17 ms·

I'll be the first to admit: I'm an American. I fundamentally do not understand Brexit. I understand the following timeline: 1. A largely disseminated, nation-

I'll be the first to admit: I'm an American. I fundamentally do not understand Brexit. I understand the following timeline: 1. A largely disseminated, nation-wide vote occurs, bolstered by nationalist sentiment, that the EU is bad for the UK. This vote results in a conclusion that UK should leave the EU. 2. This is controversial, due to the majority of the populace in general not desiring to leave the EU, but not voting as such individually. Some portions of the UK, itself a Union, are strongly aganst this voting result. 3. May, a woman of great importance in the UK government, chooses to try and make a deal with the EU for favorable leaving conditions for UK. 4. Nothing May is presenting is considered acceptable by anyone. On its face, this makes no sense to me. Why is May being held responsible for this? Where are the people who initially brought in Brexit- why are they not supporting May? What is preventing the referendum from being declared stupid and that the UK gov't is not going to do it? EDIT: Thank you all for your excellent responses. I'm now under the impression this is like when a significant portion of a dev team with (actual, hypotehtical) equal or flat hierarchy believe that code needs to be refactored to a serious degree, but no majority of devs can decide on what the refactored code will look like. (Extremely simplified!). If this is largely incorrect please let me know.

