5 ms·

It’s not fair to characterize Brexit — a ridiculously over simplistic yes/no referendum question — as being inherently bad. I think a charitable reading of you

It’s not fair to characterize Brexit — a ridiculously over simplistic yes/no referendum question — as being inherently bad. I think a charitable reading of your comment ought to replace Brexit with the subsequent implementation of Brexit by successive Conservative governments. That’s also quite possibly what you meant anyway, but it’s still worth saying aloud.

gmac 1y ago
There are an infinite number of Brexits we didn’t get. We only got to try one. For most purposes I think it’s pretty reasonable to equate ‘Brexit’ with that one. Frankly, I don’t think any of the Brexits we stood any chance of actually getting could have been good: it was only a question of how bad the one we eventually got would be. And the problem with the less bad Brexits was: they would be less bad, but they would also be more directly comparable with no Brexit (e.g. “in order to improve trade we’re going to follow all the EU’s rules but not have a say in any of them”).
- munksbeer 1y ago
  > (e.g. “in order to improve trade we’re going to follow all the EU’s rules but not have a say in any of them”). We de facto do that anyway, because most of our trade is conducted with the EU and companies aren't stupid. They don't want to design and build to multiple different standards, so they just adhere to EU rules for simplicity and cost reasons. But now we don't get a say in those rules.
  - gmac 1y ago
    True. But given that's true, it would be so much better to be inside the single market or customs union. But apparently those are still 'red lines' ...
ivape 1y ago
I could have used wars as an example (Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam), but Brexit feels like more of a parallel as it's non-violent and somewhat economic. We will absolutely have a conclusive outcome for what we've decided to do as a nation. The unfortunate thing is we are not going to get back 4 years of our lives. It's just going to evaporate and that's the thing that political fervor masks. You got one life, you can spend it fighting China, I suppose. In the case of Europe, you can spend it exiting it, I suppose. There's a serious opportunity cost here that wasn't properly discussed due to the zealotry of both sides. Policy discussion seems to be something the masses cannot handle without clearly defining an "other". I feel Jeffersonian (bigoted) in suggesting that it's a mistake to give ordinary people access to this debate. Almost like letting ten year olds get involved in how mom and dad handle the mortgage.
master_crab 1y ago
Yes. Yes, Brexit was inherently bad. And its implementation made it worse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_effects_of_Brexit#:~:text=Economists%20and%20analysts%20at%20Cambridge,2035%20due%20to%20leaving%20EU. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_effects_of_Brexit#:~:... https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-03-19/brexit-s-lasting-economic-and-financial-damage-looks-inescapable https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-03-19/brexit...
- Hyperboreanal 1y ago
  If it had actually reduced mass immigration from the third world, as voters were promised, it would have been good.
  - ethbr1 1y ago
    The England and Wales fertility rate is 1.44. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cnvj3j27nmro https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cnvj3j27nmro Without immigration, future demographics will be fucked. Which means government finances, welfare, and the NHS. That's one thing I don't get about anti-immigration opinions: it's burying ones head in the sand about demographic problems. The real debate, if there is one to be had, should be about enculturation / integration and policies around that. (Because unless developed countries substantially increase their fertility rate, immigration is a non-negotiable requirement)
    - Hyperboreanal 1y ago
      [flagged]
  - munksbeer 1y ago
    > If it had actually reduced mass immigration from the third world, as voters were promised, it would have been good. There isn't a very high bar to understanding that immigration from "the thirld world" had nothing to do with the EU. As an immigrant to the UK, I was very acutely aware of the sentiment leading up to, during and after the referendum, but I was mortified by the ignorance displayed by people around the topic. I'm from one of those third world countries by the way.
gtowey 1y ago
What does it say that people who voted "yes" without a clear plan of action already on the table? It's like signing your name on a blank contract and trusting the counterparty to write up something that's good for you.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  That's representative politics in general, which is why trust is such a valuable commodity for a politician to get.
- Nursie 1y ago
  > What does it say that people who voted "yes" without a clear plan of action already on the table? The UK government explicitly refused to make a plan of action. It turned out to be a foot-gun moment. The leave campaign was not representative of people in office who were basically all remainers, and the referendum would not change the makeup of Parliament because it's not an election. As a result they had no ability to make an official plan or even an unofficial one which could be put into place afterwards, because they did not have the power to do that and the vote was not going to give it to them. The government's reasoning for not making a plan seemed to be that it might be too appealing if there was a plan, and they didn't want to give leave campaigners the ability to say "See, there's a plan, it'll be fine", when remain campaigners could instead use the lack of plan to say "Are you crazy, you're voting for the unknown! There's no plan!". And they were confident that the leave vote was DoA so making a plan was a waste of time and money anyway. This seems like dirty pool to me, and it backfired anyway. Turns out that chaos and uncertainty was more or less explicitly what some leave voters wanted - give the whole establishment a kick in the pants. I voted remain, FWIW, but I think holding "there was no plan" over leave-voters heads is a bit rich given why there was no plan.
  - nickd2001 1y ago
    Also in my understanding, it was a gamble by David Cameron. He promised the referendum before the previous general election, believing the Tories wouldn't get a majority and he could blame the Lib Dems coalition partner when they blocked the referendum, then the Tories did win outright and oopsie, what do I do now, I've got to hold a referendum with no plan. Basically unintended consequences. Moral of the story... be careful. Maybe Cameron had had a long day and was tired or something when he made that decision ;)

gmac 1y ago

There are an infinite number of Brexits we didn’t get. We only got to try one. For most purposes I think it’s pretty reasonable to equate ‘Brexit’ with that one. Frankly, I don’t think any of the Brexits we stood any chance of actually getting could have been good: it was only a question of how bad the one we eventually got would be. And the problem with the less bad Brexits was: they would be less bad, but they would also be more directly comparable with no Brexit (e.g. “in order to improve trade we’re going to follow all the EU’s rules but not have a say in any of them”).

