8 ms·

I've said this before so I'll ask this again- I'm an American and I'm entirely ignorant on UK politics. I've followed the headlines and I am still confused why

I've said this before so I'll ask this again- I'm an American and I'm entirely ignorant on UK politics. I've followed the headlines and I am still confused why Brexit is happening. It seems no one wants Brexit as it has been suggested by the political leadership of UK, and the majority want to avoid no deal at all. I do not understand why not call the entire Brexit thing off; why is that political suicide?

schintan 8y ago
because if Parliament overturns the people's vote it sets a dangerous precedent.
- tedivm 8y ago
  It was a non-binding referendum. It wouldn't be "overturning" anything. A delay plus a new vote (now that people are more educated on things) seems like the most democratic way to handle this.
  - kadabra9 8y ago
    "people didnt vote the way I wanted them to vote, so they must either be uneducated or the process is undemocratic!"
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      That does seem to happen sometimes in connection with the EU, doesn't it? But I don't think it quite fits here. The people of the UK voted for an abstract Brexit - one in which everyone could pin their dreams for what it would be. When there is a concrete Brexit plan - the best negotiated deal, hard Brexit, or whatever - when it's no longer something amorphous that you can imagine is whatever you want, but is instead something specific that you can't change, the people do in fact know more. They know what the deal actually is. Letting them ratify the actual deal rather than an abstract one seems quite reasonable to me.
  - vkou 8y ago
    1. I have no issue with a Parliament overturning a non-binding referrendum. 2. Why do you expect that the vote will turn out any different? One third of the country wants a hard brexit, one third wants a soft brexit, and one third wants no brexit. There is no way to make even a majority happy. Having another vote will put you right back where you were two years ago.
    - sparkie 8y ago
      If voting should happen twice, can we vote again on our politicians before they cancel our previous vote on leaving the EU? (Who all promised to deliver the result of the vote in the election manifestos)
    - tedivm 8y ago
      I'm not sure where you're getting the numbers that 2/3s of people want Brexit to happen, as I can't find any that do. Here's some more realistic numbers- > The survey by polling firm YouGov showed that if a referendum were held immediately, 46 percent would vote to remain, 39 percent would vote to leave, and the rest either did not know, would not vote, or refused to answer the question. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/06/britons-would-now-vote-to-stay-in-eu-want-second-referendum---poll.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/06/britons-would-now-vote-to-st... Here's an aggregate of polls that show much stronger support for "stay" than "leave": https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-a-second-eu-referendum-were-held-today-how-would-you-vote/ https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-a-second-eu-referen...
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      Well, nobody can be made happy, I agree. Maybe they should go for "least unhappy". Put three options on the ballot - remain, hard Brexit, and May's best deal. None of the three will get a majority. (Brexit might get a majority if you lump May's best deal and hard Brexit together, but as you point out, those aren't really the same thing.) What do you do when nothing gets a majority? You could go with whatever gets the most votes, but as you said, that leaves the majority unhappy. Instead, on the same ballot, ask everyone what their second choice is. If nothing gets a majority of first place votes, then go with whatever got the most first and second place votes.
  - T4NG 8y ago
    "educated" is not the word I would say, I think people are just given the immediate effect and fear without any understanding what it means for long term effects for the country.
  - NavyNuke 8y ago
    > now that people are more educated on things What do you mean by this? Most of the articles I've read and people I've talked with from England have said that immigration and keeping England English was the main concern behind Brexit...have views on non-English immigrants changed?
    - evgen 8y ago
      While these were some of the claims made in favour of Brexit, there were also many wild claims regarding how much money the NHS would get now that the UK didn't need to send money to the EU and similar lies regarding trade deals and how everything would be better once Johnny Foreigner was kicked out. Now people are discovering unpleasant truths like how much of the NHS depended on foreign nurses and doctors and the amount of EU money that was propping up these small Leave-voting villages. If you want a good laugh you should take a look at some of the claims made by Johnson, Farage, and Gove during the campaign.
nkkollaw 8y ago
Well, people vote for something and you ignore their democratic vote. Pretty bad.
- chc 8y ago
  The usual suggestion is not to ignore the vote, but to put it back up for a vote. Ask people if, now that they've seen the difficulty of Brexit, they still want to do this. If the people actually want the Brexit that exists in real life, they'll reaffirm. It's still democratic by any reasonable definition of the word.
  - altern8 8y ago
    Having people vote again and again until you get the result you want is like ignoring the vote.
    - chc 8y ago
      First of all, two votes is not "again and again" in any sense of the phrase. I take your point, but nobody is suggesting referendums without end. Second of all, bringing something up for a vote more that once is not like ignoring the vote. Rejected proposals are very often brought back up, maybe with some retooling, maybe just in hopes that the passage of time has made them more palatable. For example, Quebec voted on its equivalent of Brexit twice, and though it was a bit of a joke, it wasn't generally viewed as shady. It is possible to use additional referendums as a stalling tactic, and if you kept doing it forever, you would effectively be ignoring the vote. But again, nobody is suggesting that. Putting it up for another vote now that the public has more information would literally just be democracy.
      - altern8 8y ago
        > I take your point, but nobody is suggesting referendums without end. Of course not, just until people vote remain!
- foobarbazetc 8y ago
krona 8y ago
The default legal position is that Britain leaves the EU on the 29th. With or without a deal.
oliveshell 8y ago
There’s a widely-held belief that simply calling the whole thing off— or holding a second referendum— would cause outrage and undermine public faith in British democracy (by ‘ignoring the will of the people’, i.e., the referendum result).
- voidlogic 8y ago