balabaster 8y ago
That "woman of great importance in the UK government" is the Prime Minister. For the purpose of this discussion, and until she's voted out, she is the most important person in the United Kingdom.
- SolaceQuantum 8y ago
  10-4. Why is she being resoundedly disapproved upon by her own gov't? Presumably, the same gov't that put forth this vote? At least some significant margin of politicians must have wanted this vote knowing that 'yes' is on the table. Where are they?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - ErrantX 8y ago
    The problem is that the politics are not partisan and instead divide the main parties. It would be similar to half the republicans and half the democrats agreeing on a key policy & fundamentally disagreeing with the other half of their respective parties. (it's actually even worse than that because there are at least 3 main positions [hard exit, soft exit, no exit] which divide the two main parties, meaning nothing really has a clear majority). The way the UK government works is: from the majority party a government of ministers is formed from their group of MPs. By convention individual MPs in this government (called front-benchers) have a cohesive support for the overall government policy (if they disagree with the policy or vote against it then by convention they have to resign). Anyone from the ruling party NOT on the front-bench can (and often will) vote against the government. Brexit has been insanely divisive. Internally, the ruling Convservative party have at least 4 different positions, including the official government one. Many front-benchers have resigned. Fundamentally the problem is this; people voted for Brexit. But only just. So really nearly half the population doesn't want it. It was simple to answer a simple yes/no question. But exiting is a hugely complex question whereby it is nearly impossible to negotiate a compromise that works for everyone.
    - balabaster 8y ago
      Also a rather large portion of the population didn't take the vote seriously. When it came out that it was a complete clusterfuck, those voters who either voted just to stick it to the man or didn't bother to vote are now rightly panicking that this train wreck that we can't look away from is like the asteroid that hit the Yucatan peninsula and killed off the dinosaurs and there's fuck all we can do about it. Oh well, you live and learn.
  - hannasanarion 8y ago
    Because she promised a submarine made of cheese, and delivered a submarine made of cheese, and the people who demanded a submarine made of cheese are mad that it doesn't taste good enough or dive deep enough. There is no such thing as a favorable brexit deal. Britain is already in the most favorable position possible with regards to EU relations: they have all of the benefits of EU membership, but with a special deal that means they're exempted from some of the membership dues, and they can have their own immigration policy and their own money. Britain has a more beneficial position in the EU than any other country in the world, in or out. There is absolutely no way that the EU is going to let them leave and keep most of the benefits of membership. The hardliners want to get everything and give nothing, and surprise surprise, the EU wasn't going to let them have everything in exchange for nothing, so the hardliners hate it, and everybody else hates it because it was a stupid idea in the first place.
  - peteretep 8y ago
    > Why is she being resoundedly disapproved upon by her own gov't? Because "Prime Minister" is not the head of state, so there's little respect for the position. Her position is equivalent to Speaker of The House in the US, only in a system where The House is also the Executive.
- arethuza 8y ago
  "she is the most important person in the United Kingdom." I believe members of the UK armed forces would probably dispute that.
  - balabaster 8y ago
    Who are governed ultimately by the Prime Minister. So they do what she tells them to, ultimately making her the most important person.
    - arethuza 8y ago
      Actually, I believe the armed forces of the UK actually take an oath of allegiance to the ruling monarch rather than to the state/government - I did think this didn't mean very much but I have raised the point with a serving army officer and he was rather insistent that they take it seriously: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_Kingdom)#Armed_forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_Kin...
      - balabaster 8y ago
        Interesting, thanks
      - cm2187 8y ago
        The wikipedia article [1] suggests that this is formal only and that the army is under the control of the parliament, which was also my understanding. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army
        arethuza 8y ago
        Lets just say that it's a formality that I hope never gets put to the test :-|
        cm2187 8y ago
makomk 8y ago
May's deal permanently blocks the UK from ever fully leaving the EU without the EU's permission, meaning that anyone who wants to leave won't support it. It also removes almost all the benefits of remaining in the EU, meaning Remain supporters hate it too. Oh, and for bonus points it effectively makes Northern Ireland no longer fully part of the UK, meaning that the DUP (the Northern Ireland unionist party which the Tories have to ally with to get a majority) will never support it. There are other issues with it too, of course, but that's the general gist.
- umanwizard 8y ago
  The UK is a sovereign country -- how is it possible for them to never be able to do something without someone else's permission?
  - onetimemanytime 8y ago
    They can do it but it without any permission, but it would screw them. They want to undo 40+ years of integration in a few years because a small majority voted
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    It's not possible for anyone to tell you that you can't take a given action. But it is possible for someone to inform you that if you do take a given action, they will take draconian, but completely legal, measures against you.
  - mongol 8y ago
    I guess it is like leaving any contract or agreement without fulfilling your obligations. You can do it, but there will be consequences.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - tpm 8y ago
    They are of course able to do that, but that would go against the Good Friday Agreement which guarantees peace in Northern Ireland, and nobody has the balls to do that. Or else the Republic of Ireland would have to leave the EU common market for goods, which too is insane. So that realistically means that the UK cannot terminate the NI backstop solution on its own.
freehunter 8y ago
The problem is, many people wanted Brexit for different reasons. It's easy to find a consensus to the question "should the UK leave the EU". "Brexit" is an abstract, but "single market" and "passports" and "trade deals" and "Ireland" and "Scotland" and "financial regulations" etc are all details that need to be sorted out, and many people feel very differently on them. It's easy to find a consensus to the abstract question "should the UK leave the EU". It's much harder to find a consensus to the all of these questions when asked together. All the people who wanted Brexit are backing away from May's solution because she needs to answer all of those questions 100% correct for 51% of the population. Any disagreement and the deal is off.
UK-Al05 8y ago
The core of the issue that this deal is a compromise. It basically saying the UK is leaving the EU, but not really as we still follow EU law. As such it is not acceptable to brexiters. For remainers, well they don't want leave anyway. Thus no one supports it.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
rchaud 8y ago
> Where are the people who initially brought in Brexit Former PM David Cameron put Leave/Remain to a vote, but publicly said he voted Remain. Resigned after the vote results. Theresa May took his place after some debate; she was vociferously pro-Brexit, and looked like the best option if Britain was to act tough when negotiating with the EU. A number of people dropped out of the succession race, gambling that the Brexit hassle wouldn't be worth it. May survived a no-confidence vote in late 2018, but a number of members of her party have resigned because the deal on the table didn't sync with what's important to their constituents. There are a number of factors, but May's insistence that net migration would fall to 5 figures was something people expected her to deliver. It's not going to happen.
- makomk 8y ago
  Note that the number of Tory MPs which voted against her in the 2018 no confidence vote (which was an internal party thing) is almost exactly the same as the number of Tory MPs who voted against her deal. Even though she survived that no confidence vote it apparently presaged doom for this deal.
- scott_s 8y ago
  > Theresa May took his place after some debate; she was vociferously pro-Brexit I don't think that is accurate. See https://www.euronews.com/2018/12/12/what-is-theresa-may-s-view-on-brexit https://www.euronews.com/2018/12/12/what-is-theresa-may-s-vi..., https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38653681 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38653681, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresa_May#Brexit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresa_May#Brexit
lizknope 8y ago
> Where are the people who initially brought in Brexit- why are they not supporting May? They resigned. Boris Johnson the Foreign Secretary resigned. David Davis who was literally the "Brexit minister" resigned. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/theresa-mays-government-in-disarray-after-shock-resignation-by-brexit-minister/2018/07/09/b86533da-8357-11e8-8f6c-46cb43e3f306_story.html?utm_term=.570b76aaf958 https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/theresa-mays-gov... Here are more people who resigned. https://news.sky.com/story/the-ministers-who-have-quit-over-brexit-so-far-11553877 https://news.sky.com/story/the-ministers-who-have-quit-over-... My view is that these people lied to the public about how awesome Brexit would be. Once it got to the hard work of making it happen they realized how awful the deal would be and how the economy would be harmed. Because they didn't want their name attached to it they resigned. Some of them are hoping that May will resign and they can become Prime Minister instead.
