Brexit - The UK leaves the EU

[Touring Mars]

I was working on the basis of halting brexit would cause the government to collapse, as per your post.

I should have been clearer and said 'any attempt at a total reversal would result in the collapse of the government'... which is, sadly, a different thing altogether.

Calling a second referendum would make the situation even more complicated - even if the government survived the announcement (which I don't think it would), the result of the vote would either just strengthen the hand of the Brexiteers (i.e. if Brexit won again) or, in the case of a vote to effectively halt Brexit, would put the future of the country into the hands of the EU27, who must unanimously agree to allow Article 50 to be revoked, which could (and very likely would) involve the UK being stripped of some or all of its current concessions in return for being allowed to stay in.

The referendum result itself effectively ended the UK's current relationship with the EU - staying in the EU is still perfectly possible, but it will almost certainly mean a new and very different relationship for the UK and the EU. Hence, while our decision to quit the EU can still be reversed, it is likely to be at the expense of our hard-won concessions (like opting out of the Euro). Unless the EU27 somehow (miraculously) agreed to just forget the whole thing (however much I like to think they might), then it will be an immense uphill battle to persuade the British people to stay in the EU on radically different terms than we had previously.

 

[baldgye]

I should have been clearer and said 'any attempt at a total reversal would result in the collapse of the government'... which is, sadly, a different thing altogether.

Calling a second referendum would make the situation even more complicated - even if the government survived the announcement (which I don't think it would), the result of the vote would either just strengthen the hand of the Brexiteers (i.e. if Brexit won again) or, in the case of a vote to effectively halt Brexit, would put the future of the country into the hands of the EU27, who must unanimously agree to allow Article 50 to be revoked, which could (and very likely would) involve the UK being stripped of some or all of its current concessions in return for being allowed to stay in.

The referendum result itself effectively ended the UK's current relationship with the EU - staying in the EU is still perfectly possible, but it will almost certainly mean a new and very different relationship for the UK and the EU. Hence, while our decision to quit the EU can still be reversed, it is likely to be at the expense of our hard-won concessions (like opting out of the Euro). Unless the EU27 somehow (miraculously) agreed to just forget the whole thing (however much I like to think they might), then it will be an immense uphill battle to persuade the British people to stay in the EU on radically different terms than we had previously.

Indeed, as you are probably aware I'm in favor of another referendum, but I'm also aware that it would and could do a hell of a lot of damage. That said, I'm still of the opinion that it and staying in, would do less damage than leaving would.
No Deal, as far as I can tell, almost certainly guarantees that we have to rejoin the EU at some point later, maybe a few years maybe less. When we do rejoin I'm of the opinion that it would involve us loosing the Pound and all concessions.

So, as far as I can tell, even loosing our privileges and status within the EU is preferable to leaving. If that takes down the government and destroys both major parties then lets get this bad boy rolling

 

[Hun200kmh]

Interesting article in the Fake News Cathedral

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/03/...dern-raputin-mcternan-opinion-intl/index.html

 

[TenEightyOne]

Interesting article in the Fake News Cathedral

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/03/...dern-raputin-mcternan-opinion-intl/index.html

It's an opinion piece, sure, but I don't see the fakery? It's an opinion of BoJo's machinations that I think a lot of people share. Also an opinion

 

[Hun200kmh]

Sorry, my use of "Trumpspeak" was meant as a joke, I should've added a

 

[Touring Mars]

The pound has suddenly gained almost 1% against the dollar today as reports emerge that Germany and the UK have agreed to ditch certain key Brexit demands to ensure an orderly/smooth exit from the EU and a trade deal is to be made afterwards.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/09/05/stocks-hit-contagion-fears-emerging-markets-wobble/

There's not much more detail, but it sounds very like those meetings between May and Merkel might have been productive after all, and it could mean that Michel Barnier has been side-lined.

 

[Touring Mars]

Now the TUC (the umbrella body for Trade Unions in the UK) are backing a 'People's Vote' on Brexit, that is a referendum on the final Brexit deal proposed by the UK government.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...eal-vote-if-may-doesnt-protect-workers-rights

But it is not at all clear what such a vote would achieve, but for making the prospect of 'no deal' even higher.