  With all the brexit challanges, why not have a new referendum to "confirm the will of the people"? It seems doubtful it would pass this time, crisis averted? Also, doesn't brexit basically guarantee Scottish independence? The Scotts were way more opposed to brexit than the English in the brexit referendum and their most recent independence referendum stated as a condition of the delay until the next independence referendum that the UK's relationship with the EU did not change? Is that right?
  - matthewmacleod 8y ago
    With all the brexit challanges, why not have a new referendum to "confirm the will of the people"? It's unclear whether or not it will be possible to construct majority support in parliament for that at present. There's also the issue of legitimacy; while I don't agree with the view myself, there is concern that a second referendum smacks of an attitude of "you did it wrong the first time, try again". This is the outcome of a badly-designed referendum, which should probably have included a ratification vote. Also, doesn't brexit basically guarantee Scottish independence? While I'm a huge Scottish independence fan and would love this to be the case, the reality on the ground is more complex. The case for the previous independence vote in 2014 was based heavily on continued EU membership for both Scotland and the rest of the UK. An unstable, hard-Brexit neighbour will be difficult for Scotland, which is heavily intertwined economically, culturally and politically with the rest of the UK. Brexit probably enhances the emotional case, but doesn't help the practical one. Additionally, due to the constitutional structure of the UK, Scotland cannot hold a legitimate referendum on independence without the consent of the UK parliament – something which is unlikely to be granted any time soon.
- betulaq 8y ago
  As an American I've been confused by this argument against a second referendum. It has for a long time seemed like the best option. If people still want Brexit, they'd vote for it (note that a second vote would only strengthen confidence that Brexit is really what people want). If not, then the will of the people has changed. It seems like a second referendum would optimally be framed differently than the first, but it seems like the best option as an outsider. The current scenario doesn't seem to be working. Strange times we all live in.
LeonM 8y ago
Well, it's a democracy, they let the people vote, and the people voted in favor of leaving the EU. It's the same for me as a non-American looking at the whole Trump situation. The people chose him as their president, yet I get the impression (again, I'm an outsider) that very few people like him as a president.
- hlnas 8y ago
  That's what the mass media, which is skewed to the left, wants you to think. The truth is that his approval rating is doing okay, and it's especially good for republican voters.
  - pcwalton 8y ago
    Trump's approval rating is really not doing OK. It's mediocre. Not Nixon or GWB-at-the-end-of-his-term bad, but an unbiased observer would not call being down 12 points "OK". https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
    - hlnas 8y ago
      Yes, but I think it's perfectly normal given how politics works now. Everything is becoming more polarised.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > I think it's perfectly normal given how politics works now. Yes, Trump's approval rating is dead average for President’s taking office after the end of Obama’s second term at the same point in their term of office. But unless you reduce the domain so much that you compare Trump only to himself, it's not perfectly normal.
  - the_gastropod 8y ago
    > and it's especially good for republican voters. This is true, but maybe not for the reasons you think. The number of people who self-identify as "Republican" has shrunk considerably over the past few years. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/06/14/trump-owns-a-shrinking-republican-party/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/06/14/trump-owns-...
rb808 8y ago
I believe its very similar to Trump's success. Over the last 20 years with globalization some people have done very well, city dwelling professionals, property owners, those working in technology etc. Many hard working, middle and working class people in rural and industrial areas have suffered - and this got worse after 2008 crisis. Brexit and Trump are just these people saying they want a big change in direction. I dont think they're sure Brexit and Trump will improve things but at least the city dwelling elite doesn't like it so there must be something good about it.
notfromhere 8y ago
This all happened because Cameron really misread the room
cheeseomlit 8y ago
It's happening because the people voted for it in a referendum. Calling it off would be seen as ignoring the wishes of their constituency. Their reasons for voting that way in the first place are varied, many UK citizens (and people in other EU member states) don't like the idea of giving up some of their country's autonomy/sovereignty to a central authority they had no part in electing/appointing, and they may disagree with some of the policies imposed on them by that authority.
sparkie 8y ago
The idea that nobody wants Brexit is an false image painted by (predominantly left-wing) mainstream media to try and prevent it from ever happening. There is massive support for Brexit across England and Northern Ireland. Support for remain is largely in Scotland and the the large academic cities in England. The vote results can be seen here:[1] One trouble with the media is they never leave their echo chambers in these cities and find out what people across the country think. I don't know of anybody in my town who voted Brexit and has changed their mind since. In fact, many who voted to remain have said they would vote to leave in a second referendum, because the contempt that the political elite in Westminster and Brussels have for the result of a democratic vote has been laid bare for all to see. There is only a majority in favour of renaming in parliament, but as you note, it would be political suicide for them to cut off Brexit, which is why we have this shitshow where they try to stop it by pretending to try and make it happen. ("Brexit in name only") https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/United_Kingdom_EU_referendum_2016_area_results.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/United_K...
- atombender 8y ago
  Since you're being downvoted: A January 2018 poll [1], showed that many areas, such as the Midlands, were still majority "leave". A recent poll [1] showed that "remain" support has increased significantly, however. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2018/jan/26/guardian-icm-brexit-poll-full-results https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2018/jan... [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/06/britons-would-now-vote-to-stay-in-eu-want-second-referendum---poll.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/06/britons-would-now-vote-to-st...
lanevorockz 8y ago
Brexit is happening because the EU is becoming a political entity and no longer an economic union. The direction was set in 2014 with the election of Juncker that is one of the architects of the Euro. The government voted itself to have more power without any validation with other countries, this caused a massive push back against the EU is ALL of Europe. Don't forget that France has been revolting for almost three months now.
