3 ms·

In practice, though, I suspect the number of leave-voters who didn't think a no-deal Brexit would be possible is a lot larger than the winning margin. And then

In practice, though, I suspect the number of leave-voters who didn't think a no-deal Brexit would be possible is a lot larger than the winning margin. And then the leave voters believed the BS about the NHS too. The Referendum was ill posed and the voters were ill-informed, mostly through the fault of the government, the Leave Campaign, Billionaire donors and even Putin's involvement.

nailer 7y ago
> I suspect the number of leave-voters who didn't think a no-deal Brexit would be possible is a lot larger than the winning margin. A no deal must be possible to get a deal. Likewise the EU wants to sell its dairy, prosecco, and cars to the UK but wouldn't dream of accepting a terrible deal for the EU. It's possible the a punitive EU might sacrifice the EU and UK economy by refusing to provide a deal for a few months until the pain becomes too much. UK needs to plan for that. > the BS about the NHS too. The UK does send 300M to the EU. We get 150M back to spend as the EU desires, the rest is used by the EU outside the UK. Nobody disputes that, it depends whether you think it's OK that we get half it back, or that it's not OK the EU determines how we spend our money. --- Edit: rate limited, but to reply to the person below: > Apparently some people flag/down-vote me because they don't like the facts. Complaining about moderation should be done via email to thee admins and not comments per the HN guidelines. But OK, let's go through your facts. > It's a fact that many Leave Voters did not expect a no-deal under any circumstances. Yep agreed. It still needs to be on the table, as it does from the EU side. > Even the excuse that they need that option to get a deal presupposes that they don't want a no-deal and don't expect it to happen. Yep agreed. Long term I don't think the EU or the UK wants mutually assured destruction. > The scenario of the EU trying to "torture" the UK with a few month of third-country status is even more absurd It's consistent with some of the angrier statements from Jean Claude Juncker and other EU leaders. > because that presupposes that the EU has no significant disadvantages from withholding a deal Agreed, the EU has significant disadvantages from withholding a deal. That does not mean the EU will behave rationally or put the EUs (the organisation) self interest ahead of EU member states who wish to keep selling their product in one of the world's largest markets. > rendering the "leverage" of the no-deal option void. That doesn't follow. The EU wouldn't agree to a deal that harmed the EU, so they'd also prefer WTO if that was all Britain offered. Likewise the opposite. > And even then this argument is still wrong: There is no requirement for a no-deal option to have lots of leverage in the negotiation Why? How can you negotiate a desirable outcome if you cannot walk away and must agree to any deal offered? > and even with the no-deal on the table the UK didn't get anywhere near the deal they wanted, proving the leave-campaign to be extremely naive or outright liers. Is that determined yet? Negotiation is still ongoing. > And no, the leave-campaign never acknowledged or promoted, before the referendum, that the UK is getting half of it back. Yep agreed. > They explicitly stated, time and time again "let's put that money into the NHS". Which was impossible back then and oh, look! it's still not possible today. It would be possible to put the entire 300M into to the NHS, as the UK would control how the money is spent. But it would not be desirable to. > But Putin, who also financed and supported the leave campaign, likes all those options. Is this is a fact?
- bayesian_horse 7y ago
  It's a fact that many Leave Voters did not expect a no-deal under any circumstances. Even the excuse that they need that option to get a deal presupposes that they don't want a no-deal and don't expect it to happen. The scenario of the EU trying to "torture" the UK with a few month of third-country status is even more absurd, because that presupposes that the EU has no significant disadvantages from withholding a deal, rendering the "leverage" of the no-deal option void. And even then this argument is still wrong: There is no requirement for a no-deal option to have lots of leverage in the negotiation, and even with the no-deal on the table the UK didn't get anywhere near the deal they wanted, proving the leave-campaign to be extremely naive or outright liers. And no, the leave-campaign never acknowledged or promoted, before the referendum, that the UK is getting half of it back. They explicitly stated, time and time again "let's put that money into the NHS". Which was impossible back then and oh, look! it's still not possible today. By my standards that's clearly a lie. But Putin, who also financed and supported the leave campaign, likes all those options. Total Chaos in No-deal Brexit is probably his favorite option, though.
  - thinkingemote 7y ago
    This submission has been flagged killed. I suspect that your multiple replies to several different comments may have contributed towards this automated or manual action.
  - bayesian_horse 7y ago
    Apparently some people flag/down-vote me because they don't like the facts. Because if they were convinced I had my facts wrong, they would reply to set the record straight, right?
    - nailer 7y ago
      Replied as an edit. To be honest though I suspect most people don't bother debating Brexit anymore because there was a referendum on the topic in 2016
- bayesian_horse 7y ago