The apparent fact is that there are no possible options that a majority of the British people will support - in other words, a vote on whether to accept the UK government's proposed deal is almost certain to produce a negative result. But what happens then?

The proposed solutions include extending the Article 50 process, or requesting that Article 50 is revoked entirely. Unfortunately, both of these 'solutions' are completely out of the hands of the British people - the UK's future within the EU will be entirely at the mercy of the EU27 member states, and what chance of them agreeing to an extension of the Article 50 process without major concessions from the UK? My guess is that it is academic anyway, as it is now too late to set in motion any process that can legally prevent Brexit from happening in March next year. And because of that, there is only one way that the UK can avoid a no-deal scenario, and that is to thrash out a deal with the EU before the end of November (the technical deadline by which a deal must be agreed in order to allow the necessary time for the ratification process to occur), and then - crucially - not put it to a public vote.

 

[baldgye]

But it is not at all clear what such a vote would achieve, but for making the prospect of 'no deal' even higher.

The antithesis of what another vote is trying to achieve

 

[Touring Mars]

The antithesis of what another vote is trying to achieve

Exactly, hence why it is such a bad idea.

 

[baldgye]

Exactly, hence why it is such a bad idea.

I don’t think so.

Politically and logically I don’t see why the EU would object to another vote and extending or halting Art.50.

From their point of view they don’t want the U.K. to leave, so giving them the ability to allow us to stay would be a positive. It would also force a political shift in the U.K. which, would on balance probably be positive for international relations.
On top of that, they’ve (EU nation states) have already greatly gained from Brexit. Be nations gaining new companies and HQ’s that have moved from London to being able to gain new trade partners (Japan) though the uncertainty of Brexit and the general weakening of the pound.

In the meantime (between a vote being initiated and the actual vote taking place), the EU markets can gain value through further uncertainty in the U.K..
If we vote to leave again, then the nothing changes for the EU, if we vote to stay then the EU gets what it wanted all along

 

[Johnnypenso]

I don’t think so.

Politically and logically I don’t see why the EU would object to another vote and extending or halting Art.50.

From their point of view they don’t want the U.K. to leave, so giving them the ability to allow us to stay would be a positive. It would also force a political shift in the U.K. which, would on balance probably be positive for international relations.
On top of that, they’ve (EU nation states) have already greatly gained from Brexit. Be nations gaining new companies and HQ’s that have moved from London to being able to gain new trade partners (Japan) though the uncertainty of Brexit and the general weakening of the pound.

In the meantime (between a vote being initiated and the actual vote taking place), the EU markets can gain value through further uncertainty in the U.K..
If we vote to leave again, then the nothing changes for the EU, if we vote to stay then the EU gets what it wanted all along

I don't see how anyone can miss seeing what a horrible precedent that would set. The government gave over the decision to the will of the people. Some people didn't get what they want so now they'd like to subvert the will of the people by having another vote and hoping for a different result.

 

[Touring Mars]

The phrase 'easier said than done' springs to mind when it comes to the idea of reversing Brexit.

Even assuming that all of the legal, technical and practical issues could be overcome in time, there is still the massive issue of how to achieve consensus within the UK (not to mention unanimity within the EU27) on what the terms of staying in would be. I would not underestimate the complexity and difficulty of that. Reversing Brexit is just that - it is the wholesale reversal of the Brexit process. The UK has taken 2 years to come up with a proposal that almost everyone hates, and has little chance of being accepted by the EU; the reverse process (the EU agreeing terms with itself then presenting them as a take-it-or-leave-it deal to the UK) would probably be just as long and arduous, and would very likely be met with a refusal anyway.

The assumption seems to be that nothing has actually been done yet and thus the decision to halt/reverse Brexit is simply a matter for the British people and subsequently of making a few apologetic phone calls. The reality is far different from that.

I don't see how anyone can miss seeing what a horrible precedent that would set.

In more ways than one - from a UK perspective, it would cause political mayhem - far from addressing the European question once and for all, it would simply leave the situation unresolved for a generation; from an EU perspective, it would also be extremely hard to justify re-admission with no strings attached, and call into question the legal framework that underpins the Union. How long would the UK have to wait before deciding it wants out again? Would/could a member state be barred from triggering Article 50 a second time? Probably not, but this is just one example of a key legal question that would need to be resolved before any decision to re-admit the UK was made. We've got about 7 weeks before that becomes a practical impossibility.