- rndmio 8y ago
  I take it you're unaware of the treaty of Rome? It's been that way since the start.
telnat 8y ago
"It seems no one wants Brexit" Apart from the 17.4 million majority that voted for it?
matthewmacleod 8y ago
As a quick intro – membership of the EU has been a bit of a hot topic in the UK for quite a few years now, and longer in certain circles of the Conservative party. That party made a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on membership as a bit of a concession to help avoid a split in the party. It was generally expected that this would be an easy win for the "remain" group, and there is only minority support among representatives for a Brexit policy in any form. The problem there is that there are now several groupings of representatives – some of them would like to push forward with a "cliff-edge" style exit, some would like a negotiated but "hard" deal, some would like a very soft "technical Brexit", and others would prefer to remain entirely. The parliament is politically bound by the outcome of the referendum—it would be a damaging move to hold a referendum then not implement the result—but at the same time, there is no consensus on what "Brexit" actually means, so it's not currently possible to construct a majority for any individual plan. It's not a good situation.
- sparkie 8y ago
  Membership of the EU has been a hot topic before the EU even existed. Ted Heath got us into the EEC without a referendum in 72, and then offered us a vote to remain or leave in 75. The scaremongering about leaving back then was almost exactly the same as it is being presented now. My opinion is that a deal cannot be negotiated among uneven parties. Right now, the UK can either leave with no deal, or leave on the terms demanded by the EU, with no concessions whatsoever. There is no table for negotiation. It is leave or surrender. Once we leave, we are no longer the begging party asking for concessions, but the roles will be reversed. The EU does not want to lose one of their largest export markets, and will quickly change their mind about a trade deal.
  - Androider 8y ago
    It's a large market for both sides, but Brexit will hurt one much more than the other. The UK exports ~50% of its goods and services to the EU. The EU exports 8% of it's good and services to the UK. The latter is in absolute terms the larger amount of goods and services, but the former is just a massive portion of total trade to have to suddenly replace or re-negotiate. Think about it this way: SMB company A has to suddenly replace 50% of its customer base. Enterprise company B has to suddenly replace 8% of it's customers. I know which one I'd rather be!
kristopolous 8y ago
The problem was the plebiscite format. It had two options: . [ ] Remain a member of the European Union . [ ] Leave the European Union Do you see the huge honking flashing design flaw here? No? Let's rephrase this with a little substitution: . [ ] Continue the known reality . [ ] Do something else (to be determined later) There's the problem. The second was a catch-all that cast a huge net encompassing all imagined alternatives. Everything that isn't what is currently now, that's option 2. That's what won, because it's every imagined alternative tossed in a huge pile. Your Own Personal Favorite Idea is option 2! Hooray! The problem is that when that has to become concrete it turns out that staying in the EU outweighs any one particular instance of the "leave the EU" reality ... and one of them has to be executed on. WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED The plebiscite should have had detailed, specific scenarios and been structured as follows: . [ ] Remain in the EU . [ ] Option 1 (addendum 1) . [ ] Option 2 (addendum 2) . [ ] ... . [ ] Option N (addendum n) Why? Because that's what would actually be happening, the actual reality that has to be contended with, not just some undefined fantasy. BUT THIS FAVORS STAYING, ALWAYS No. Not necessarily. If the Brexiters could offer a real-world, concrete, provable, air-tight demonstrably better alternative instead of amorphous good-feelings then they can persuade the public with this imagined reality instead of relying on a reality imagined. What shouldn't have been allowed, and why this is a total mess, is an option of amorphous make-believe. Make-believe will always win.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  No, what should have happened is a second plebiscite confirming the actual deal negotiated with the EU, with: (1) Accept deal and exit, (2) Exit with no deal, (3) Rescind Article 50 As the options. Or, the government should just not have used a non-binding referendum on such a complex policy matter as an electoral ploy in the first place and actually governed as elected to do rather than passing the buck.
  - kristopolous 8y ago
    Sure, that works too. Anything that resolves the unspecific versus specific problem without introducing further problems suffices.
rprenger 8y ago
I liked this explanation: https://twitter.com/hugorifkind/status/1072222230791229440?lang=en https://twitter.com/hugorifkind/status/1072222230791229440?l...
treis 8y ago
> It seems no one wants Brexit as it has been suggested by the political leadership of UK, and the majority want to avoid no deal at all. There's basically two big stumbling blocks: The first is that there has to be a customs check between either: (1) The EU/Republic of Ireland , (2) ROI and Northern Ireland, or (3) Northern Ireland and Britain (the island). (1) is unacceptable to the EU. (2) breaks the Good Friday agreement and could reignite violence in Ireland. (3) is unacceptable to the Northern Ireland political party propping up the government. The second is that from the perspective of the EU, Britain has to get a worse deal by leaving the EU than what they had when they were in it. Otherwise, every other country sees that it's better to be out than in and the EU risks collapse. These are more or less intractable problems. I'm sure we've all had the experience where an IT project is obviously doomed but nobody wants the responsibility and blame for pulling the plug. That's where Brexit is today.
- ars 8y ago
  What happens if there is no customs check at any of those locations? i.e. each party says "you do it, I won't", and it ends up that no one did?
  - Balgair 8y ago
    Then that's not an 'exit'. The EU must treat the UK like any other country (say, Canada or Korea), otherwise all the EU countries will exit as they can get better terms than just staying in the EU. CPG Grey has a great explainer on the impossibility that the UK is in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1Yv24cM2os https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1Yv24cM2os If you are unaware of the issues with ROI and NI, I'll say that a bit of education is really needed. The history there is very complicated and can't really be boiled down here on HN. That said, the threat of renewed violence on Ireland is absolutely real and very possible. During The Troubles (lasting ~35 years) there were ~50k casualties in total. The peace is fragile and renewed violence could very possibly result in much higher casualty numbers. Lives are quite literally on the line. EDIT: Sometimes pictures are better than words. We can talk about 50k casualties, but seeing some of them is a lot more 'real', at least to me. If you have the inclination, this image gallery does an alright job showing the long and very bloody history of ROI-UK relations during The Troubles: https://allthatsinteresting.com/the-troubles#31 https://allthatsinteresting.com/the-troubles#31