- pilsetnieks 8y ago
  > Once it got to the hard work of making it happen they realized how awful the deal would be and how the economy would be harmed. Because they didn't want their name attached to it they resigned. One could argue that they didn't expect the vote to pass at all, and did it to gain favor with their constituency - to be able to say they "tried to leave the EU but alas." They knew their promises were untenable, yet they made them anyway, but there's no way to fulfill them once the vote passes, hence resignation.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- jandrese 8y ago
  The problem is that literally nobody wants May's job right now. Given the shit sandwich she has to work with she's doing the best she can, but the best they can do is make a terrible situation slightly less terrible.
  - tim333 8y ago
    Boris wants the job, God help us.
dbdjfjrjvebd 8y ago
May is prime minister. Practically this role is similar to president and majority leader combined. Essentially she is finally responsible for everything. Unfortunately for her there are essentially three groups. (1) Brexit on WTO terms, (2) cancel Brexit and remain, and (3) those that largely support her deal. These groups are more certain what they don't want than what they do want. This means that 2/3 of the MPs oppose this deal. But 2/3 will oppose any option.
kodablah 8y ago
> 2. This is controversial, due to the majority of the populace in general not desiring to leave the EU, but not voting as such individually. Also an American, but from the outside I don't see how a majority desire can be so accurately determined beyond a vote. > Some portions of the UK [...] are strongly aganst this voting result. This I definitely see from the loudest. So strongly that the vote has been tarnished every which way (which, let's be honest, you can do with any vote you want due to all the malfeasance you can find by campaigners). It's becoming a pattern. The votes that the loudest in democracy don't like or can't understand are being challenged on several grounds, most boiling down to assuming ignorance and gullibility of the other side. Accepting results is becoming harder and harder for some to the point where the larger-yet-silent groups feel no recourse but to use the polls and the louder feel no recourse but to invalidate votes and/or prevent them from happening and/or try again.
- erikpukinskis 8y ago
  Mathemarically, a slim victory with a large percent of the population abstaining does not indicate “majority desire”. Democrasy doesn’t measure majority desire, it measures electioneering. Majority desire is definitely an aspect of elections, but it’s not the thing that gets measured. There are better ways to accurately measure majority desire, and they are not one person/one vote systems. What the system purports to give us is not accuracy, but fairness. It’s acknowledged that no matter what system you put in place, its ideals will be perverted. The best we hope for is that multiple parties all have access to those same perversions. So the difference between the U.S. and Russia is that both Bush and Gore had a right to sue the state of Florida. Of course the outcome doesn’t represent the will of the people in any meaningful way, but we take comfort in knowing that both candidates had the same games open to them. In Russia, Putin is playing a wholly different legal game than everyone else. That’s anti-liberal, and anti-democratic. Much hand wringing is happening in the U.S. today because the American President is mostly above the legal system, as its executor, with only the Senate holding him in check. And it’s not clear our current Senate is committed to the rule of law. We will see when Mueller’s report comes out. And perhaps some governors can also hold him to account. Again, none of this bears any direct relation to the “will of the people” except that there is a method to the madness and any citizen can volunteer for any aspect of the game.
mrec 8y ago
> Why is May being held responsible for this? In short, May has never taken a WTO ("no deal") exit seriously. Since she won't walk away she's had no leverage, so the EU predictably gave her the worst "deal" imaginable, to the extent that polls show Leave voters would prefer staying in the EU and Remain voters would prefer leaving with no deal. It's seriously awful. > Where are the people who initially brought in Brexit- why are they not supporting May? If you're talking about the various Leave-supporting ex-ministers like Boris Johnson and David Davis, they quit when it became clear that they were only there as window-dressing for consumption by domestic Leave voters, and had no influence at all in negotiations or planning. When May came up with her "Chequers" plan, she showed it to Angela Merkel before her own Cabinet; this in a political system that supposedly follows a principle of collective responsibility. > What is preventing the referendum from being declared stupid and that the UK gov't is not going to do it? As an American, what prevented the election of Trump being declared stupid and that the US gov't was not going to accept him? Because I suspect it's pretty much the same answer: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." You can't hold a referendum for tactical reasons and then welsh when it doesn't go your way without thoroughly destroying faith in the legitimacy of your political system.
- neotek 8y ago
  >As an American, what prevented the election of Trump being declared stupid and that the US gov't was not going to accept him? The Constitution. The referendum, on the other hand, was non-binding.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ASalazarMX 8y ago
I expect a similar string of incongruities regarding the USA-Mexico wall. Don't end up building it and disappoint me, please.
mywittyname 8y ago
You know how Trump promised to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it? Most people, regardless of political persuasion, knew a wall would be built, but that the USA would pay for it. May promised a divorce which would be a "good deal brexit," or one that includes trade deals which benefited the UK, but without any of the "undesirable" EU requirements. Most people, regardless of political persuasion, divorce could happen, but knew that the Britain wasn't going to get a "good deal" brexit.
- megaremote 8y ago
  > Most people, regardless of political persuasion, knew a wall would be built, but that the USA would pay for it. This is clearly wrong. I think most people though it was bullshit all along, used to sway a few million idiots.
twoslide 8y ago
> What's preventing the referendum from being declared stupid and that the UK gov't is not going to do it? Nothing except politics. The referendum is advisory and not legally binding. The Leave campaign has been found guilty of criminal offences. But actually, the referendum result is the closest thing May has to a mandate, her party won a minority in the parliamentary elections.
- jimnotgym 8y ago
  Correct, in fact the only force that the referendum has at all is that David Cameron promised to enact the result. But even this is old news, a past Prime Minister can hardly bind the hands of a future one! In fact the idea that a government can't bind a future government is an important part of Britain's ("unwritten") constitution.
  - dumael 8y ago
    Nit: It's Parliament cannot bind a future Parliament rather than UK governments cannot bind future UK governments. https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty The subtly here is that usually a government commands an overall majority of Parliament, but weak/minority governments have to worry about government rebels.
jcriddle4 8y ago
For many Pro-Brexit people they felt May's deal didn't really leave the EU. A very major sticking point is that provisions in the exit agreement, refereed to as the "backstop", that in theory and possibly in practice could legally trap the UK in a half completed transition deal forever with the UK always subject to EU rules. Overall the agreement May put forward is basically an agreement to start the next phase of negotiations to start discussions on a transition agreement which would maybe hopefully be finished by the year 2020 or 2021 or a day after never. Also paying 39 billion pounds and not knowing what the next phase of negotiations would deliver. For Remainers(Anti-Brexit) the agreement was to start the process to leave the EU so of course those people didn't like the agreement either.
- jandrese 8y ago
  My understanding from Brussels is that there is no second phase of negotiations. They just voted for a hard Brexit.
  - Tomte 8y ago
    There can even be no extension of Article 50 for more than a few weeks, because we're electing the European Parliament in May. If the UK is still in the EU by then they need to elect MEPs, as well. But their seats have already been agreed to be distributed to smaller countries who were underrepresented so far. It would be a complete clusterfuck, including doubts whether any legislative action would survive court, if the UK isn't properly represented (either because they don't care anymore and don't hold elections, or they simply cannot organize elections on such short notice).
RafiqM 8y ago
