4 ms·

I don’t really agree with this analysis. A vote was held, and the decision was to leave. That’s fine - we should not have run that referendum in the form it wa

I don’t really agree with this analysis. A vote was held, and the decision was to leave. That’s fine - we should not have run that referendum in the form it was, but we can’t deny the result. The problem is, Brexit was an entirely empty vessel into which voters’ fantasies were poured. The outcome in no way resembles any of the ideas that were articulated before the referendum. There is now a concrete plan that basically everybody hates, because it’s the worst of both worlds. There are three realistically possible options right now. The UK either exits with the agreed deal, exits with no deal in a disorderly fashion, or cancels Brexit and remains in the EU. The first option is bad because nobody wants that deal. The second is bad because it would be obviously catastrophic. The third is terrible because it directly contravenes the outcome of the referendum. In short, all the options are fucking awful. There’s no real democratic legitimacy for any of them. Under these circumstances, having a second referendum that says “this is what we were able to negotiate, now do you want to go through with it or forget the whole thing” is possibly the least shit option. I hope it will be cancelled, but at least if it’s not I can be sure that it was voted for with knowledge of what was to come.

lftl 8y ago
Why not just accept the deal, and then negotiate better terms down the road? Is there something binding in it that would make it hard to renegotiate once the pressure of the clock has been removed, and you possibly have better leverage?
- roywiggins 8y ago
  One binding piece is the "backstop", which is in there to guarantee no hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. It essentially forces the UK to remain in the customs union if they can't work something else out with the EU. There are many and various extremely good reasons for the backstop, but its very existence is anathema for many Brexiters, since it would force the UK to follow EU regulations indefinitely. Alternatively, the UK could put a customs border in the sea between NI and the rest, but that would put NI in a different regulatory regime, and that's anathema to the Tories' partner in government, the Northern Irish DUP, which will not accept anything that could move NI closer to the RoI. So 1) most Brexiters don't like a customs union and don't care about NI 2) the DUP don't want any borders on either "side" of NI (but want Brexit anyway). https://www.apnews.com/eb12b6eb1da3436cba22bd64de6d9ec8 https://www.apnews.com/eb12b6eb1da3436cba22bd64de6d9ec8 The actual contours of the UK/EU relationship after Brexit would otherwise be mostly up for negotiation. If you didn't mind a possible permanent customs union, then exiting with May's deal followed by a bunch more negotiations would seem like a sane thing to do...
  - lftl 8y ago
    So what happens to the border in a hard Brexit? A hard border between NI and Ireland? Does DUP prefer that?
    - matthewmacleod 8y ago
      That is what happens, yes. The DUP prefers that because it pushes NI away from ROI.
      - lftl 8y ago
        So who is a hard border unacceptable to?
        roywiggins 8y ago
        Lots of people, but the people that matter in the negotiation are the Republic of Ireland who will not accept it, full stop. And that means the EU is not going to negotiate a deal that doesn't include the backstop. The EU throwing Ireland under the bus would severely damage its credibility with its smaller member nations. The EU does a lot of things by consensus and voluntarily throwing RoI into economic and political turmoil to appease a country that is trying to leave the EU is a nonstarter. There's also the Good Friday Agreement, which brought peace to Northern Ireland. A hard border would easily be seen as a betrayal of it and could plausibly cause it to collapse. The whole thing is just an impossible trilemma. Can't have a border on the island, because RoI will not let the EU sign that deal. Can't have one in the ocean, because the Tories need the DUP votes in Parliament (they don't have a majority, and the government will fall if the DUP pulls out). Can't have a backstop because it could mean a permanent half-in half-out twilight where the UK stays in the customs union forever and hard Brexit parliamentarians can't swallow that. Three totally incompatible red lines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_border_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_border_question The default, if no deal is signed, is a hard border on the island. Which is bad, but not obviously that much worse for the RoI than a deal with a hard border. So the RoI won't settle for a deal without a backstop.
    - 8y ago
lmm 8y ago
> A vote was held, and the decision was to leave. That’s fine - we should not have run that referendum in the form it was, but we can’t deny the result. > The problem is, Brexit was an entirely empty vessel into which voters’ fantasies were poured. The outcome in no way resembles any of the ideas that were articulated before the referendum. There is now a concrete plan that basically everybody hates, because it’s the worst of both worlds. I don't see any material change in circumstances that would justify redoing the referendum. The deal on the table looks to be very much the kind of deal anyone who thought about it for a few minutes at referendum time would have expected. It may well be the case that some of those who voted leave were hoping for no deal and some were hoping for a deal like this, and neither alone would have got a majority - but the proper time to address that was when drafting the referendum question. I agree we shouldn't have run the referendum in the form it was, but as you say, we can't deny the result. > There’s no real democratic legitimacy for any of them. Under these circumstances, having a second referendum that says “this is what we were able to negotiate, now do you want to go through with it or forget the whole thing” is possibly the least shit option. There's no democratic legitimacy for a referendum that includes remain - we already had that vote. If we really wanted democratic legitimacy we could have a referendum between the proposed deal and no deal, but you'll notice that no-one's arguing for that, because none of the people pushing for a referendum actually care about democracy.
- spinningslate 8y ago
  > I don't see any material change in circumstances that would justify redoing the referendum. Other than, as noted elsewhere: 1. It was an advisory vote, not constitutionally binding 2. The leave campaign broke the law 3. To quote the parent post "Brexit was an entirely empty vessel into which voters’ fantasies were poured. The outcome in no way resembles any of the ideas that were articulated before the referendum". If that's not 'material'...
  - lmm 8y ago
    > 1. It was an advisory vote, not constitutionally binding Parliament can't bind itself, so all referendums in the UK are advisory; indeed the UK has no constitution as such. In any case, what would be different in a re-run? > 2. The leave campaign broke the law You're talking about the breach of spending limits? Those limits are important and those who break them should be punished; at the same time small-scale breaches of the limits are relatively normal occurrences that we've never redone an election over. I'm pretty sure all the main parties have broken them at some point or another (and been duly fined for doing so). > 3. To quote the parent post "Brexit was an entirely empty vessel into which voters’ fantasies were poured. The outcome in no way resembles any of the ideas that were articulated before the referendum". Like I said, what do you think has changed? The predictable consequences of Brexit now are much the same as the predictable consequences of Brexit at referendum time. The no deal outcome is the same as it ever was, the deal on the table is the deal anyone who thought about it would have predicted.
piokoch 8y ago
I am not sure why hard exit is going to be "catastrophic". There are many countries outside EU doing just fine and doing business with EU countries. Plus nothing stops UK from signing bilateral trade deals with EU countries and I wouldn't be surprised if Germany and France were first in the row do sign such deal (loudly crying at the same time how important is the EU solidarity).
- matthewmacleod 8y ago
  There is no such thing as a bilateral trade deal with an EU country. Trade deals are with the EU overall. Yes, they will want a trade deal - but the UK will be in a vastly weak negotiating position, as (I think) the only country with literally no trade deals in place on exit day. Who is going to get the upside of that deal?
- Kurtz79 8y ago
  It has been explained multiple times to several people (Donald Trump, one of them), that for EU countries is impossible to establish individual trade deals, they must do as part of a block. https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-trade-merkel-germany-eu-2017-4?IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-trade-merkel-germany-e... It would defeat the purpose of a common market. What stops UK from doing so is EU laws. But I agree it won't be catastrophic. UK will survive, the EU will survive. But jobs will be lost in the process, economies will be affected, quality of life will be lowered. And people voted for this to happen.
  - matthewmacleod 8y ago
    Both the UK and EU will survive, but I think that’s an awful metric. I have a startup in the UK. We employ EU citizens, sell products and services to EU customers, buy products and services from EU suppliers, and receive EU grant funding. A disorderly Brexit will affect us in unknown, possibly terminal ways. Aside from that personal issue, I t’s possible in the worst case that hundreds of people may die due to lack of medication. The economy will be affected to the time of 10% of GDP over 15 years, by the government’s own prediction. I think that counts as catastrophic.
- 8y ago

