Brexit - The UK leaves the EU

[Mr Tree]

I just want to revisit this.

I'm not sure how I missed it at the time, but it seems that the European Parliament's Brexit steering committee (six MEPs and Guy Verhofstadt) has told Ireland (not the UK) that it must set up a hard customs border in the event of a no deal Brexit, or face being ejected from the customs union itself - effectively stating that the integrity of customs union overrides the Good Friday Agreement.

Elmar Brok, of the steering committee said:
“We would have to set up a customs border with Ireland. The defence of the internal market is the basis of our economic success in Germany. If we destroy the Single Market, the EU is finished.”

Philippe Lamberts, also of the steering committee said:
"The British would have a 500km backdoor into the single market. If Ireland refuses to protect the border with Northern Ireland after a hard Brexit, we would have to relocate the customs border to the Continent."

Original German article here:
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausla...ohen-irland-mit-zollkontrollen-a-1251148.html

Reported in the UK by the Express and Telegraph.


Ireland doesn't want a hard border. "Great Britain" doesn't want a hard border. Northern Ireland doesn't want a hard border. No part of the British Isles wants a hard border. The European Parliament says Ireland has an obligation to set up a hard border or it gets kicked out.

So either the EU forces Ireland* to break the Good Friday Agreement, or the EU ejects a member state.

That's a rather interesting change of tack from the EU which seems to have always insisted the UK would be responsible for such a hard border - and quite a distance from Tusk's comments later the same day:

Right now it seems to be **** Good Friday, because our customs union.

I suspect more movement on this issue is to come.

*Like it forced Ireland into a crippling bank bailout package in 2010

I probably don't understand but if you don't havr a hard border in/with ireland. And you wouldn't be in the custums union.

Wouldn't you still be in the union? We could all go to ireland (no border) travel to NI (no border) travel to GB (no border).

I'd be suprised if it were as simple as I put it.

 

[Famine]

I probably don't understand but if you don't havr a hard border in/with ireland. And you wouldn't be in the custums union.

Wouldn't you still be in the union? We could all go to ireland (no border) travel to NI (no border) travel to GB (no border).

I'd be suprised if it were as simple as I put it.

I don't follow this chain of sentences.

A hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland breaks the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, which is essentially what put an end to one of the most sustained paramilitary campaigns in a developed nation ever seen. Unsurprisingly, no-one in the UK and Ireland, and specifically no-one in Northern Ireland (which is part of the UK, but which allows citizens to identify as British or Irish and which has free movement to both), wants a hard border.

In the event of the UK leaving the customs union, Northern Ireland leaves too. The EU wants its borders defended to preserve the customs union - it has to allow free movement of people, goods, services and money from Ireland to the rest of the EU27, because that's what the EU is, but it will not allow free movement of people, goods, services and money from the UK to Ireland, thus requiring a hard border. The EU will therefore force Ireland to break the terms of the Good Friday Agreement and erect a hard border with Northern Ireland.

Breaking the Good Friday Agreement is A Bad Thing.

 

[Touring Mars]

Thus far, the only solution to the Irish border issue in the view of the EU is to keep Northern Ireland in the Customs Union permanently, even if the rest of the UK leaves. But this solution has been unanimously rejected (a miracle in itself) by the UK Parliament for a multitude of reasons, the main ones being that it effectively creates a customs border within the UK's internal single market and sovereign territory, and upsets the Unionist elements within Northern Ireland (who are demanding that there is no difference Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK after Brexit). The EU's solution is technically easy and appears to make perfect sense to the EU and to technocrats alike - but, crucially, it is and always has been politically impossible.

The UK's solution, on the other hand, is messy, unproven and potentially fraught with difficulty - it also (apparently) fails to deliver the same level of certainty over the one thing that all sides want, which is to avoid a hard border. But, as has been said many times already - the UK and Ireland have both committed time and time again to never returning to a hard border, and that is effectively enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement. The political and social reality of the situation is that a hard border will not re-emerge under any circumstances... but that puts both the UK and Ireland in awkward legal positions when it comes to the fact that two separate customs areas will have no enforcable border between them.