 

[Imari]

I don't see how anyone can miss seeing what a horrible precedent that would set. The government gave over the decision to the will of the people. Some people didn't get what they want so now they'd like to subvert the will of the people by having another vote and hoping for a different result.

Indeed. If you're just going to run votes until you get the answer you want, then there's no point voting at all. Just give power back to the monarchy and call it a day.

 

[baldgye]

The phrase 'easier said than done' springs to mind when it comes to the idea of reversing Brexit.

Even assuming that all of the legal, technical and practical issues could be overcome in time, there is still the massive issue of how to achieve consensus within the UK (not to mention unanimity within the EU27) on what the terms of staying in would be. I would not underestimate the complexity and difficulty of that. Reversing Brexit is just that - it is the wholesale reversal of the Brexit process. The UK has taken 2 years to come up with a proposal that almost everyone hates, and has little chance of being accepted by the EU; the reverse process (the EU agreeing terms with itself then presenting them as a take-it-or-leave-it deal to the UK) would probably be just as long and arduous, and would very likely be met with a refusal anyway.

The assumption seems to be that nothing has actually been done yet and thus the decision to halt/reverse Brexit is simply a matter for the British people and subsequently of making a few apologetic phone calls. The reality is far different from that.


In more ways than one - from a UK perspective, it would cause political mayhem - far from addressing the European question once and for all, it would simply leave the situation unresolved for a generation; from an EU perspective, it would also be extremely hard to justify re-admission with no strings attached, and call into question the legal framework that underpins the Union. How long would the UK have to wait before deciding it wants out again? Would/could a member state be barred from triggering Article 50 a second time? Probably not, but this is just one example of a key legal question that would need to be resolved before any decision to re-admit the UK was made. We've got about 7 weeks before that becomes a practical impossibility.

I’d far sooner have political turmoil than economic disaster.

Also unsure how another vote would not answer the question. It seemed fairly clearly answered to me. Baby boomers want out, millennials want in?

 

[Touring Mars]

I’d far sooner have political turmoil than economic disaster.

With no certainty over our future relationship with the EU, economic disaster would not be far behind the political turmoil anyway. It might seem counter-intuitive right now, but the best way to avoid prolonged political and economic turmoil is to have something that resembles certainty as soon as possible, and that means avoiding making Brexit even more complicated and drawn out than it already is - a decision to reverse Brexit now would almost certainly make matters worse, perhaps alot worse, and run the risk of bringing us back to this exact same point in a couple of years time.

Also unsure how another vote would not answer the question. It seemed fairly clearly answered to me. Baby boomers want out, millennials want in?

Well, it depends on what the question is...

The People's Vote, as far as I understand it, is about whether we should accept the Brexit deal (assuming there even is one), but it isn't clear what happens if the people vote no, which is extremely likely since there is no version of Brexit that I know of that can command a simple majority.

A 'second referendum', on the other hand, could be any number of things, but the most straightforward (and fair) vote would be a simple re-run of the first - do we leave or remain in the EU? The trouble is, there cannot be a simple re-run of the first vote... the difference is that Article 50 has already been triggered, and the UK cannot untrigger it alone, even if it wanted to. That means that the vote itself cannot be the same as the first, and the choice of question is altered by the fundamentally different circumstances that we are now in. And therein lies a significant problem - what, now, is a fair question - and how do we get a straightforward majority for any particular result?

What isn't clear is whether or not the EU can or will demand that the UK makes significant concessions in return for a reversal of Article 50. But that must be known in advance of a vote, otherwise we literally don't know what we're voting for... does 'Remain' mean we get the same deal inside the EU as before Article 50 was triggered, or does it mean making huge concessions? Does it mean a formal agreement that the UK must not trigger Article 50 again? Do we have to commit to the Euro, Schengen, migrant quotas...? The answer cannot possibly be clear when the question isn't even clear, but unfortunately that is exactly where we are. When I said Brexit was an omnishambles, I didn't realise how much of an understatement that really was...