crdrost 8y ago
So a country called Greece which had been a part of the EU had a severe financial collapse a year or two (2009ish?) after the period when (2007-2008) the US had a subprime mortgage collapse that triggered the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the period that we sometimes call the Great Recession now. This led to a great lack of faith in the value of the EU because it creates some notion from the richer countries, "ew, why do we have to bail them out?" And that perception in turn caused by 2016 a lot of political pressure on the leadership of the UK to seriously consider exiting the EU, as they've always kind of held Europe at arm's length, e.g. by not embracing the Euro. So this prime minister named David Cameron thought he would squash the whole "let's leave the EU" dissent by revealing it to be a minority position by some clever politicking: he would call a referendum and they would get only 15% of the vote and he could dust his hands and say "well we had this vote and you were wrong and let's stop holding untenable positions here." The problem was that rather than 15% of the vote, Leave carried 52% of the vote. Legally it was not a binding vote, the Parliament is still allowed to do whatever they want. But the Conservative Party that Cameron had led was sincere about "we're going to do whatever the public decides." Due to the complete reversal of his expectations, Cameron resigned as PM and was replaced by May. May is in a tricky situation because if she holds a second referendum, "really, truly, are we going to leave the EU?" then it looks like her party is just going to keep asking the question until they get the answer they want -- and that is not really democracy. If they just say "eff it we give up, we're not doing this Brexit thing" then they are reneging their earlier promise. With that said there is now a widespread belief that if they did re-ask the question the majority would say "hell no, remain in the EU, we didn't mobilize with enough urgency because we didn't understand what the country was signing up for in that last vote." If a different party were in power, probably they would have done so by now. But because there is this direct line from Cameron to May, May has been very firm on her belief that they need to go through with Brexit one way or the other. Because May was so obstinate on this point, there have most recently (Dec 2018, Jan 2019) been some votes of no confidence trying to upset the government and have a new government that might be able to do the actually-popular thing. Those have failed.
- catdog 8y ago
  > Cameron resigned as PM and was replaced by May. You missed the part where May called a general election right after sending the official withdrawal notice where she only barely gained a majority giving the Brexit hardliners a lot of additional power. Again based on way too favorable predictions about voters preferences.
atombender 8y ago
In terms of "political suicide": It's complicated. There are lots of MPs who would want nothing more than to scrap Brexit or at least hold a second referendum. However, the situation is similar to what's happening with Trump and the Republican Party in the US: Politicians vote on party lines against their personal beliefs (or the desires of their constituents) simply so the party can hold on to power. May and the Tories can't backpedal on Brexit because it would, at this point, be political suicide. It would significantly weaken the Conservative Party (the Tories) politically, and pave the way for a Labour government. May and her colleagues would prefer Brexit to losing their power. Of course, May says she sees it as her duty to fulfill the "will of the people" despite the fact that, according to insiders, she doesn't actually believe in Brexit. What's remarkable is that the Conservative leadership has never been able swing the rhetoric around in their favour. A more cunning politican should have been able to turn David Cameron (who was responsible for setting Brexit in motion in the first place) into a scapegoat as well as point the finger at the Brexit faction for poisoning the well. There's a whole group of politicians, including Boris Johnson, that are now hated by the general public following the revelations about the Leave campaign. What's also remarkable is how badly Labour has miscalculated the opportunity to gain a huge political momentum by becoming the anti-Brexit party. But its leader, Jeremy Corbyn, is an EU skeptic, and hasn't stepped up.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  > May and her colleagues would prefer Brexit to losing their power. That I think is the fundamental problem. It's not unique to May, or even to the UK, either. You see this all the time. Politicians want to win the next election more than they want to do the right thing (or even the right thing according to their own views). But if you can't do what you think should be done, what's the point of having power?
  - repolfx 8y ago
    That's not the problem, that's the entire point of democracy. It boggles my mind that such a basic point of civil society is so difficult to understand for so many. There is no reason to believe MPs can "do the right thing". Their analysis skills are weak, they routinely say things that are factually false, they manipulate, they lie and their numeracy skills are nearly non-existent. Some examples. Most of them can't even tell you what the probability of flipping two heads in a row is: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-19801666 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-19801666 The Shadow Home Secretary, i.e. the woman who is one election victory away from running the police, went on public radio and simply made numbers up off the top of her head for how much money would be spent on the police. Even worse the numbers were absurd, like costing only £300,000 pounds to hire 10,000 police officers: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/diane-abbot-lbc-interview-in-full-police-officer-pay-manifesto-radio-nick-ferrari-a7713556.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/diane-abbot-l... It's clear that Theresa May and most MPs don't even understand the basics of negotiation, like "you must be willing to walk away". Politicians should absolutely not be doing what they think the right thing is, they are wildly unqualified to decide that. Their job is to do what their voters ask them to do, as faithfully as possible, and nothing else. It's when politicians start to think they know better than their voters that power has corrupted them and the problems really start. That's the root of all dictatorships and the sorts of miseries that have throughout history killed millions of people.