> What is preventing the referendum from being declared stupid and that the UK gov't is not going to do it Essentially, they want to honor the will of the people. The will of the people, by democratic vote, was to leave the EU. With that in mind, they have no options that are in any way good: 1) Push ahead and exit with no-deal (economically disastrous) 2) Push ahead and exit with the proposed deal (economically bad while also not really exiting) 3) Declare it a bad idea and just don't do it (political suicide for everyone involved & creates distrust in democratic process) 4) Hold another referendum where it's going to have to be a decision between staying in or exiting with no deal (also political suicide & creates distrust). There's no way for anyone to win here. I think the best option is for the PM to "take one for the team" (i.e. the country) and take option 3/4, knowing that it will be the end of her and her party.
- r00fus 8y ago
  Why would #3 and #4 be suicide? Maybe for PM May, but doubtful the Remain MPs and those who "found out how bad Leave was" would actually claim a political boost?
  - hardlianotion 8y ago
    On the Conservative side - many of the remain MPs come from leave constituencies. Also, as a party, the Conservatives have a strong leave bias. If the leave does not happen, it is hard to see the Tories making it back to power for a considerable time.
- Udik 8y ago
  It shouldn't be so hard to argue that steps of this magnitude should not be taken based on a single poll won with a 2% margin (which means that if only 1/100 of the voters had changed sides the result would have been opposite). It might take a bit of courage to declare it but it's a travesty that politicians are so afraid of their electorate as not daring to utter such an obvious truth.
  - joshuahughes 8y ago
tomarr 8y ago
It's not people voting against May, it's just that nothing _could_ command a majority at this point other than a fanciful option that takes the best of EU (no economic shock) but strips out unchecked migration and European courts. Our gradient descent has ended in a local minimum, and noone can agree enough to climb the hill. Immigration is a very powerful topic (fear and loathing?) in the mind of voters and much of the 'debate' is not based on reason on either side. It's probably worth noting since the referendum was announced it's unclear whether one person in a country of 60 million has changed their mind on what they preconceptually had locked in at the start.
notahacker 8y ago
> Where are the people who initially brought in Brexit- why are they not supporting May? Many had radically different aspirations for Brexit, no influence on the process and/or disliked May and her government on principle. Others were part of May's Cabinet, some even directly responsible for negotiations, but couldn't deliver anything which matched their initial promises, disliked the deal that was put on the table and decided eyecatching resignation was better than compromise. One or two, like Gove and Leadsom actually are still backing May, but fairly reluctantly. Everybody agrees the deal isn't fantastic, but few are prepared to admit their alternative aspirations were pure fantasy. The flip side is that [nearly] all the Conservative MPs who voted down May's deal will vote confidence in her government very shortly because they value staying in power and loathe the opposition parties too. Which leads nicely on to the next point... > What is preventing the referendum from being declared stupid and that the UK gov't is not going to do it? The same forces that protect a President that has made Nixon's actions look like model of propriety and is quietly despised many of his own party's leading figures. A mixture of partisanship, terror of defying ones own voters and party members, fear of what political upheaval might happen next and doubts over whether they actually would manage to stop things if they tried.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
cm2187 8y ago
1. I don't think it had much to do with nationalist sentiment. EU historically had a bad press in the UK, and the greek debacle didn't help. At the same time immigration has been an increasing concern (not just in the UK, everywhere in Europe, and in the US too). The UK has seen a massive inflow (>1 million in 4 years) of eastern european nationals immigrating, which I think is the primary reason why leave won (rightly or wrongly). But none of this is UK specific. The EU is bracing itself for a rise of populist, eu-skeptic parties in the coming elections. 2. I am not sure how you can claim the majority of the populace is against leaving the EU. A national vote demonstrated the opposite. And it's not clear that another vote now wouldn't yield the same result (the recent polls are roughly where they were a few months before the first vote). 3. May is the prime minister. The head of state (the queen) being essentially an honorific title, she is in charge (she has control of the red button!). But parliament has more power in the UK than in the US and she answers to parliament. 4. The terms of trading between the EU and the UK, as agreed with the EU, requires the UK to abide to EU laws without having any say on them. Brexiters are against as they don't accept this loss of sovereignty (they typically would like a free trade deal with the EU but without loss of sovereignty). Remainers are against as they don't really want to leave the EU in the first place, and are trying to force a way out of Brexit. I don't think you can call the result of referendum "stupid" and ignore it. That would seem very anti-democratic to me. I don't know how the whole thing will play out. Right now it seems that the potential outcomes are: a. Brexit being postponed from March to June (unlikely to be later as this is when the new EU parliament starts after the spring elections, and unlikely to help in any way other than kicking the can down the road). b. May being defeated at the vote on Wednesday, new general elections, whoever wins will have to deal with the same problem and likely with the same outcome (the EU is unlikely to concede much). c. A new referendum (but May repeatedly ruled it out, and again nothing says it will yield another result) d. The EU making significant enough concessions in the short term that could help PM agreeing to the deal. Germany hinted they would be open, while France ruled it out today. e. Leaving the EU without a deal, resulting in short term trade disruptions and an adverse economic impact on the medium term. f. Parliament cancelling Brexit. Many MPs would probably prefer that option, but this is ignoring the result of a referendum, which is a really worrying outcome for a democracy and would likely boost a populist vote down the line. There aren't any obvious good solution, everything comes at a cost. Which is why the public opinion is terribly divided.
w4tson 8y ago
0. Former Prime Minister gambles on a referendum in order to crush rebellion in his own party and secure his leadership. He makes a pact of support and in return gives a referendum on Europe satisfying a small niche of party extremists. Crucially the referendum isn’t binding which is where the problem occurs. The vote didn’t go the way people thought it would go. Maybe because of the fall out of banking crisis and rising inequality, maybe because the leave campaigns broke the law, maybe because of Russian involvement. So now you have a representative democracy that is broadly pro EU vs a popular vote which has voted “out” whatever that means. The referendum is non binding so should be advisory only to the elected officials. Now the government is in a pickle. Because even though the vote was just advisory if they’re seen to ignore this, people will start wondering if their vote matters at all. It could be a path to chaos. This is complicated further by the split of the age of people voting leave. They tended to be older and these voters traditionally vote conservative (aka republican in US terms). So they’d be disenfranchising their base. The government doesn’t even have a majority and is propped up by another tiny party of 10 members called the DUP. This is a little complicated but the outcome is a really weak government because it doesn’t have the numbers to push through legislation it would like. On top of that the euro-sceptic extremists are bolstered by vote and lobbying hard for out by any means necessary. They’re effectively driving policy by threatening to terminate her fragile leadership. All this would have been a doddle if a decent opposition was sat opposite in the commons. However in a perfect storm the opposition is absent. This is even more complicated to understand but the summary is that the hard left socialists have more in common with the hard right anti-EU lot than either of them would like to admit. It’s weird. Mays deal satisfied no-one and it’s taken 2 years to get this far. One interesting side effect is that more people now know what being in the EU means than ever before. It was virtually never discussed before. I’m off to stockpile toilet roll and pain killers
cryptonector 8y ago
May hasn't been held responsible for this, yet. She's survived an internal party vote of no confidence, and she is clearly confident that her government will survive tomorrow's parliamentary vote of no confidence. Right now the PM (and the EU) gets to go back to the drawing board. And Parliament gets to try to force various things, such as a second referendum, or a delay to brexit (which the EU would have to acquiesce to). May can resist Parliament for a while, if she wants. Obviously I won't try to predict the outcome of anything. I'm not in that business.
- BerislavLopac 8y ago
  > Right now the PM (and the EU) gets to go back to the drawing board Nope. The EU has said there will be no more negotiations.
  - cryptonector 8y ago
    Many brexiteers would be happy with no-deal brexit. The EU will almost certainly negotiate something, if not now, then later. Of course they'll say that they won't renegotiate _now_.
    - BerislavLopac 8y ago
      There is no "later", unless Article 50 is revoked.
BerislavLopac 8y ago
On point 1: a) The vote (referendum) was advisory, and non-binding. Basically an opinion poll held by the government. b) It has been proven that there were many manipulations, irregularities and outright illegal activities which have influenced the result. Normally, these two would be enough for a government to ignore the vote result. But these are not normal times.

