ago

I voted leave, and would be quite happy with no deal - and the gangsterism of the EU in the negotiations has only stiffened my resolve, and I gather there are plenty of others that feel similarly; this is one of the reasons that some remainers are scared of a second referendum - their is a chance the leave vote might actually increase, and then they'll really be up the spout because any further shenanigans on their part will make it transparently obvious that they don't give a fig about democracy.

pas 8y ago
> gangsterism could you explain that a bit?
- growlist 8y ago
  The EU's plan from the start has been to make the process so painful as to dissuade anyone else from trying. Martin Selmayr was boasting that he has managed to trap the UK.
  - buttcoinslol 8y ago
    Of course, why would the EU adopt any other strategy if their goal is to keep the EU together?
    - drilldrive 8y ago
      Because their goal should be what is best for Europe, not what is best for the EU.
      - Aeolun 8y ago
        Following that logic, don’t you think the UK is just a tad hypocritical? Brexit wasn’t ever any good for Europe. It was always only about the British.
        8y ago

accnumnplus1 8y ago

No. You seem very confused. Brexiters have not been doing any delivering. Brexiters want a WTO exit (aka "no deal"). The government are not brexiters - PM Theresa May is claiming her daft deal is brexit - she and a few of her supporters only - it is not what brexiters want.

pron 8y ago

> a "no deal" outcome, which is clearly bad, is still the best thing brexiters can actually deliver I don't see the logic here. The deal (let's call it D), is clearly worse than staying in the EU (let's call that option E). From that relation D < E it does not follow that no-deal (N) is better than a deal, i.e. D < N. It may well be that N < D < E. So I don't see how no-deal is the "best the brexiteers can delliver."

Kudos 8y ago
They said "can actually deliver", not "could technically possibly deliver".
- pron 8y ago
  They could have actually delivered the deal had they voted in favour -- and it would have been better than no-deal -- but many leavers voted against.
int_19h 8y ago
It's the best deal they can deliever that's still meaningfully a Brexit (i.e. it achieves other political goals that were the reason for it in the first place).
mr_toad 8y ago
Because they can’t agree on D. So they end up with N. Worse, some of them seem to be deluded into thinking they can get some sort of D+ or D* or D’, even though the EU has made it clear they will not renegotiate. I believe one MP likened that scenario to the likelihood of Scarlet Johansen riding in on a unicorn.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

Your comment is highly misleading to the point that it is possibly the 'lie' you mean to make us wary of. The evidence against your comment is in plain sight: a 'deal' is on the table right now, which some on 'both sides' just happen to not want for various reasons, but it could very well have passed. The notion that there is only 'hard Brexit' or 'full EU' participation plainly not true, to even the most casual spectator, to imply such is an ugly, ideological misrepresentation of the facts, tantamount to the lie you're ostensibly loathing. The 'deal' in place, which you suggest is 'the worst of both worlds' is plainly not. That the UK would be subject to EU rules during a period of negotiation is actually not very onerous. The UK was only one voice of a couple of dozen, to mostly lose that voice for 1-3 years is not a nation 'saddled with the EU' for any degree of time. If the deal were to have been passed in Parliament - then some kind of trade negotiation would be worked out over the coming years, and then there'd be a fairly orderly Brexit: no UK in the EU, but some kind of 'decent trade deal' as some would want. The EU has made things difficult in purpose, because they definitely don't want people thinking of leaving their club on purpose. There is ample evidence of this, but I can point to one suitable clause in the current 'deal' in the table, which is that that the UK would not be able to exit the EU without permission of the EU itself, which is utterly unacceptable. It's a small but important clause, that should not be there. This small clause has been enough to throw some Brexit Tories against the deal. This small issue - in addition to the weirdly intractable problem of the 'Irish Border' and it's related backstop, is enough to make it 'hard'. Without that clause, and without the Ireland border weirdness ... the deal in place would probably have passed.