schintan 8y ago

because if Parliament overturns the people's vote it sets a dangerous precedent.

tedivm 8y ago
It was a non-binding referendum. It wouldn't be "overturning" anything. A delay plus a new vote (now that people are more educated on things) seems like the most democratic way to handle this.
- kadabra9 8y ago
  "people didnt vote the way I wanted them to vote, so they must either be uneducated or the process is undemocratic!"
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    That does seem to happen sometimes in connection with the EU, doesn't it? But I don't think it quite fits here. The people of the UK voted for an abstract Brexit - one in which everyone could pin their dreams for what it would be. When there is a concrete Brexit plan - the best negotiated deal, hard Brexit, or whatever - when it's no longer something amorphous that you can imagine is whatever you want, but is instead something specific that you can't change, the people do in fact know more. They know what the deal actually is. Letting them ratify the actual deal rather than an abstract one seems quite reasonable to me.
- vkou 8y ago
  1. I have no issue with a Parliament overturning a non-binding referrendum. 2. Why do you expect that the vote will turn out any different? One third of the country wants a hard brexit, one third wants a soft brexit, and one third wants no brexit. There is no way to make even a majority happy. Having another vote will put you right back where you were two years ago.
  - sparkie 8y ago
    If voting should happen twice, can we vote again on our politicians before they cancel our previous vote on leaving the EU? (Who all promised to deliver the result of the vote in the election manifestos)
  - tedivm 8y ago
    I'm not sure where you're getting the numbers that 2/3s of people want Brexit to happen, as I can't find any that do. Here's some more realistic numbers- > The survey by polling firm YouGov showed that if a referendum were held immediately, 46 percent would vote to remain, 39 percent would vote to leave, and the rest either did not know, would not vote, or refused to answer the question. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/06/britons-would-now-vote-to-stay-in-eu-want-second-referendum---poll.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/06/britons-would-now-vote-to-st... Here's an aggregate of polls that show much stronger support for "stay" than "leave": https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-a-second-eu-referendum-were-held-today-how-would-you-vote/ https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-a-second-eu-referen...
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    Well, nobody can be made happy, I agree. Maybe they should go for "least unhappy". Put three options on the ballot - remain, hard Brexit, and May's best deal. None of the three will get a majority. (Brexit might get a majority if you lump May's best deal and hard Brexit together, but as you point out, those aren't really the same thing.) What do you do when nothing gets a majority? You could go with whatever gets the most votes, but as you said, that leaves the majority unhappy. Instead, on the same ballot, ask everyone what their second choice is. If nothing gets a majority of first place votes, then go with whatever got the most first and second place votes.
- T4NG 8y ago
  "educated" is not the word I would say, I think people are just given the immediate effect and fear without any understanding what it means for long term effects for the country.
- NavyNuke 8y ago
  > now that people are more educated on things What do you mean by this? Most of the articles I've read and people I've talked with from England have said that immigration and keeping England English was the main concern behind Brexit...have views on non-English immigrants changed?
  - evgen 8y ago
    While these were some of the claims made in favour of Brexit, there were also many wild claims regarding how much money the NHS would get now that the UK didn't need to send money to the EU and similar lies regarding trade deals and how everything would be better once Johnny Foreigner was kicked out. Now people are discovering unpleasant truths like how much of the NHS depended on foreign nurses and doctors and the amount of EU money that was propping up these small Leave-voting villages. If you want a good laugh you should take a look at some of the claims made by Johnson, Farage, and Gove during the campaign.

nkkollaw 8y ago

Well, people vote for something and you ignore their democratic vote. Pretty bad.

chc 8y ago
The usual suggestion is not to ignore the vote, but to put it back up for a vote. Ask people if, now that they've seen the difficulty of Brexit, they still want to do this. If the people actually want the Brexit that exists in real life, they'll reaffirm. It's still democratic by any reasonable definition of the word.
- altern8 8y ago
  Having people vote again and again until you get the result you want is like ignoring the vote.
  - chc 8y ago
    First of all, two votes is not "again and again" in any sense of the phrase. I take your point, but nobody is suggesting referendums without end. Second of all, bringing something up for a vote more that once is not like ignoring the vote. Rejected proposals are very often brought back up, maybe with some retooling, maybe just in hopes that the passage of time has made them more palatable. For example, Quebec voted on its equivalent of Brexit twice, and though it was a bit of a joke, it wasn't generally viewed as shady. It is possible to use additional referendums as a stalling tactic, and if you kept doing it forever, you would effectively be ignoring the vote. But again, nobody is suggesting that. Putting it up for another vote now that the public has more information would literally just be democracy.
    - altern8 8y ago
      > I take your point, but nobody is suggesting referendums without end. Of course not, just until people vote remain!
foobarbazetc 8y ago

krona 8y ago

The default legal position is that Britain leaves the EU on the 29th. With or without a deal.

oliveshell 8y ago

There’s a widely-held belief that simply calling the whole thing off— or holding a second referendum— would cause outrage and undermine public faith in British democracy (by ‘ignoring the will of the people’, i.e., the referendum result).