munksbeer 1y ago
> (e.g. “in order to improve trade we’re going to follow all the EU’s rules but not have a say in any of them”). We de facto do that anyway, because most of our trade is conducted with the EU and companies aren't stupid. They don't want to design and build to multiple different standards, so they just adhere to EU rules for simplicity and cost reasons. But now we don't get a say in those rules.
- gmac 1y ago
  True. But given that's true, it would be so much better to be inside the single market or customs union. But apparently those are still 'red lines' ...

ivape 1y ago

I could have used wars as an example (Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam), but Brexit feels like more of a parallel as it's non-violent and somewhat economic. We will absolutely have a conclusive outcome for what we've decided to do as a nation. The unfortunate thing is we are not going to get back 4 years of our lives. It's just going to evaporate and that's the thing that political fervor masks. You got one life, you can spend it fighting China, I suppose. In the case of Europe, you can spend it exiting it, I suppose. There's a serious opportunity cost here that wasn't properly discussed due to the zealotry of both sides. Policy discussion seems to be something the masses cannot handle without clearly defining an "other". I feel Jeffersonian (bigoted) in suggesting that it's a mistake to give ordinary people access to this debate. Almost like letting ten year olds get involved in how mom and dad handle the mortgage.

master_crab 1y ago

Yes. Yes, Brexit was inherently bad. And its implementation made it worse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_effects_of_Brexit#:~:text=Economists%20and%20analysts%20at%20Cambridge,2035%20due%20to%20leaving%20EU. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_effects_of_Brexit#:~:... https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-03-19/brexit-s-lasting-economic-and-financial-damage-looks-inescapable https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-03-19/brexit...

Hyperboreanal 1y ago
If it had actually reduced mass immigration from the third world, as voters were promised, it would have been good.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  The England and Wales fertility rate is 1.44. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cnvj3j27nmro https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cnvj3j27nmro Without immigration, future demographics will be fucked. Which means government finances, welfare, and the NHS. That's one thing I don't get about anti-immigration opinions: it's burying ones head in the sand about demographic problems. The real debate, if there is one to be had, should be about enculturation / integration and policies around that. (Because unless developed countries substantially increase their fertility rate, immigration is a non-negotiable requirement)
  - Hyperboreanal 1y ago
    [flagged]
- munksbeer 1y ago
  > If it had actually reduced mass immigration from the third world, as voters were promised, it would have been good. There isn't a very high bar to understanding that immigration from "the thirld world" had nothing to do with the EU. As an immigrant to the UK, I was very acutely aware of the sentiment leading up to, during and after the referendum, but I was mortified by the ignorance displayed by people around the topic. I'm from one of those third world countries by the way.

gtowey 1y ago

What does it say that people who voted "yes" without a clear plan of action already on the table? It's like signing your name on a blank contract and trusting the counterparty to write up something that's good for you.

ethbr1 1y ago
That's representative politics in general, which is why trust is such a valuable commodity for a politician to get.
Nursie 1y ago
> What does it say that people who voted "yes" without a clear plan of action already on the table? The UK government explicitly refused to make a plan of action. It turned out to be a foot-gun moment. The leave campaign was not representative of people in office who were basically all remainers, and the referendum would not change the makeup of Parliament because it's not an election. As a result they had no ability to make an official plan or even an unofficial one which could be put into place afterwards, because they did not have the power to do that and the vote was not going to give it to them. The government's reasoning for not making a plan seemed to be that it might be too appealing if there was a plan, and they didn't want to give leave campaigners the ability to say "See, there's a plan, it'll be fine", when remain campaigners could instead use the lack of plan to say "Are you crazy, you're voting for the unknown! There's no plan!". And they were confident that the leave vote was DoA so making a plan was a waste of time and money anyway. This seems like dirty pool to me, and it backfired anyway. Turns out that chaos and uncertainty was more or less explicitly what some leave voters wanted - give the whole establishment a kick in the pants. I voted remain, FWIW, but I think holding "there was no plan" over leave-voters heads is a bit rich given why there was no plan.
- nickd2001 1y ago
  Also in my understanding, it was a gamble by David Cameron. He promised the referendum before the previous general election, believing the Tories wouldn't get a majority and he could blame the Lib Dems coalition partner when they blocked the referendum, then the Tories did win outright and oopsie, what do I do now, I've got to hold a referendum with no plan. Basically unintended consequences. Moral of the story... be careful. Maybe Cameron had had a long day and was tired or something when he made that decision ;)