Iv 8y ago

That's because brexiter politicians are not looking for a good outcome. They are looking for power. Brexit is a good vehicle for that: make a brand of being a "Brexiter" and sell it as an utopia. Demand it be delivered then point politicians' incompetence when they fail despite trying. Then use your reputation as a "serious" brexiter to gain power and show them "how it is done".

thirdsun 8y ago
Except when it was time to show "how it's done" they all stepped down and hid away.

justaguyhere 8y ago

This should be a lesson for all voters across the world - think for a minute before voting. At least try to understand what you're voting on. We can blame all we want on the media, politicians etc etc, but in the end, we can't deny Brexit is the result of a properly, democratically conducted election - voters need to take at least some responsibility. No amount of "voters' remorse" is going to help now.

microcolonel 8y ago
This form of condescension is a major part of why remainers have utterly failed to make their case. Remainers clearly believe they are better than brexiters, but do not address the issues which matter (lack of control on political matters which affect the lives of average people: trade, standards, communications, intellectual property, immigration) to the people they are ostensibly trying to convince. The Brexit referendum had among the highest turnouts of all British votes in history, there was a considerable amount of media produced to explain each side (and many more remain arguments and endorsements were aired on radio, television, and through social media advertising campaigns), and the opinion was nonetheless trending further toward Brexit on the eve of the vote. It is just about as democratic as it could possibly be. I honestly don't know where this theme of regret is coming from, because among the people I know who supported Brexit, none of them have expressed anything other than ongoing support, and a desire to see the original intent of the referendum respected by the parliament (as it clearly wasn't respected by the Prime Minister).
- dTal 8y ago
  The original intent? What original intent was that? Brexit was always light on detail, and that is coming home to roost. When pressed, most Brexit supporters I've spoken to show absolutely no interest in the dismal nitty gritty of politics, preferring to spout shallow platitudes like "why can't they just get on with it". The silence from chief Brexiteers Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson has been profoundly deafening.
  - madaxe_again 8y ago

microcolonel 8y ago

> The Brexit promise is something nobody can deliver on. It was a lie, you cannot force the EU to accept an unfavorable trade deal. If only for the reason that it would set an exceptionally bad precedent and everybody would want their own deal, to pick and choose the parts of EU membership that are favorable to them, leading the EU to implode. The EU is not being asked to accept any trade deal at all (hence no deal). A no-deal outcome is actually just fine, under the standard rules, the cost of food and other commodities is likely to decrease for consumers, and the EU is not going to blockade the UK. The UK hosts a considerable number of financial institutions which are crucial to the EU, so if they know what's good for them, they won't mess around with that too much either. Altogether it seems that the downsides are acceptable, and the upsides are the same as they were when it was called to a vote. I don't really see what the problem is. The UK is going to do just fine, and so are the EU member states (whether they're in or out). I don't get why people have to make it out to be a catastrophe.

Aeolun 8y ago
As far as I understand it. It won’t be an immediate catastrophe, it’ll just slowly leech the UK influence worldwide and in Europe.
- microcolonel 8y ago
  I think that Brexit is more about promoting the UK's influence in the UK, than about promoting it outside the UK.

la6470 8y ago

The EU is and was a system. If the British politicians would have genuinely wanted they could have decided to stay within the system and improve it. But they either to grab power by playing to the fears of the people or to show contempt decided to fan the flames and lead UK down the wrong path. Similar is also the situation in USA where Trump has also done the same where he has led the nation toward a path of greater alienation from the world.

venantius 8y ago

I'm not sure I agree that a no-deal Brexit is such a good idea - given the (now exposed) lies of the Leave campaign, a second referendum seeems pretty reasonable. At any rate - the idea that there is an alternative deal that someone can deliver on persists even now, which is insane. My favorite quote on this came from Michael Gove: > “It’s a bit like a load of people in their mid-fifties at a swingers’ party holding out for Scarlett Johansson to arrive,” Mr Gove said. > Amber Rudd, work and pensions secretary, added: “Or Pierce Brosnan.” > Meanwhile David Gauke, justice secretary, claimed Labour’s Brexit policy was so fanciful it was “like hoping Scarlett Johansson is going to turn up on a unicorn”.

davedx 8y ago

> Somebody needs to own up to that lie See David Lammy MP's speech on the 10th about exactly this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XEj64IFzQ8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XEj64IFzQ8 Some of our politicians are not afraid to tell the truth.

lmm 8y ago

> Instead, they are trying to camouflage that reality with a bad deal that keeps Britain shackled to the EU for a number of years while losing all of the (substantial) influence it had over the way EU works. That's an anti-Brexit, the exact opposite of the independence and prosperity promised by brexiters. It was a bad deal and it's good that it failed. It's a compromise, as all good deals are. Fundamentally it delivers what the democratic majority wants: continued free trade (which means alignment with EU technical regulations but not with general policy), but limited movement of people. It's not unfavourable to either side, it doesn't undermine the EU position (which already has an agreement with Turkey on very similar terms). I hope that parliament can reconsider once it becomes clear that the alternative to this deal is a hard brexit. The deal was defeated only by an alliance of those who thought defeating it meant hard brexit and those who thought defeating it was somehow going to mean remain. At least one of those is wrong.