voidlogic 8y ago
With all the brexit challanges, why not have a new referendum to "confirm the will of the people"? It seems doubtful it would pass this time, crisis averted? Also, doesn't brexit basically guarantee Scottish independence? The Scotts were way more opposed to brexit than the English in the brexit referendum and their most recent independence referendum stated as a condition of the delay until the next independence referendum that the UK's relationship with the EU did not change? Is that right?
- matthewmacleod 8y ago
  With all the brexit challanges, why not have a new referendum to "confirm the will of the people"? It's unclear whether or not it will be possible to construct majority support in parliament for that at present. There's also the issue of legitimacy; while I don't agree with the view myself, there is concern that a second referendum smacks of an attitude of "you did it wrong the first time, try again". This is the outcome of a badly-designed referendum, which should probably have included a ratification vote. Also, doesn't brexit basically guarantee Scottish independence? While I'm a huge Scottish independence fan and would love this to be the case, the reality on the ground is more complex. The case for the previous independence vote in 2014 was based heavily on continued EU membership for both Scotland and the rest of the UK. An unstable, hard-Brexit neighbour will be difficult for Scotland, which is heavily intertwined economically, culturally and politically with the rest of the UK. Brexit probably enhances the emotional case, but doesn't help the practical one. Additionally, due to the constitutional structure of the UK, Scotland cannot hold a legitimate referendum on independence without the consent of the UK parliament – something which is unlikely to be granted any time soon.
betulaq 8y ago
As an American I've been confused by this argument against a second referendum. It has for a long time seemed like the best option. If people still want Brexit, they'd vote for it (note that a second vote would only strengthen confidence that Brexit is really what people want). If not, then the will of the people has changed. It seems like a second referendum would optimally be framed differently than the first, but it seems like the best option as an outsider. The current scenario doesn't seem to be working. Strange times we all live in.

LeonM 8y ago

Well, it's a democracy, they let the people vote, and the people voted in favor of leaving the EU. It's the same for me as a non-American looking at the whole Trump situation. The people chose him as their president, yet I get the impression (again, I'm an outsider) that very few people like him as a president.

hlnas 8y ago
That's what the mass media, which is skewed to the left, wants you to think. The truth is that his approval rating is doing okay, and it's especially good for republican voters.
- pcwalton 8y ago
  Trump's approval rating is really not doing OK. It's mediocre. Not Nixon or GWB-at-the-end-of-his-term bad, but an unbiased observer would not call being down 12 points "OK". https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
  - hlnas 8y ago
    Yes, but I think it's perfectly normal given how politics works now. Everything is becoming more polarised.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > I think it's perfectly normal given how politics works now. Yes, Trump's approval rating is dead average for President’s taking office after the end of Obama’s second term at the same point in their term of office. But unless you reduce the domain so much that you compare Trump only to himself, it's not perfectly normal.
- the_gastropod 8y ago
  > and it's especially good for republican voters. This is true, but maybe not for the reasons you think. The number of people who self-identify as "Republican" has shrunk considerably over the past few years. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/06/14/trump-owns-a-shrinking-republican-party/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/06/14/trump-owns-...

rb808 8y ago

I believe its very similar to Trump's success. Over the last 20 years with globalization some people have done very well, city dwelling professionals, property owners, those working in technology etc. Many hard working, middle and working class people in rural and industrial areas have suffered - and this got worse after 2008 crisis. Brexit and Trump are just these people saying they want a big change in direction. I dont think they're sure Brexit and Trump will improve things but at least the city dwelling elite doesn't like it so there must be something good about it.

notfromhere 8y ago

This all happened because Cameron really misread the room

cheeseomlit 8y ago

It's happening because the people voted for it in a referendum. Calling it off would be seen as ignoring the wishes of their constituency. Their reasons for voting that way in the first place are varied, many UK citizens (and people in other EU member states) don't like the idea of giving up some of their country's autonomy/sovereignty to a central authority they had no part in electing/appointing, and they may disagree with some of the policies imposed on them by that authority.

sparkie 8y ago

The idea that nobody wants Brexit is an false image painted by (predominantly left-wing) mainstream media to try and prevent it from ever happening. There is massive support for Brexit across England and Northern Ireland. Support for remain is largely in Scotland and the the large academic cities in England. The vote results can be seen here:[1] One trouble with the media is they never leave their echo chambers in these cities and find out what people across the country think. I don't know of anybody in my town who voted Brexit and has changed their mind since. In fact, many who voted to remain have said they would vote to leave in a second referendum, because the contempt that the political elite in Westminster and Brussels have for the result of a democratic vote has been laid bare for all to see. There is only a majority in favour of renaming in parliament, but as you note, it would be political suicide for them to cut off Brexit, which is why we have this shitshow where they try to stop it by pretending to try and make it happen. ("Brexit in name only") https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/United_Kingdom_EU_referendum_2016_area_results.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/United_K...

atombender 8y ago
Since you're being downvoted: A January 2018 poll [1], showed that many areas, such as the Midlands, were still majority "leave". A recent poll [1] showed that "remain" support has increased significantly, however. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2018/jan/26/guardian-icm-brexit-poll-full-results https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2018/jan... [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/06/britons-would-now-vote-to-stay-in-eu-want-second-referendum---poll.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/06/britons-would-now-vote-to-st...

lanevorockz 8y ago

Brexit is happening because the EU is becoming a political entity and no longer an economic union. The direction was set in 2014 with the election of Juncker that is one of the architects of the Euro. The government voted itself to have more power without any validation with other countries, this caused a massive push back against the EU is ALL of Europe. Don't forget that France has been revolting for almost three months now.

rndmio 8y ago
I take it you're unaware of the treaty of Rome? It's been that way since the start.