balabaster 8y ago

That "woman of great importance in the UK government" is the Prime Minister. For the purpose of this discussion, and until she's voted out, she is the most important person in the United Kingdom.

SolaceQuantum 8y ago
10-4. Why is she being resoundedly disapproved upon by her own gov't? Presumably, the same gov't that put forth this vote? At least some significant margin of politicians must have wanted this vote knowing that 'yes' is on the table. Where are they?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- ErrantX 8y ago
  The problem is that the politics are not partisan and instead divide the main parties. It would be similar to half the republicans and half the democrats agreeing on a key policy & fundamentally disagreeing with the other half of their respective parties. (it's actually even worse than that because there are at least 3 main positions [hard exit, soft exit, no exit] which divide the two main parties, meaning nothing really has a clear majority). The way the UK government works is: from the majority party a government of ministers is formed from their group of MPs. By convention individual MPs in this government (called front-benchers) have a cohesive support for the overall government policy (if they disagree with the policy or vote against it then by convention they have to resign). Anyone from the ruling party NOT on the front-bench can (and often will) vote against the government. Brexit has been insanely divisive. Internally, the ruling Convservative party have at least 4 different positions, including the official government one. Many front-benchers have resigned. Fundamentally the problem is this; people voted for Brexit. But only just. So really nearly half the population doesn't want it. It was simple to answer a simple yes/no question. But exiting is a hugely complex question whereby it is nearly impossible to negotiate a compromise that works for everyone.
  - balabaster 8y ago
    Also a rather large portion of the population didn't take the vote seriously. When it came out that it was a complete clusterfuck, those voters who either voted just to stick it to the man or didn't bother to vote are now rightly panicking that this train wreck that we can't look away from is like the asteroid that hit the Yucatan peninsula and killed off the dinosaurs and there's fuck all we can do about it. Oh well, you live and learn.
- hannasanarion 8y ago
  Because she promised a submarine made of cheese, and delivered a submarine made of cheese, and the people who demanded a submarine made of cheese are mad that it doesn't taste good enough or dive deep enough. There is no such thing as a favorable brexit deal. Britain is already in the most favorable position possible with regards to EU relations: they have all of the benefits of EU membership, but with a special deal that means they're exempted from some of the membership dues, and they can have their own immigration policy and their own money. Britain has a more beneficial position in the EU than any other country in the world, in or out. There is absolutely no way that the EU is going to let them leave and keep most of the benefits of membership. The hardliners want to get everything and give nothing, and surprise surprise, the EU wasn't going to let them have everything in exchange for nothing, so the hardliners hate it, and everybody else hates it because it was a stupid idea in the first place.
- peteretep 8y ago
  > Why is she being resoundedly disapproved upon by her own gov't? Because "Prime Minister" is not the head of state, so there's little respect for the position. Her position is equivalent to Speaker of The House in the US, only in a system where The House is also the Executive.
arethuza 8y ago
"she is the most important person in the United Kingdom." I believe members of the UK armed forces would probably dispute that.
- balabaster 8y ago
  Who are governed ultimately by the Prime Minister. So they do what she tells them to, ultimately making her the most important person.
  - arethuza 8y ago
    Actually, I believe the armed forces of the UK actually take an oath of allegiance to the ruling monarch rather than to the state/government - I did think this didn't mean very much but I have raised the point with a serving army officer and he was rather insistent that they take it seriously: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_Kingdom)#Armed_forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_Kin...
    - balabaster 8y ago
      Interesting, thanks
    - cm2187 8y ago
      The wikipedia article [1] suggests that this is formal only and that the army is under the control of the parliament, which was also my understanding. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army
      - arethuza 8y ago
        Lets just say that it's a formality that I hope never gets put to the test :-|
        cm2187 8y ago

makomk 8y ago

May's deal permanently blocks the UK from ever fully leaving the EU without the EU's permission, meaning that anyone who wants to leave won't support it. It also removes almost all the benefits of remaining in the EU, meaning Remain supporters hate it too. Oh, and for bonus points it effectively makes Northern Ireland no longer fully part of the UK, meaning that the DUP (the Northern Ireland unionist party which the Tories have to ally with to get a majority) will never support it. There are other issues with it too, of course, but that's the general gist.

umanwizard 8y ago
The UK is a sovereign country -- how is it possible for them to never be able to do something without someone else's permission?
- onetimemanytime 8y ago
  They can do it but it without any permission, but it would screw them. They want to undo 40+ years of integration in a few years because a small majority voted
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  It's not possible for anyone to tell you that you can't take a given action. But it is possible for someone to inform you that if you do take a given action, they will take draconian, but completely legal, measures against you.
- mongol 8y ago
  I guess it is like leaving any contract or agreement without fulfilling your obligations. You can do it, but there will be consequences.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- tpm 8y ago
  They are of course able to do that, but that would go against the Good Friday Agreement which guarantees peace in Northern Ireland, and nobody has the balls to do that. Or else the Republic of Ireland would have to leave the EU common market for goods, which too is insane. So that realistically means that the UK cannot terminate the NI backstop solution on its own.

freehunter 8y ago

The problem is, many people wanted Brexit for different reasons. It's easy to find a consensus to the question "should the UK leave the EU". "Brexit" is an abstract, but "single market" and "passports" and "trade deals" and "Ireland" and "Scotland" and "financial regulations" etc are all details that need to be sorted out, and many people feel very differently on them. It's easy to find a consensus to the abstract question "should the UK leave the EU". It's much harder to find a consensus to the all of these questions when asked together. All the people who wanted Brexit are backing away from May's solution because she needs to answer all of those questions 100% correct for 51% of the population. Any disagreement and the deal is off.

