4 ms·

You shouldn't be making decisions such as Brexit on economic terms. It doesn't matter if it's a mistake just as it doesn't matter about thinking the country can

You shouldn't be making decisions such as Brexit on economic terms. It doesn't matter if it's a mistake just as it doesn't matter about thinking the country can go back. Brexit is a 100% permanent outcome from the referendum vote. Those changing their minds now as they thought it might not happen, or doing it for fun, are directly responsible for the outcome. BoJo delivered what the people demanded and now Britain's place as an island off the NW coast of the EU is cemented - warts and all.

pas 11mo ago
permanent? why? how so? sure, I don't expect the UK to apply for membership tomorrow, but (unless either the EU or the UK disappears completely) both parties would gain from deeper integration
- sys_64738 11mo ago
  Because of all the timesuck that Brexit was interfered with the EU's ability to make progress. For the Brits to rejoin would require every nation's parliament to approve it. Not gonna happen ever.
ethbr1 11mo ago
> BoJo delivered what the people demanded This is one thing I don't get about the Brexit framing (at the time and now). It was just under 52-48. With some key constituencies voting remain (Scotland and Northern Ireland). In a normal country, that should be 'There does not seem to be an obvious national consensus', not 'Leave won a mandate!'
- qcnguy 11mo ago
  Not well known but this was actually the second Brexit referendum. The original decision to join the EU wasn't decided by a referendum at all, a Labour government just did it, despite the profound constitutional implications. So there was no argument for requiring a higher threshold to leave than the join. Arguably leaving would not have required a referendum at all, given that joining didn't. But when people cried foul about this move in 1973, Labour agreed to hold a referendum on leaving it again, which was held in 1975 and won by Remain. Unfortunately, the way they won was by misleading the public. They claimed the European Economic Community (as it was known at the time) was purely about building a free trade zone, with no political unification goals. Official leaflets sent to households said no federal "United States of Europe" was intended. The Leave campaign pointed out that it wasn't true and the EEC wanted to take over political power in Europe. The Leave campaign were honest. The EEC later rebranded to the EU, and took over many powers that had nothing to do with free trade. This is one reason why a common comment heard from older people back in 2016 was "I voted Remain in 1975 and I'm voting Leave now, for the same reasons".
  - wqaatwt 11mo ago
    > The Leave campaign were honest Regardless of the legitimacy of your other arguments this is a silly thing to say. Besides the lies and misinformation. Boris was driven purely by his political ambitions and saw Brexit as a great opportunity to take over the Conservative party. That’s it. Also legally binding referendums are not a thing in the UK. They aren’t a requirement for anything and the parliament has the right to do whatever it wants. Of course it would be a political suicide to ignore the outcome when you agreed to hold one. Of course tying it to turnout would have been a sensical idea (i.e. requiring that at least 50% of registered voters would vote for leave for it to be binding)
- sys_64738 11mo ago
  Those would matter except it was winner takes all and vote counts were for the whole of Britain, other factors didn't matter, including voter age, location, gender, etc. The only thing that mattered was getting majority of the vote for the whole country.
  - ethbr1 11mo ago
    Given the political sensitivities of having Northern Ireland and Scotland as part of the United Kingdom, their individual outcomes deserved at least a little bit of consideration.

pas 11mo ago

permanent? why? how so? sure, I don't expect the UK to apply for membership tomorrow, but (unless either the EU or the UK disappears completely) both parties would gain from deeper integration

sys_64738 11mo ago
Because of all the timesuck that Brexit was interfered with the EU's ability to make progress. For the Brits to rejoin would require every nation's parliament to approve it. Not gonna happen ever.

ethbr1 11mo ago

> BoJo delivered what the people demanded This is one thing I don't get about the Brexit framing (at the time and now). It was just under 52-48. With some key constituencies voting remain (Scotland and Northern Ireland). In a normal country, that should be 'There does not seem to be an obvious national consensus', not 'Leave won a mandate!'

qcnguy 11mo ago
Not well known but this was actually the second Brexit referendum. The original decision to join the EU wasn't decided by a referendum at all, a Labour government just did it, despite the profound constitutional implications. So there was no argument for requiring a higher threshold to leave than the join. Arguably leaving would not have required a referendum at all, given that joining didn't. But when people cried foul about this move in 1973, Labour agreed to hold a referendum on leaving it again, which was held in 1975 and won by Remain. Unfortunately, the way they won was by misleading the public. They claimed the European Economic Community (as it was known at the time) was purely about building a free trade zone, with no political unification goals. Official leaflets sent to households said no federal "United States of Europe" was intended. The Leave campaign pointed out that it wasn't true and the EEC wanted to take over political power in Europe. The Leave campaign were honest. The EEC later rebranded to the EU, and took over many powers that had nothing to do with free trade. This is one reason why a common comment heard from older people back in 2016 was "I voted Remain in 1975 and I'm voting Leave now, for the same reasons".
- wqaatwt 11mo ago
  > The Leave campaign were honest Regardless of the legitimacy of your other arguments this is a silly thing to say. Besides the lies and misinformation. Boris was driven purely by his political ambitions and saw Brexit as a great opportunity to take over the Conservative party. That’s it. Also legally binding referendums are not a thing in the UK. They aren’t a requirement for anything and the parliament has the right to do whatever it wants. Of course it would be a political suicide to ignore the outcome when you agreed to hold one. Of course tying it to turnout would have been a sensical idea (i.e. requiring that at least 50% of registered voters would vote for leave for it to be binding)
sys_64738 11mo ago
Those would matter except it was winner takes all and vote counts were for the whole of Britain, other factors didn't matter, including voter age, location, gender, etc. The only thing that mattered was getting majority of the vote for the whole country.
- ethbr1 11mo ago
  Given the political sensitivities of having Northern Ireland and Scotland as part of the United Kingdom, their individual outcomes deserved at least a little bit of consideration.