lftl 8y ago

Why not just accept the deal, and then negotiate better terms down the road? Is there something binding in it that would make it hard to renegotiate once the pressure of the clock has been removed, and you possibly have better leverage?

roywiggins 8y ago
One binding piece is the "backstop", which is in there to guarantee no hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. It essentially forces the UK to remain in the customs union if they can't work something else out with the EU. There are many and various extremely good reasons for the backstop, but its very existence is anathema for many Brexiters, since it would force the UK to follow EU regulations indefinitely. Alternatively, the UK could put a customs border in the sea between NI and the rest, but that would put NI in a different regulatory regime, and that's anathema to the Tories' partner in government, the Northern Irish DUP, which will not accept anything that could move NI closer to the RoI. So 1) most Brexiters don't like a customs union and don't care about NI 2) the DUP don't want any borders on either "side" of NI (but want Brexit anyway). https://www.apnews.com/eb12b6eb1da3436cba22bd64de6d9ec8 https://www.apnews.com/eb12b6eb1da3436cba22bd64de6d9ec8 The actual contours of the UK/EU relationship after Brexit would otherwise be mostly up for negotiation. If you didn't mind a possible permanent customs union, then exiting with May's deal followed by a bunch more negotiations would seem like a sane thing to do...
- lftl 8y ago
  So what happens to the border in a hard Brexit? A hard border between NI and Ireland? Does DUP prefer that?
  - matthewmacleod 8y ago
    That is what happens, yes. The DUP prefers that because it pushes NI away from ROI.
    - lftl 8y ago
      So who is a hard border unacceptable to?
      - roywiggins 8y ago
        Lots of people, but the people that matter in the negotiation are the Republic of Ireland who will not accept it, full stop. And that means the EU is not going to negotiate a deal that doesn't include the backstop. The EU throwing Ireland under the bus would severely damage its credibility with its smaller member nations. The EU does a lot of things by consensus and voluntarily throwing RoI into economic and political turmoil to appease a country that is trying to leave the EU is a nonstarter. There's also the Good Friday Agreement, which brought peace to Northern Ireland. A hard border would easily be seen as a betrayal of it and could plausibly cause it to collapse. The whole thing is just an impossible trilemma. Can't have a border on the island, because RoI will not let the EU sign that deal. Can't have one in the ocean, because the Tories need the DUP votes in Parliament (they don't have a majority, and the government will fall if the DUP pulls out). Can't have a backstop because it could mean a permanent half-in half-out twilight where the UK stays in the customs union forever and hard Brexit parliamentarians can't swallow that. Three totally incompatible red lines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_border_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_border_question The default, if no deal is signed, is a hard border on the island. Which is bad, but not obviously that much worse for the RoI than a deal with a hard border. So the RoI won't settle for a deal without a backstop.
  - 8y ago