nailer 7y ago

> I suspect the number of leave-voters who didn't think a no-deal Brexit would be possible is a lot larger than the winning margin. A no deal must be possible to get a deal. Likewise the EU wants to sell its dairy, prosecco, and cars to the UK but wouldn't dream of accepting a terrible deal for the EU. It's possible the a punitive EU might sacrifice the EU and UK economy by refusing to provide a deal for a few months until the pain becomes too much. UK needs to plan for that. > the BS about the NHS too. The UK does send 300M to the EU. We get 150M back to spend as the EU desires, the rest is used by the EU outside the UK. Nobody disputes that, it depends whether you think it's OK that we get half it back, or that it's not OK the EU determines how we spend our money. --- Edit: rate limited, but to reply to the person below: > Apparently some people flag/down-vote me because they don't like the facts. Complaining about moderation should be done via email to thee admins and not comments per the HN guidelines. But OK, let's go through your facts. > It's a fact that many Leave Voters did not expect a no-deal under any circumstances. Yep agreed. It still needs to be on the table, as it does from the EU side. > Even the excuse that they need that option to get a deal presupposes that they don't want a no-deal and don't expect it to happen. Yep agreed. Long term I don't think the EU or the UK wants mutually assured destruction. > The scenario of the EU trying to "torture" the UK with a few month of third-country status is even more absurd It's consistent with some of the angrier statements from Jean Claude Juncker and other EU leaders. > because that presupposes that the EU has no significant disadvantages from withholding a deal Agreed, the EU has significant disadvantages from withholding a deal. That does not mean the EU will behave rationally or put the EUs (the organisation) self interest ahead of EU member states who wish to keep selling their product in one of the world's largest markets. > rendering the "leverage" of the no-deal option void. That doesn't follow. The EU wouldn't agree to a deal that harmed the EU, so they'd also prefer WTO if that was all Britain offered. Likewise the opposite. > And even then this argument is still wrong: There is no requirement for a no-deal option to have lots of leverage in the negotiation Why? How can you negotiate a desirable outcome if you cannot walk away and must agree to any deal offered? > and even with the no-deal on the table the UK didn't get anywhere near the deal they wanted, proving the leave-campaign to be extremely naive or outright liers. Is that determined yet? Negotiation is still ongoing. > And no, the leave-campaign never acknowledged or promoted, before the referendum, that the UK is getting half of it back. Yep agreed. > They explicitly stated, time and time again "let's put that money into the NHS". Which was impossible back then and oh, look! it's still not possible today. It would be possible to put the entire 300M into to the NHS, as the UK would control how the money is spent. But it would not be desirable to. > But Putin, who also financed and supported the leave campaign, likes all those options. Is this is a fact?

bayesian_horse 7y ago
It's a fact that many Leave Voters did not expect a no-deal under any circumstances. Even the excuse that they need that option to get a deal presupposes that they don't want a no-deal and don't expect it to happen. The scenario of the EU trying to "torture" the UK with a few month of third-country status is even more absurd, because that presupposes that the EU has no significant disadvantages from withholding a deal, rendering the "leverage" of the no-deal option void. And even then this argument is still wrong: There is no requirement for a no-deal option to have lots of leverage in the negotiation, and even with the no-deal on the table the UK didn't get anywhere near the deal they wanted, proving the leave-campaign to be extremely naive or outright liers. And no, the leave-campaign never acknowledged or promoted, before the referendum, that the UK is getting half of it back. They explicitly stated, time and time again "let's put that money into the NHS". Which was impossible back then and oh, look! it's still not possible today. By my standards that's clearly a lie. But Putin, who also financed and supported the leave campaign, likes all those options. Total Chaos in No-deal Brexit is probably his favorite option, though.
- thinkingemote 7y ago
  This submission has been flagged killed. I suspect that your multiple replies to several different comments may have contributed towards this automated or manual action.
- bayesian_horse 7y ago
  Apparently some people flag/down-vote me because they don't like the facts. Because if they were convinced I had my facts wrong, they would reply to set the record straight, right?
  - nailer 7y ago
    Replied as an edit. To be honest though I suspect most people don't bother debating Brexit anymore because there was a referendum on the topic in 2016
bayesian_horse 7y ago