15 ms·

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

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.
        mattmanser 8y ago
        Well, I find that's obviously a very biased type of report based on a flawed premise. An economic migrant will eventually have kids and grow old, so in 40 years time the 'average' migrant won't be contributing more. It's just that they are right now. Or, perhaps worse, they'll take a large proportion of their total earnings out of the UK in a decade and move back home. Anyway, putting aside that, they knew they couldn't release reports like that because they had to pretend to be anti-immigration. So rather than having the conversation which was vitally necessary to reduce anti-immigration feelings, they were secretly pro-immigration, and even saw it as a necessity, so they just suppressed it all.
  - johanek 8y ago
    He's never been a MP, UKIP has never been considered a "major party" (how is this even defined?), there was no election in 2014, UKIP won 12.6% in 2015. He's clearly representing some people but your facts are way off.
    - ceejayoz 8y ago
      Sorry, I was mistaken on the MP front. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_United_Kingdom_local_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_United_Kingdom_local_elec... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_European_Parliament_election_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_European_Parliament_elect... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Independence_Party#Entering_mainstream_politics:_2014%E2%80%9316 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Independence_Party#Entering... "In March 2014, Ofcom awarded UKIP "major party status"." https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/media-releases/2015/major-parties-consultation https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/media-rele... "Ofcom’s initial view is that UKIP may qualify for major party status in England and Wales for the General Election and English local elections on 7 May 2015." https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-31906154 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-31906154 "Ofcom says UKIP, but not Greens, are 'major party'"
      - johanek 8y ago
        That's very interesting about the official "major party status", thanks for sharing that. I was only considering General Elections, which are a fairer representation of a parties vote share (despite FPTP) as not all councils vote in local elections each year.
    - hardlianotion 8y ago
      As an electoral force, UKIP were very successful in European elections. It is reasonable to say that they were a major consideration in deciding to call the referendum.
    - growlist 8y ago
      Worth remembering the dirty tricks employed against him: 'The election of a Conservative MP could have been declared void if he had filed accurate returns that showed he had overspent on his campaign to beat Nigel Farage, a court has heard. Craig Mackinlay, an accountant, stands accused along with his election agent and a party official of deliberately submitting “woefully inaccurate” expenditure returns.'
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.

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.
        mattmanser 8y ago
        Well, I find that's obviously a very biased type of report based on a flawed premise. An economic migrant will eventually have kids and grow old, so in 40 years time the 'average' migrant won't be contributing more. It's just that they are right now. Or, perhaps worse, they'll take a large proportion of their total earnings out of the UK in a decade and move back home. Anyway, putting aside that, they knew they couldn't release reports like that because they had to pretend to be anti-immigration. So rather than having the conversation which was vitally necessary to reduce anti-immigration feelings, they were secretly pro-immigration, and even saw it as a necessity, so they just suppressed it all.
- johanek 8y ago
  He's never been a MP, UKIP has never been considered a "major party" (how is this even defined?), there was no election in 2014, UKIP won 12.6% in 2015. He's clearly representing some people but your facts are way off.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    Sorry, I was mistaken on the MP front. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_United_Kingdom_local_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_United_Kingdom_local_elec... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_European_Parliament_election_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_European_Parliament_elect... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Independence_Party#Entering_mainstream_politics:_2014%E2%80%9316 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Independence_Party#Entering... "In March 2014, Ofcom awarded UKIP "major party status"." https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/media-releases/2015/major-parties-consultation https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/media-rele... "Ofcom’s initial view is that UKIP may qualify for major party status in England and Wales for the General Election and English local elections on 7 May 2015." https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-31906154 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-31906154 "Ofcom says UKIP, but not Greens, are 'major party'"
    - johanek 8y ago
      That's very interesting about the official "major party status", thanks for sharing that. I was only considering General Elections, which are a fairer representation of a parties vote share (despite FPTP) as not all councils vote in local elections each year.
  - hardlianotion 8y ago
    As an electoral force, UKIP were very successful in European elections. It is reasonable to say that they were a major consideration in deciding to call the referendum.
  - growlist 8y ago
    Worth remembering the dirty tricks employed against him: 'The election of a Conservative MP could have been declared void if he had filed accurate returns that showed he had overspent on his campaign to beat Nigel Farage, a court has heard. Craig Mackinlay, an accountant, stands accused along with his election agent and a party official of deliberately submitting “woefully inaccurate” expenditure returns.'

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.