telnat 8y ago

"It seems no one wants Brexit" Apart from the 17.4 million majority that voted for it?

matthewmacleod 8y ago

As a quick intro – membership of the EU has been a bit of a hot topic in the UK for quite a few years now, and longer in certain circles of the Conservative party. That party made a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on membership as a bit of a concession to help avoid a split in the party. It was generally expected that this would be an easy win for the "remain" group, and there is only minority support among representatives for a Brexit policy in any form. The problem there is that there are now several groupings of representatives – some of them would like to push forward with a "cliff-edge" style exit, some would like a negotiated but "hard" deal, some would like a very soft "technical Brexit", and others would prefer to remain entirely. The parliament is politically bound by the outcome of the referendum—it would be a damaging move to hold a referendum then not implement the result—but at the same time, there is no consensus on what "Brexit" actually means, so it's not currently possible to construct a majority for any individual plan. It's not a good situation.

sparkie 8y ago
Membership of the EU has been a hot topic before the EU even existed. Ted Heath got us into the EEC without a referendum in 72, and then offered us a vote to remain or leave in 75. The scaremongering about leaving back then was almost exactly the same as it is being presented now. My opinion is that a deal cannot be negotiated among uneven parties. Right now, the UK can either leave with no deal, or leave on the terms demanded by the EU, with no concessions whatsoever. There is no table for negotiation. It is leave or surrender. Once we leave, we are no longer the begging party asking for concessions, but the roles will be reversed. The EU does not want to lose one of their largest export markets, and will quickly change their mind about a trade deal.
- Androider 8y ago
  It's a large market for both sides, but Brexit will hurt one much more than the other. The UK exports ~50% of its goods and services to the EU. The EU exports 8% of it's good and services to the UK. The latter is in absolute terms the larger amount of goods and services, but the former is just a massive portion of total trade to have to suddenly replace or re-negotiate. Think about it this way: SMB company A has to suddenly replace 50% of its customer base. Enterprise company B has to suddenly replace 8% of it's customers. I know which one I'd rather be!

kristopolous 8y ago

The problem was the plebiscite format. It had two options: . [ ] Remain a member of the European Union . [ ] Leave the European Union Do you see the huge honking flashing design flaw here? No? Let's rephrase this with a little substitution: . [ ] Continue the known reality . [ ] Do something else (to be determined later) There's the problem. The second was a catch-all that cast a huge net encompassing all imagined alternatives. Everything that isn't what is currently now, that's option 2. That's what won, because it's every imagined alternative tossed in a huge pile. Your Own Personal Favorite Idea is option 2! Hooray! The problem is that when that has to become concrete it turns out that staying in the EU outweighs any one particular instance of the "leave the EU" reality ... and one of them has to be executed on. WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED The plebiscite should have had detailed, specific scenarios and been structured as follows: . [ ] Remain in the EU . [ ] Option 1 (addendum 1) . [ ] Option 2 (addendum 2) . [ ] ... . [ ] Option N (addendum n) Why? Because that's what would actually be happening, the actual reality that has to be contended with, not just some undefined fantasy. BUT THIS FAVORS STAYING, ALWAYS No. Not necessarily. If the Brexiters could offer a real-world, concrete, provable, air-tight demonstrably better alternative instead of amorphous good-feelings then they can persuade the public with this imagined reality instead of relying on a reality imagined. What shouldn't have been allowed, and why this is a total mess, is an option of amorphous make-believe. Make-believe will always win.

dragonwriter 8y ago
No, what should have happened is a second plebiscite confirming the actual deal negotiated with the EU, with: (1) Accept deal and exit, (2) Exit with no deal, (3) Rescind Article 50 As the options. Or, the government should just not have used a non-binding referendum on such a complex policy matter as an electoral ploy in the first place and actually governed as elected to do rather than passing the buck.
- kristopolous 8y ago
  Sure, that works too. Anything that resolves the unspecific versus specific problem without introducing further problems suffices.

rprenger 8y ago

I liked this explanation: https://twitter.com/hugorifkind/status/1072222230791229440?lang=en https://twitter.com/hugorifkind/status/1072222230791229440?l...

treis 8y ago

> It seems no one wants Brexit as it has been suggested by the political leadership of UK, and the majority want to avoid no deal at all. There's basically two big stumbling blocks: The first is that there has to be a customs check between either: (1) The EU/Republic of Ireland , (2) ROI and Northern Ireland, or (3) Northern Ireland and Britain (the island). (1) is unacceptable to the EU. (2) breaks the Good Friday agreement and could reignite violence in Ireland. (3) is unacceptable to the Northern Ireland political party propping up the government. The second is that from the perspective of the EU, Britain has to get a worse deal by leaving the EU than what they had when they were in it. Otherwise, every other country sees that it's better to be out than in and the EU risks collapse. These are more or less intractable problems. I'm sure we've all had the experience where an IT project is obviously doomed but nobody wants the responsibility and blame for pulling the plug. That's where Brexit is today.