UK-Al05 8y ago

The core of the issue that this deal is a compromise. It basically saying the UK is leaving the EU, but not really as we still follow EU law. As such it is not acceptable to brexiters. For remainers, well they don't want leave anyway. Thus no one supports it.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

rchaud 8y ago

> Where are the people who initially brought in Brexit Former PM David Cameron put Leave/Remain to a vote, but publicly said he voted Remain. Resigned after the vote results. Theresa May took his place after some debate; she was vociferously pro-Brexit, and looked like the best option if Britain was to act tough when negotiating with the EU. A number of people dropped out of the succession race, gambling that the Brexit hassle wouldn't be worth it. May survived a no-confidence vote in late 2018, but a number of members of her party have resigned because the deal on the table didn't sync with what's important to their constituents. There are a number of factors, but May's insistence that net migration would fall to 5 figures was something people expected her to deliver. It's not going to happen.

makomk 8y ago
Note that the number of Tory MPs which voted against her in the 2018 no confidence vote (which was an internal party thing) is almost exactly the same as the number of Tory MPs who voted against her deal. Even though she survived that no confidence vote it apparently presaged doom for this deal.
scott_s 8y ago
> Theresa May took his place after some debate; she was vociferously pro-Brexit I don't think that is accurate. See https://www.euronews.com/2018/12/12/what-is-theresa-may-s-view-on-brexit https://www.euronews.com/2018/12/12/what-is-theresa-may-s-vi..., https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38653681 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38653681, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresa_May#Brexit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresa_May#Brexit

lizknope 8y ago

> Where are the people who initially brought in Brexit- why are they not supporting May? They resigned. Boris Johnson the Foreign Secretary resigned. David Davis who was literally the "Brexit minister" resigned. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/theresa-mays-government-in-disarray-after-shock-resignation-by-brexit-minister/2018/07/09/b86533da-8357-11e8-8f6c-46cb43e3f306_story.html?utm_term=.570b76aaf958 https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/theresa-mays-gov... Here are more people who resigned. https://news.sky.com/story/the-ministers-who-have-quit-over-brexit-so-far-11553877 https://news.sky.com/story/the-ministers-who-have-quit-over-... My view is that these people lied to the public about how awesome Brexit would be. Once it got to the hard work of making it happen they realized how awful the deal would be and how the economy would be harmed. Because they didn't want their name attached to it they resigned. Some of them are hoping that May will resign and they can become Prime Minister instead.

pilsetnieks 8y ago
> Once it got to the hard work of making it happen they realized how awful the deal would be and how the economy would be harmed. Because they didn't want their name attached to it they resigned. One could argue that they didn't expect the vote to pass at all, and did it to gain favor with their constituency - to be able to say they "tried to leave the EU but alas." They knew their promises were untenable, yet they made them anyway, but there's no way to fulfill them once the vote passes, hence resignation.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
jandrese 8y ago
The problem is that literally nobody wants May's job right now. Given the shit sandwich she has to work with she's doing the best she can, but the best they can do is make a terrible situation slightly less terrible.
- tim333 8y ago
  Boris wants the job, God help us.

dbdjfjrjvebd 8y ago

May is prime minister. Practically this role is similar to president and majority leader combined. Essentially she is finally responsible for everything. Unfortunately for her there are essentially three groups. (1) Brexit on WTO terms, (2) cancel Brexit and remain, and (3) those that largely support her deal. These groups are more certain what they don't want than what they do want. This means that 2/3 of the MPs oppose this deal. But 2/3 will oppose any option.

kodablah 8y ago

> 2. This is controversial, due to the majority of the populace in general not desiring to leave the EU, but not voting as such individually. Also an American, but from the outside I don't see how a majority desire can be so accurately determined beyond a vote. > Some portions of the UK [...] are strongly aganst this voting result. This I definitely see from the loudest. So strongly that the vote has been tarnished every which way (which, let's be honest, you can do with any vote you want due to all the malfeasance you can find by campaigners). It's becoming a pattern. The votes that the loudest in democracy don't like or can't understand are being challenged on several grounds, most boiling down to assuming ignorance and gullibility of the other side. Accepting results is becoming harder and harder for some to the point where the larger-yet-silent groups feel no recourse but to use the polls and the louder feel no recourse but to invalidate votes and/or prevent them from happening and/or try again.

erikpukinskis 8y ago
Mathemarically, a slim victory with a large percent of the population abstaining does not indicate “majority desire”. Democrasy doesn’t measure majority desire, it measures electioneering. Majority desire is definitely an aspect of elections, but it’s not the thing that gets measured. There are better ways to accurately measure majority desire, and they are not one person/one vote systems. What the system purports to give us is not accuracy, but fairness. It’s acknowledged that no matter what system you put in place, its ideals will be perverted. The best we hope for is that multiple parties all have access to those same perversions. So the difference between the U.S. and Russia is that both Bush and Gore had a right to sue the state of Florida. Of course the outcome doesn’t represent the will of the people in any meaningful way, but we take comfort in knowing that both candidates had the same games open to them. In Russia, Putin is playing a wholly different legal game than everyone else. That’s anti-liberal, and anti-democratic. Much hand wringing is happening in the U.S. today because the American President is mostly above the legal system, as its executor, with only the Senate holding him in check. And it’s not clear our current Senate is committed to the rule of law. We will see when Mueller’s report comes out. And perhaps some governors can also hold him to account. Again, none of this bears any direct relation to the “will of the people” except that there is a method to the madness and any citizen can volunteer for any aspect of the game.