 

[baldgye]

With no certainty over our future relationship with the EU, economic disaster would not be far behind the political turmoil anyway. It might seem counter-intuitive right now, but the best way to avoid prolonged political and economic turmoil is to have something that resembles certainty as soon as possible, and that means avoiding making Brexit even more complicated and drawn out than it already is - a decision to reverse Brexit now would almost certainly make matters worse, perhaps alot worse, and run the risk of bringing us back to this exact same point in a couple of years time.

I really don’t agree with this analysis of the situation at all.

The People's Vote, as far as I understand it, is about whether we should accept the Brexit deal (assuming there even is one), but it isn't clear what happens if the people vote no, which is extremely likely since there is no version of Brexit that I know of that can command a simple majority.

My understanding is that if a ‘No’ vote won then it would mean a total reversal of Brexit.

 

[Touring Mars]

I really don’t agree with this analysis of the situation at all.

Maybe I am being overly pessimistic, but just as you don't share my pessimism, I don't believe that reversing Brexit will return things to 'normal' either. I do agree, however, that it would at least forestall problems, but the key question is whether the UK would commit to permanent membership of the EU or not. The genie is out of the bottle now - we have showed our cards, and we have already voted to leave once - why not again? But without clarity and certainty on our future relationshpip with the EU, why would any business that depends on UK-EU supply chains locate/relocate in the UK knowing that Brexit might happen all over again? Ironically, the best thing to do is to avoid that uncertainty and reassure businesses that the UK will maintain trade links with EU via a comprehensive free trade deal (still being negotiated) or commit the UK to never leaving the EU... but merely reversing the referendum result achieves neither of these and leaves the Brexit door permanently ajar. And I severely doubt the UK will commit to never leaving the EU, lest we were to join the Eurozone - and I can't see that happening any time soon either.

My understanding is that if a ‘No’ vote won then it would mean a total reversal of Brexit.

I don't think it would. As I said above, I don't believe that the legal and technical framework exists, let alone the political and democratic will, to prevent Brexit from happening now. Brexit is, at the very least, a democratically chosen and legally prescribed process by which a member state can choose to leave the EU of its own volition. But as we have seen, the practicalities of it are very difficult to achieve. The same would apply to the reverse process, but with the massive added complication of there being no legally defined process by which to enact it. My argument is not that reversing Brexit is impossible, but that it is far more complex than anything a simple referendum could achieve by itself, and that it will take vastly longer than the time available.

 

[baldgye]

Maybe I am being overly pessimistic, but just as you don't share my pessimism, I don't believe that reversing Brexit will return things to 'normal' either.

Never said it would, ‘normal’ is years away even in the best case. All we can do now is stem the bleeding.

 

[Imari]

I’d far sooner have political turmoil than economic disaster.

That may not be the choice you get. Your options may be economic disaster, or economic disaster with a side of political turmoil.

It's not always the case that the desirable options are reasonable or even possible. The world is like that sometimes; you get trapped trying to choose the best of a bad bunch.

 

[baldgye]

That may not be the choice you get. Your options may be economic disaster, or economic disaster with a side of political turmoil.

It's not always the case that the desirable options are reasonable or even possible. The world is like that sometimes; you get trapped trying to choose the best of a bad bunch.

I don’t know why you quoted me?
Of course I don’t get to choose our options for Brexit...

 

[Imari]

I don’t know why you quoted me?
Of course I don’t get to choose our options for Brexit...

Because you're saying that those are the two options.

You're saying that if you had a choice, you'd take political turmoil over economic disaster. I'm pointing out that if you were able to choose, those might not even be the options in this particular case. And if those aren't the options, you might as well be saying "I'd far sooner have world peace than eradication of poverty".

If you're going to put forward a hypothetical, then try not to get confused when people follow through on it.

 

[baldgye]

Because you're saying that those are the two options.

You're saying that if you had a choice, you'd take political turmoil over economic disaster. I'm pointing out that if you were able to choose, those might not even be the options in this particular case. And if those aren't the options, you might as well be saying "I'd far sooner have world peace than eradication of poverty".

If you're going to put forward a hypothetical, then try not to get confused when people follow through on it.