lmm 8y ago

> A vote was held, and the decision was to leave. That’s fine - we should not have run that referendum in the form it was, but we can’t deny the result. > The problem is, Brexit was an entirely empty vessel into which voters’ fantasies were poured. The outcome in no way resembles any of the ideas that were articulated before the referendum. There is now a concrete plan that basically everybody hates, because it’s the worst of both worlds. I don't see any material change in circumstances that would justify redoing the referendum. The deal on the table looks to be very much the kind of deal anyone who thought about it for a few minutes at referendum time would have expected. It may well be the case that some of those who voted leave were hoping for no deal and some were hoping for a deal like this, and neither alone would have got a majority - but the proper time to address that was when drafting the referendum question. I agree we shouldn't have run the referendum in the form it was, but as you say, we can't deny the result. > There’s no real democratic legitimacy for any of them. Under these circumstances, having a second referendum that says “this is what we were able to negotiate, now do you want to go through with it or forget the whole thing” is possibly the least shit option. There's no democratic legitimacy for a referendum that includes remain - we already had that vote. If we really wanted democratic legitimacy we could have a referendum between the proposed deal and no deal, but you'll notice that no-one's arguing for that, because none of the people pushing for a referendum actually care about democracy.

spinningslate 8y ago
> I don't see any material change in circumstances that would justify redoing the referendum. Other than, as noted elsewhere: 1. It was an advisory vote, not constitutionally binding 2. The leave campaign broke the law 3. To quote the parent post "Brexit was an entirely empty vessel into which voters’ fantasies were poured. The outcome in no way resembles any of the ideas that were articulated before the referendum". If that's not 'material'...
- lmm 8y ago
  > 1. It was an advisory vote, not constitutionally binding Parliament can't bind itself, so all referendums in the UK are advisory; indeed the UK has no constitution as such. In any case, what would be different in a re-run? > 2. The leave campaign broke the law You're talking about the breach of spending limits? Those limits are important and those who break them should be punished; at the same time small-scale breaches of the limits are relatively normal occurrences that we've never redone an election over. I'm pretty sure all the main parties have broken them at some point or another (and been duly fined for doing so). > 3. To quote the parent post "Brexit was an entirely empty vessel into which voters’ fantasies were poured. The outcome in no way resembles any of the ideas that were articulated before the referendum". Like I said, what do you think has changed? The predictable consequences of Brexit now are much the same as the predictable consequences of Brexit at referendum time. The no deal outcome is the same as it ever was, the deal on the table is the deal anyone who thought about it would have predicted.

piokoch 8y ago

I am not sure why hard exit is going to be "catastrophic". There are many countries outside EU doing just fine and doing business with EU countries. Plus nothing stops UK from signing bilateral trade deals with EU countries and I wouldn't be surprised if Germany and France were first in the row do sign such deal (loudly crying at the same time how important is the EU solidarity).

matthewmacleod 8y ago
There is no such thing as a bilateral trade deal with an EU country. Trade deals are with the EU overall. Yes, they will want a trade deal - but the UK will be in a vastly weak negotiating position, as (I think) the only country with literally no trade deals in place on exit day. Who is going to get the upside of that deal?
Kurtz79 8y ago
It has been explained multiple times to several people (Donald Trump, one of them), that for EU countries is impossible to establish individual trade deals, they must do as part of a block. https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-trade-merkel-germany-eu-2017-4?IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-trade-merkel-germany-e... It would defeat the purpose of a common market. What stops UK from doing so is EU laws. But I agree it won't be catastrophic. UK will survive, the EU will survive. But jobs will be lost in the process, economies will be affected, quality of life will be lowered. And people voted for this to happen.
- matthewmacleod 8y ago
  Both the UK and EU will survive, but I think that’s an awful metric. I have a startup in the UK. We employ EU citizens, sell products and services to EU customers, buy products and services from EU suppliers, and receive EU grant funding. A disorderly Brexit will affect us in unknown, possibly terminal ways. Aside from that personal issue, I t’s possible in the worst case that hundreds of people may die due to lack of medication. The economy will be affected to the time of 10% of GDP over 15 years, by the government’s own prediction. I think that counts as catastrophic.
8y ago