mrec 8y ago

> Why is May being held responsible for this? In short, May has never taken a WTO ("no deal") exit seriously. Since she won't walk away she's had no leverage, so the EU predictably gave her the worst "deal" imaginable, to the extent that polls show Leave voters would prefer staying in the EU and Remain voters would prefer leaving with no deal. It's seriously awful. > Where are the people who initially brought in Brexit- why are they not supporting May? If you're talking about the various Leave-supporting ex-ministers like Boris Johnson and David Davis, they quit when it became clear that they were only there as window-dressing for consumption by domestic Leave voters, and had no influence at all in negotiations or planning. When May came up with her "Chequers" plan, she showed it to Angela Merkel before her own Cabinet; this in a political system that supposedly follows a principle of collective responsibility. > What is preventing the referendum from being declared stupid and that the UK gov't is not going to do it? As an American, what prevented the election of Trump being declared stupid and that the US gov't was not going to accept him? Because I suspect it's pretty much the same answer: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." You can't hold a referendum for tactical reasons and then welsh when it doesn't go your way without thoroughly destroying faith in the legitimacy of your political system.

neotek 8y ago
>As an American, what prevented the election of Trump being declared stupid and that the US gov't was not going to accept him? The Constitution. The referendum, on the other hand, was non-binding.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

ASalazarMX 8y ago

I expect a similar string of incongruities regarding the USA-Mexico wall. Don't end up building it and disappoint me, please.

mywittyname 8y ago

You know how Trump promised to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it? Most people, regardless of political persuasion, knew a wall would be built, but that the USA would pay for it. May promised a divorce which would be a "good deal brexit," or one that includes trade deals which benefited the UK, but without any of the "undesirable" EU requirements. Most people, regardless of political persuasion, divorce could happen, but knew that the Britain wasn't going to get a "good deal" brexit.

megaremote 8y ago
> Most people, regardless of political persuasion, knew a wall would be built, but that the USA would pay for it. This is clearly wrong. I think most people though it was bullshit all along, used to sway a few million idiots.

twoslide 8y ago

> What's preventing the referendum from being declared stupid and that the UK gov't is not going to do it? Nothing except politics. The referendum is advisory and not legally binding. The Leave campaign has been found guilty of criminal offences. But actually, the referendum result is the closest thing May has to a mandate, her party won a minority in the parliamentary elections.

jimnotgym 8y ago
Correct, in fact the only force that the referendum has at all is that David Cameron promised to enact the result. But even this is old news, a past Prime Minister can hardly bind the hands of a future one! In fact the idea that a government can't bind a future government is an important part of Britain's ("unwritten") constitution.
- dumael 8y ago
  Nit: It's Parliament cannot bind a future Parliament rather than UK governments cannot bind future UK governments. https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty The subtly here is that usually a government commands an overall majority of Parliament, but weak/minority governments have to worry about government rebels.

jcriddle4 8y ago

For many Pro-Brexit people they felt May's deal didn't really leave the EU. A very major sticking point is that provisions in the exit agreement, refereed to as the "backstop", that in theory and possibly in practice could legally trap the UK in a half completed transition deal forever with the UK always subject to EU rules. Overall the agreement May put forward is basically an agreement to start the next phase of negotiations to start discussions on a transition agreement which would maybe hopefully be finished by the year 2020 or 2021 or a day after never. Also paying 39 billion pounds and not knowing what the next phase of negotiations would deliver. For Remainers(Anti-Brexit) the agreement was to start the process to leave the EU so of course those people didn't like the agreement either.

jandrese 8y ago
My understanding from Brussels is that there is no second phase of negotiations. They just voted for a hard Brexit.
- Tomte 8y ago
  There can even be no extension of Article 50 for more than a few weeks, because we're electing the European Parliament in May. If the UK is still in the EU by then they need to elect MEPs, as well. But their seats have already been agreed to be distributed to smaller countries who were underrepresented so far. It would be a complete clusterfuck, including doubts whether any legislative action would survive court, if the UK isn't properly represented (either because they don't care anymore and don't hold elections, or they simply cannot organize elections on such short notice).

RafiqM 8y ago

> What is preventing the referendum from being declared stupid and that the UK gov't is not going to do it Essentially, they want to honor the will of the people. The will of the people, by democratic vote, was to leave the EU. With that in mind, they have no options that are in any way good: 1) Push ahead and exit with no-deal (economically disastrous) 2) Push ahead and exit with the proposed deal (economically bad while also not really exiting) 3) Declare it a bad idea and just don't do it (political suicide for everyone involved & creates distrust in democratic process) 4) Hold another referendum where it's going to have to be a decision between staying in or exiting with no deal (also political suicide & creates distrust). There's no way for anyone to win here. I think the best option is for the PM to "take one for the team" (i.e. the country) and take option 3/4, knowing that it will be the end of her and her party.

r00fus 8y ago
Why would #3 and #4 be suicide? Maybe for PM May, but doubtful the Remain MPs and those who "found out how bad Leave was" would actually claim a political boost?
- hardlianotion 8y ago
  On the Conservative side - many of the remain MPs come from leave constituencies. Also, as a party, the Conservatives have a strong leave bias. If the leave does not happen, it is hard to see the Tories making it back to power for a considerable time.
Udik 8y ago
It shouldn't be so hard to argue that steps of this magnitude should not be taken based on a single poll won with a 2% margin (which means that if only 1/100 of the voters had changed sides the result would have been opposite). It might take a bit of courage to declare it but it's a travesty that politicians are so afraid of their electorate as not daring to utter such an obvious truth.
- joshuahughes 8y ago

tomarr 8y ago

It's not people voting against May, it's just that nothing _could_ command a majority at this point other than a fanciful option that takes the best of EU (no economic shock) but strips out unchecked migration and European courts. Our gradient descent has ended in a local minimum, and noone can agree enough to climb the hill. Immigration is a very powerful topic (fear and loathing?) in the mind of voters and much of the 'debate' is not based on reason on either side. It's probably worth noting since the referendum was announced it's unclear whether one person in a country of 60 million has changed their mind on what they preconceptually had locked in at the start.