I was replying to someone else;

In more ways than one - from a UK perspective, it would cause political mayhem

I've made it clear that as far as I can tell no-deal would be an economic disaster. So I would choose political mayhem over economic disaster.
No deal would leave us with zero trade deals, instead of the 700+ we have now. Staying within the EU would prevent us from loosing these, we would be worse off than we where (pre-Brexit), of course... nothing can prevent that, but I don't see how it would be an economic disaster (on the same scale as no-deal).




Even thinking this over again, given your options... I'd rather take economic disaster and political turmoil. Our political class has failed us at every single level. They openly lied about Brexit, they lied about how it would affect us and them and are now actively working to follow through on plans they know will harm this country and the people of it, safe in the knowledge that they will be protected by their own personal wealth.

 

[Imari]

I was replying to someone else;

Generally on this forum it's considered acceptable for other people to join in a conversation as well. If you'd like to discuss something without others being able to see it or stick their two cents in, there's a forum function for that.

Even thinking this over again, given your options... I'd rather take economic disaster and political turmoil.

I rather thought you might. Is this based on what you think is best for your country, or just a desire for revenge against those that have failed you?

I don't disagree that your political class seems to have failed you, but given the current situation I'm not sure what you propose is beneficial to the UK, short or long term. Short of a major overhaul of the entire political system, at best you're going to get some people retiring and new names filling old roles.

Is this worth revolting over? With all the negatives that would bring for the general populace?

 

[baldgye]

Generally on this forum it's considered acceptable for other people to join in a conversation as well. If you'd like to discuss something without others being able to see it or stick their two cents in, there's a forum function for that.

Not sure why you feel the need to be so hostile, I was trying to add context to my comments. It wasn’t some wild hypothetical situation I’d conjured alone...

I rather thought you might. Is this based on what you think is best for your country, or just a desire for revenge against those that have failed you?

I don't disagree that your political class seems to have failed you, but given the current situation I'm not sure what you propose is beneficial to the UK, short or long term. Short of a major overhaul of the entire political system, at best you're going to get some people retiring and new names filling old roles.

Is this worth revolting over? With all the negatives that would bring for the general populace?

Revenge? The people who have done this to our country will continue to live opulent lives regardless of what I can do. Even political exile won’t prevent that (it could indeed help).

The problem with British politics is that it is made up of too much ****. The three major parties have three leaders, non of which are capable to lead or even be good politicians. Simply replacing leaders, or senior members won’t solve the divisions in those parties. (the whole joke that was the Labour leadership change for example)...

The system, isn’t broken, it just needs bleeding. I’m not talking about changing the political system, just the members of it.

 

[Imari]

Not sure why you feel the need to be so hostile, I was trying to add context to my comments. It wasn’t some wild hypothetical situation I’d conjured alone...

I was replying to your dismissive tone in informing me that I was taking part in a conversation intended for someone else. Yours was the comment that best consolidated the concept that I wished to address and you expressed a definite view on it, so I replied to you.

Perhaps we both misinterpreted each other's replies?

Simply replacing leaders, or senior members won’t solve the divisions in those parties. (the whole joke that was the Labour leadership change for example)...

The system, isn’t broken, it just needs bleeding. I’m not talking about changing the political system, just the members of it.

Do you not think the above two sentences somewhat contradict each other? You say that replacing people won't solve the divisions (which to my mind is a large part of why it's impossible to get anything productive done politically), but then you say that you're talking about just changing the members of the political system.

I don't get it. What do you see the outcome from this looking like?

To me, replacing a handful of people does nearly nothing, power isn't that concentrated in modern democracies. And for good reason. So if you're talking about wholesale replacement of a significant proportion of the country's politicians, I'd say that's functionally a revolution. At that point you might as well work on the political system as well, because you've already caused so much disruption that you might as well go the whole hog.

I'm not saying that a revolution is the worst idea in the world. Just that it needs consideration.

And as far as this:

The problem with British politics is that it is made up of too much ****.

That's Western politics in a nut shell. Similar things are happening everywhere, as politicians learn what they can get away with and copy techniques and tactics off each other. It's not quite a broken system, but it's getting to the point where so much time is spent fighting political battles and running propaganda that there's no actual time for running the country.