TheBobinator 8y ago

The EU has been a deal with the devil; foreigners flooding in, fertility rates dropping, business owners having their businesses traded off for political favors, chunks of the lower classes of society abandoned, government debt. That list goes on and on. And sure, you can make an arguement some of it existed before the EU but here's the key observation; It's difficult to make an argument the EU is beneficial to its member states because of the political manuvering that goes on behind closed doors is not documented or public and because of that, it's excessively easy to find statistics that blame them for a host of things which they may or may not have any part in. And that in of itself will be the downfall of the EU. Not just the lack of transparency, but the lack of public involvement in dealmaking and the fact the EU has become one gigantic boot on the neck of the public. And also the kinds of deals made. When you trade your fishermen's business for a political favor, well, why the hell run a business? That act shows a fundemental disrespect for self-interest. And the public mind you, can react two ways to that; the first is revolution in which, 19 of 20 times you don't get George Washigton. You generally get Pol Pot and Hitler, some group of society gets blamed for all its woes and eliminated, and the new boot takes over and often has a monopoly of force and buries the body count statistics. The second way is their concept of self-respect and dignity is destroyed, people end up with no interest in self-preservation, and without self-interest, they become dis-interested in self-investment. The kings often don't realize they're being drug into idiocracy with everyone else, and that in turn rots society from the inside out. Generally speaking, some foreign power steps in at that point and begins running things for their own profit. Or they just wipe the whole society out and kill everyone. That happens too. We've got a whole thread on this board going about Russian involvement. Keep in mind, if the Russians understand anything really well, its what happens when society collapses and what oppertunties that collapse presents.

robertony 8y ago

The Brexit promise was to leave the EU and open better trading options with the rest of the world. Outside of the EU, there is no issue reducing VAT, customs fees etc. In fact, WTO rules even allow more competitive options between countries if the UK chooses to lower associated fees in the WTO. Additional the UK is able to negotiate trade deals for it's own interests rather than concerns about protectionism for the EU. None of this can be done by the UK in the EU.

walkingolof 8y ago
>The Brexit promise was to leave the EU and open better >trading options with the rest of the world. One would think that the EU would be in a better position to get better deals than a single country.
- kristianc 8y ago
  > One would think that the EU would be in a better position to get better deals than a single country. One would think, but the EU has been trying and failing to secure any kind of a trade deal with the US, largely due to Europe's instinctive love of protectionism.
  - hkt 8y ago
    protectionism/standards. Remember, our cheese doesn't come out of a tube, usually.
    - robin_reala 8y ago
      I was going to use Primula as a counter-example, but then I remembered it’s Norwegian.
    - kristianc 8y ago
      If I was French I'd be convinced that our finest Brillat-savarin would outcompete anything that came out of a tube. I don't think it's a lack of plastic cheese alternatives that has people buying French cheese.

gadders 8y ago

I think there are multiple issues that have led to the UK being in the situation it is in: 1) The UK wanting to negotiate an amicable parting, but the EU actually wanting to punish the UK and negotiated in bad faith 2) Not starting No Deal preparations immediately. Standard negotiating tactic is to have a "BATNA" - best alternative to a negotiated agreement. Not beginning No Deal preparations prevented that. 3) Having a UK civil service that is largely in favour of remaining in the EU 4) Having a Prime Minister that was a remainer.

AstralStorm 8y ago
1) Not true, there were multiple good deals presented including this one which the Parliament voted against - provided Northern Ireland situation is solved in a satisfactory way. This specific point was the keystone and why many early proposals failed. 2) There was no plan and no negotiations before incoming the article or trying the referendum. If the were serious plans before, situation would be different. 3, 4) Yes, but apparently even having someone doing Leave is no good either. It is a mess. The most vocal and radical proponents of it have left the scene.
- gadders 8y ago
  The deal isn't satisfactory at all, as it offers no legally binding way for the UK to decide to leave without the EU's permission. The EU could string out border and trade discussions for years and the EU would be defacto in the EU but without a vote. David Cameron tried to discuss reform with the EU before the referendum, but was rebuffed.
  - Tomte 8y ago
    Of course it does. The UK only has to guarantee they won't do anything that means "hard border in Ireland". They choose not to guarantee that.