ars 8y ago
What happens if there is no customs check at any of those locations? i.e. each party says "you do it, I won't", and it ends up that no one did?
- Balgair 8y ago
  Then that's not an 'exit'. The EU must treat the UK like any other country (say, Canada or Korea), otherwise all the EU countries will exit as they can get better terms than just staying in the EU. CPG Grey has a great explainer on the impossibility that the UK is in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1Yv24cM2os https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1Yv24cM2os If you are unaware of the issues with ROI and NI, I'll say that a bit of education is really needed. The history there is very complicated and can't really be boiled down here on HN. That said, the threat of renewed violence on Ireland is absolutely real and very possible. During The Troubles (lasting ~35 years) there were ~50k casualties in total. The peace is fragile and renewed violence could very possibly result in much higher casualty numbers. Lives are quite literally on the line. EDIT: Sometimes pictures are better than words. We can talk about 50k casualties, but seeing some of them is a lot more 'real', at least to me. If you have the inclination, this image gallery does an alright job showing the long and very bloody history of ROI-UK relations during The Troubles: https://allthatsinteresting.com/the-troubles#31 https://allthatsinteresting.com/the-troubles#31

crdrost 8y ago

So a country called Greece which had been a part of the EU had a severe financial collapse a year or two (2009ish?) after the period when (2007-2008) the US had a subprime mortgage collapse that triggered the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the period that we sometimes call the Great Recession now. This led to a great lack of faith in the value of the EU because it creates some notion from the richer countries, "ew, why do we have to bail them out?" And that perception in turn caused by 2016 a lot of political pressure on the leadership of the UK to seriously consider exiting the EU, as they've always kind of held Europe at arm's length, e.g. by not embracing the Euro. So this prime minister named David Cameron thought he would squash the whole "let's leave the EU" dissent by revealing it to be a minority position by some clever politicking: he would call a referendum and they would get only 15% of the vote and he could dust his hands and say "well we had this vote and you were wrong and let's stop holding untenable positions here." The problem was that rather than 15% of the vote, Leave carried 52% of the vote. Legally it was not a binding vote, the Parliament is still allowed to do whatever they want. But the Conservative Party that Cameron had led was sincere about "we're going to do whatever the public decides." Due to the complete reversal of his expectations, Cameron resigned as PM and was replaced by May. May is in a tricky situation because if she holds a second referendum, "really, truly, are we going to leave the EU?" then it looks like her party is just going to keep asking the question until they get the answer they want -- and that is not really democracy. If they just say "eff it we give up, we're not doing this Brexit thing" then they are reneging their earlier promise. With that said there is now a widespread belief that if they did re-ask the question the majority would say "hell no, remain in the EU, we didn't mobilize with enough urgency because we didn't understand what the country was signing up for in that last vote." If a different party were in power, probably they would have done so by now. But because there is this direct line from Cameron to May, May has been very firm on her belief that they need to go through with Brexit one way or the other. Because May was so obstinate on this point, there have most recently (Dec 2018, Jan 2019) been some votes of no confidence trying to upset the government and have a new government that might be able to do the actually-popular thing. Those have failed.

catdog 8y ago
> Cameron resigned as PM and was replaced by May. You missed the part where May called a general election right after sending the official withdrawal notice where she only barely gained a majority giving the Brexit hardliners a lot of additional power. Again based on way too favorable predictions about voters preferences.

atombender 8y ago

In terms of "political suicide": It's complicated. There are lots of MPs who would want nothing more than to scrap Brexit or at least hold a second referendum. However, the situation is similar to what's happening with Trump and the Republican Party in the US: Politicians vote on party lines against their personal beliefs (or the desires of their constituents) simply so the party can hold on to power. May and the Tories can't backpedal on Brexit because it would, at this point, be political suicide. It would significantly weaken the Conservative Party (the Tories) politically, and pave the way for a Labour government. May and her colleagues would prefer Brexit to losing their power. Of course, May says she sees it as her duty to fulfill the "will of the people" despite the fact that, according to insiders, she doesn't actually believe in Brexit. What's remarkable is that the Conservative leadership has never been able swing the rhetoric around in their favour. A more cunning politican should have been able to turn David Cameron (who was responsible for setting Brexit in motion in the first place) into a scapegoat as well as point the finger at the Brexit faction for poisoning the well. There's a whole group of politicians, including Boris Johnson, that are now hated by the general public following the revelations about the Leave campaign. What's also remarkable is how badly Labour has miscalculated the opportunity to gain a huge political momentum by becoming the anti-Brexit party. But its leader, Jeremy Corbyn, is an EU skeptic, and hasn't stepped up.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
> May and her colleagues would prefer Brexit to losing their power. That I think is the fundamental problem. It's not unique to May, or even to the UK, either. You see this all the time. Politicians want to win the next election more than they want to do the right thing (or even the right thing according to their own views). But if you can't do what you think should be done, what's the point of having power?
- repolfx 8y ago
  That's not the problem, that's the entire point of democracy. It boggles my mind that such a basic point of civil society is so difficult to understand for so many. There is no reason to believe MPs can "do the right thing". Their analysis skills are weak, they routinely say things that are factually false, they manipulate, they lie and their numeracy skills are nearly non-existent. Some examples. Most of them can't even tell you what the probability of flipping two heads in a row is: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-19801666 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-19801666 The Shadow Home Secretary, i.e. the woman who is one election victory away from running the police, went on public radio and simply made numbers up off the top of her head for how much money would be spent on the police. Even worse the numbers were absurd, like costing only £300,000 pounds to hire 10,000 police officers: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/diane-abbot-lbc-interview-in-full-police-officer-pay-manifesto-radio-nick-ferrari-a7713556.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/diane-abbot-l... It's clear that Theresa May and most MPs don't even understand the basics of negotiation, like "you must be willing to walk away". Politicians should absolutely not be doing what they think the right thing is, they are wildly unqualified to decide that. Their job is to do what their voters ask them to do, as faithfully as possible, and nothing else. It's when politicians start to think they know better than their voters that power has corrupted them and the problems really start. That's the root of all dictatorships and the sorts of miseries that have throughout history killed millions of people.