See Australia; we've had 5 prime ministers in the last 5 years, and 7 in the last 10. How is any solid policy for the good of the country supposed to form when all the pollies are doing is having bun fights every day?

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/list-of-australian-prime-ministers-2018-8

Believe me, I sympathise. But to me, it's more a symptom of the "optimal" way to game the system. Changing the players doesn't change the best strategy once it's been found. Even if you get lucky with a couple of people who are willing to forgo personal reward for the sake of the country, that's not going to last as long as the system rewards spending all your time sledging your opponents and spewing mistruths and lies.

 

[Mr Tree]

But that must be known in advance of a vote, otherwise we literally don't know what we're voting for... does 'Remain' mean we get the same deal inside the EU as before Article 50 was triggered, or does it mean making huge concessions? Does it mean a formal agreement that the UK must not trigger Article 50 again? Do we have to commit to the Euro, Schengen, migrant quotas...? The answer cannot possibly be clear when the question isn't even clear, but unfortunately that is exactly where we are. When I said Brexit was an omnishambles, I didn't realise how much of an understatement that really was...

And how was the case diffrent woth people who voted to leave? They didn't know what tge result was going to be yet that didn't stop anyone from claiming the referendup to be legit?

I do want to say I agree with most of you analasys, this claim just struck me as strange so I'm wondering what I'm missing that maies the diffrence between those 2 referenda.

 

[baldgye]

I don't get it. What do you see the outcome from this looking like?

Essentially a realignment.

To me the problem comes from the fact that neither party knows what it is. Labour are slowly imploding between being the radical left and the New Labour kind of left... along with trying to marry those two ideas to Brexit. While the Tories don’t know how right-wing to be. With sudden and alarming anti-business right-wingers aggressively trying to take control of the party from the more pro-Europe Thatcherite’s.

It’s a mess and Brexit has been the catalyst for it all.

The way I see it shaking out is the Tories splitting, into a BNP/UKIP type party and a more traditional Conservative party. And Labour consolidating their position under David Miliband and a new wave of New Labour.

For this to happen a fairy big **** needs to be taken, which to my mind is a bonus to preventing Brexit.


It’s kind of terrifying that the notion of wanting our politicians to actually stand for something requires a ‘revolution’.

 

[Imari]

Essentially a realignment.

See, but that assumes that politicians have values that they're standing for as opposed to saying what's necessary to benefit themselves. Not that there aren't some out there that put their values ahead of themselves, but they seem to be a minority. Or at least not in positions of power.

To me the problem comes from the fact that neither party knows what it is.

But this is the thing, right? A party doesn't need a consistent identity, they just need to get votes at specific times. They can change themselves to whatever is most popular at any given election, and that's going to be the best strategy to win.

Isn't it interesting that the best strategy to win an election is to completely pander to the lowest common denominator?

It’s a mess and Brexit has been the catalyst for it all.

I don't think so.

I think Brexit (or something like it) was an inevitable byproduct of the political environment, both in the UK and elsewhere. The fact that Brexit is a terrible, terrible idea is then what made the political shambles so much more apparent. When there's no big issue it's not necessarily obvious that your government is doing little but giving each other golden handshakes and fighting in the tabloids. But when there's something that's critical to the country, like a war or a major economic policy decision, it is obvious. Decisions need to be made, and a government made of toadying yes-men who'd sell their grandmother for a handful of votes cannot adapt quickly enough to do it.

Look at the US. Basically the same thing is happening, except that the US wasn't part of an obvious entity like the EU. But they're pulling out of huge amounts of trade agreements, throwing up tariffs, alienating allies, locking up immigrants, and generally trying to wall themselves off from the world. It's the exact same mindset that led to Brexit.

This is where the major Western powers are right now. Brexit is a symptom, not a cause. You don't get half a country voting to leave the EU for the luls. No matter what happens with Brexit, the animus that led to that vote remains. And that's not something where it matters whether it was 52% or 48% of the country that voted Leave; the problem is that half the country wants an isolationist policy.