notahacker 8y ago

> Where are the people who initially brought in Brexit- why are they not supporting May? Many had radically different aspirations for Brexit, no influence on the process and/or disliked May and her government on principle. Others were part of May's Cabinet, some even directly responsible for negotiations, but couldn't deliver anything which matched their initial promises, disliked the deal that was put on the table and decided eyecatching resignation was better than compromise. One or two, like Gove and Leadsom actually are still backing May, but fairly reluctantly. Everybody agrees the deal isn't fantastic, but few are prepared to admit their alternative aspirations were pure fantasy. The flip side is that [nearly] all the Conservative MPs who voted down May's deal will vote confidence in her government very shortly because they value staying in power and loathe the opposition parties too. Which leads nicely on to the next point... > What is preventing the referendum from being declared stupid and that the UK gov't is not going to do it? The same forces that protect a President that has made Nixon's actions look like model of propriety and is quietly despised many of his own party's leading figures. A mixture of partisanship, terror of defying ones own voters and party members, fear of what political upheaval might happen next and doubts over whether they actually would manage to stop things if they tried.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

cm2187 8y ago

1. I don't think it had much to do with nationalist sentiment. EU historically had a bad press in the UK, and the greek debacle didn't help. At the same time immigration has been an increasing concern (not just in the UK, everywhere in Europe, and in the US too). The UK has seen a massive inflow (>1 million in 4 years) of eastern european nationals immigrating, which I think is the primary reason why leave won (rightly or wrongly). But none of this is UK specific. The EU is bracing itself for a rise of populist, eu-skeptic parties in the coming elections. 2. I am not sure how you can claim the majority of the populace is against leaving the EU. A national vote demonstrated the opposite. And it's not clear that another vote now wouldn't yield the same result (the recent polls are roughly where they were a few months before the first vote). 3. May is the prime minister. The head of state (the queen) being essentially an honorific title, she is in charge (she has control of the red button!). But parliament has more power in the UK than in the US and she answers to parliament. 4. The terms of trading between the EU and the UK, as agreed with the EU, requires the UK to abide to EU laws without having any say on them. Brexiters are against as they don't accept this loss of sovereignty (they typically would like a free trade deal with the EU but without loss of sovereignty). Remainers are against as they don't really want to leave the EU in the first place, and are trying to force a way out of Brexit. I don't think you can call the result of referendum "stupid" and ignore it. That would seem very anti-democratic to me. I don't know how the whole thing will play out. Right now it seems that the potential outcomes are: a. Brexit being postponed from March to June (unlikely to be later as this is when the new EU parliament starts after the spring elections, and unlikely to help in any way other than kicking the can down the road). b. May being defeated at the vote on Wednesday, new general elections, whoever wins will have to deal with the same problem and likely with the same outcome (the EU is unlikely to concede much). c. A new referendum (but May repeatedly ruled it out, and again nothing says it will yield another result) d. The EU making significant enough concessions in the short term that could help PM agreeing to the deal. Germany hinted they would be open, while France ruled it out today. e. Leaving the EU without a deal, resulting in short term trade disruptions and an adverse economic impact on the medium term. f. Parliament cancelling Brexit. Many MPs would probably prefer that option, but this is ignoring the result of a referendum, which is a really worrying outcome for a democracy and would likely boost a populist vote down the line. There aren't any obvious good solution, everything comes at a cost. Which is why the public opinion is terribly divided.

w4tson 8y ago

0. Former Prime Minister gambles on a referendum in order to crush rebellion in his own party and secure his leadership. He makes a pact of support and in return gives a referendum on Europe satisfying a small niche of party extremists. Crucially the referendum isn’t binding which is where the problem occurs. The vote didn’t go the way people thought it would go. Maybe because of the fall out of banking crisis and rising inequality, maybe because the leave campaigns broke the law, maybe because of Russian involvement. So now you have a representative democracy that is broadly pro EU vs a popular vote which has voted “out” whatever that means. The referendum is non binding so should be advisory only to the elected officials. Now the government is in a pickle. Because even though the vote was just advisory if they’re seen to ignore this, people will start wondering if their vote matters at all. It could be a path to chaos. This is complicated further by the split of the age of people voting leave. They tended to be older and these voters traditionally vote conservative (aka republican in US terms). So they’d be disenfranchising their base. The government doesn’t even have a majority and is propped up by another tiny party of 10 members called the DUP. This is a little complicated but the outcome is a really weak government because it doesn’t have the numbers to push through legislation it would like. On top of that the euro-sceptic extremists are bolstered by vote and lobbying hard for out by any means necessary. They’re effectively driving policy by threatening to terminate her fragile leadership. All this would have been a doddle if a decent opposition was sat opposite in the commons. However in a perfect storm the opposition is absent. This is even more complicated to understand but the summary is that the hard left socialists have more in common with the hard right anti-EU lot than either of them would like to admit. It’s weird. Mays deal satisfied no-one and it’s taken 2 years to get this far. One interesting side effect is that more people now know what being in the EU means than ever before. It was virtually never discussed before. I’m off to stockpile toilet roll and pain killers

cryptonector 8y ago

May hasn't been held responsible for this, yet. She's survived an internal party vote of no confidence, and she is clearly confident that her government will survive tomorrow's parliamentary vote of no confidence. Right now the PM (and the EU) gets to go back to the drawing board. And Parliament gets to try to force various things, such as a second referendum, or a delay to brexit (which the EU would have to acquiesce to). May can resist Parliament for a while, if she wants. Obviously I won't try to predict the outcome of anything. I'm not in that business.

BerislavLopac 8y ago
> Right now the PM (and the EU) gets to go back to the drawing board Nope. The EU has said there will be no more negotiations.
- cryptonector 8y ago
  Many brexiteers would be happy with no-deal brexit. The EU will almost certainly negotiate something, if not now, then later. Of course they'll say that they won't renegotiate _now_.
  - BerislavLopac 8y ago
    There is no "later", unless Article 50 is revoked.

BerislavLopac 8y ago

On point 1: a) The vote (referendum) was advisory, and non-binding. Basically an opinion poll held by the government. b) It has been proven that there were many manipulations, irregularities and outright illegal activities which have influenced the result. Normally, these two would be enough for a government to ignore the vote result. But these are not normal times.