Just like the US. Trump is just a guy that happened to be in the right place at the right time willing to say the right things. The reality is that half of the US wanted a Trump-type figure enacting Trump-type policies, and so that's what they got. Both Trump and Brexit are symptoms of a much wider reaching and more systemic cultural problem.

Good political systems might have limited the consequences of such things, but the real problem is that you have countries full of people who are scared of the rest of the world. I will not be even moderately surprised if there's another world war in the next twenty years.

 

[baldgye]

See, but that assumes that politicians have values that they're standing for as opposed to saying what's necessary to benefit themselves. Not that there aren't some out there that put their values ahead of themselves, but they seem to be a minority. Or at least not in positions of power.

There are, but a good politician should be a mix of both of those things, not one extreme or the other.
Edit: To be honest, I'm not sure they are in that short in supply

I think Brexit (or something like it) was an inevitable byproduct of the political environment, both in the UK and elsewhere. The fact that Brexit is a terrible, terrible idea is then what made the political shambles so much more apparent. When there's no big issue it's not necessarily obvious that your government is doing little but giving each other golden handshakes and fighting in the tabloids. But when there's something that's critical to the country, like a war or a major economic policy decision, it is obvious. Decisions need to be made, and a government made of toadying yes-men who'd sell their grandmother for a handful of votes cannot adapt quickly enough to do it.

Agreed, but stagnation like this, in the face of real challenges can be the catalyst for change.

This is where the major Western powers are right now. Brexit is a symptom, not a cause. You don't get half a country voting to leave the EU for the luls. No matter what happens with Brexit, the animus that led to that vote remains. And that's not something where it matters whether it was 52% or 48% of the country that voted Leave; the problem is that half the country wants an isolationist policy.

Yes and no.
Brexit was a lie, sold to people who didn't know better. We were told we where better off without the EU and that they would come running to us. That we'd end up richer and stronger. That was a fallacy based on good old fashioned ignorance, xenophobia and prejudice. So I don't actually think half the country want anything of the sort, they just want to be better off.

 

[Imari]

There are, but a good politician should be a mix of both of those things, not one extreme or the other.
Edit: To be honest, I'm not sure they are in that short in supply

We can bandy about what a politician should be until the cows come home, but what something should be is rarely what it is. If the political system supporting your country relies on people acting as they should, that's a problem.

As far as good politicians being in short supply, we're in a thread talking about the UK leaving the EU. If they weren't in short supply, we wouldn't be here.

I think you know this, that's why part of your solution is a major changing of the political guard. If you thought that the majority of politicians were on the up and up and were working for the good of the country, then you wouldn't suggest that. Don't just disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing, please.

Agreed, but stagnation like this, in the face of real challenges can be the catalyst for change.

Brexit can be a catalyst for change as it's exposing real problems with the system, but it was not the catalyst for the political breakdown which is what you were saying before. That was already in place, it just didn't have anything to stress it far enough.

Yes and no.
Brexit was a lie, sold to people who didn't know better. We were told we where better off without the EU and that they would come running to us. That we'd end up richer and stronger. That was a fallacy based on good old fashioned ignorance, xenophobia and prejudice. So I don't actually think half the country want anything of the sort, they just want to be better off.

Yeees...but they want to be better off without those rapist job stealing immigrants or them damn EU Germans making rules about our bendy bananas and back to the days of when GREAT Britain was a world leader and by God every one of those poxy little :censored:hole countries feared us coming over and giving them what for.

Without the isolationism and xenophobia, there would never have been the impetus to start a Leave campaign. Without the isolationism and xenophobia, it never would have gained enough momentum, and not enough people would have seen fit to throw reason out the window for the hope of "taking their country back". Without the isolationism and xenophobia, it would have been the 1975 referendum all over again.

The Leave campaign ran and succeeded on the back of popular opinion. They didn't brainwash half the country. They told them what they wanted to hear. Just like Trump did. It was largely lies, but hey ho, politics. Hillary's a crook, drain the swamp, build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it; it's all dribble written specifically to appeal to voters who want it to be true.

When you strip it all back, half the country wanted what they saw as an independent Britain again. That it was made to look like it would be a net gain was just an excuse to vote the way their hearts wanted. To get a little 1984, if everyone accepts a lie what is the difference from the truth?