While Ireland is split into two parts which belong to separate customs and trading arrangements, the UK/NI could find themselves in breach of WTO rules and Ireland will certainly be in breach of EU rules, albeit through no fault of their own. And therein lies the rub - irrespective of what happens to the UK, the EU will face a terrible dilemma on how to handle Ireland. I guess that the reality is that there is actually very little the EU can do - and meanwhile, Ireland will have no choice but to continue trading with both its largest trading partners - the UK and the EU - simultaneously. I reckon most Brexiteers have been banking on this 'reality' all along, but the truth is that even if they are right and that the reality on the ground will trump any other considerations, it will certainly not be smooth, easy or good-natured.

 

[Mr Tree]

I don't follow this chain of sentences.

A hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland breaks the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, which is essentially what put an end to one of the most sustained paramilitary campaigns in a developed nation ever seen. Unsurprisingly, no-one in the UK and Ireland, and specifically no-one in Northern Ireland (which is part of the UK, but which allows citizens to identify as British or Irish and which has free movement to both), wants a hard border.

In the event of the UK leaving the customs union, Northern Ireland leaves too. The EU wants its borders defended to preserve the customs union - it has to allow free movement of people, goods, services and money from Ireland to the rest of the EU27, because that's what the EU is, but it will not allow free movement of people, goods, services and money from the UK to Ireland, thus requiring a hard border. The EU will therefore force Ireland to break the terms of the Good Friday Agreement and erect a hard border with Northern Ireland.

Breaking the Good Friday Agreement is A Bad Thing.

Thus far, the only solution to the Irish border issue in the view of the EU is to keep Northern Ireland in the Customs Union permanently, even if the rest of the UK leaves. But this solution has been unanimously rejected (a miracle in itself) by the UK Parliament for a multitude of reasons, the main ones being that it effectively creates a customs border within the UK's internal single market and sovereign territory, and upsets the Unionist elements within Northern Ireland (who are demanding that there is no difference Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK after Brexit). The EU's solution is technically easy and appears to make perfect sense to the EU and to technocrats alike - but, crucially, it is and always has been politically impossible.

The UK's solution, on the other hand, is messy, unproven and potentially fraught with difficulty - it also (apparently) fails to deliver the same level of certainty over the one thing that all sides want, which is to avoid a hard border. But, as has been said many times already - the UK and Ireland have both committed time and time again to never returning to a hard border, and that is effectively enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement. The political and social reality of the situation is that a hard border will not re-emerge under any circumstances... but that puts both the UK and Ireland in awkward legal positions when it comes to the fact that two separate customs areas will have no enforcable border between them.

While Ireland is split into two parts which belong to separate customs and trading arrangements, the UK/NI could find themselves in breach of WTO rules and Ireland will certainly be in breach of EU rules, albeit through no fault of their own. And therein lies the rub - irrespective of what happens to the UK, the EU will face a terrible dilemma on how to handle Ireland. I guess that the reality is that there is actually very little the EU can do - and meanwhile, Ireland will have no choice but to continue trading with both its largest trading partners - the UK and the EU - simultaneously. I reckon most Brexiteers have been banking on this 'reality' all along, but the truth is that even if they are right and that the reality on the ground will trump any other considerations, it will certainly not be smooth, easy or good-natured.

So the btexiteers vote for brexit so they can enforce their own border. But then when the eu says that means the border between NI and Ireland to it's a problem because of the good friday agreement? Didn't they vote for a border?

This seems more like the problem of the UK rather then that of the eu.

2 main thaughts I have is if there is a custums union between ireland and europe and there is a custumsunion between ireland and the UK doesn't that mean the entire endeaver of having control over the border been for nothing?

And number 2 what would be the issue with the end of the good friday agreement. Is not having a hard border all that keeps people from murderibg each other? If so boy that escalated quickly. (Might be to young to understand the issue in depth)

But this issue sounds like something unsolvable. If there has to be a hard brexit doesn't that automaticly mean the end of the good friday agreement?

Like I said I seem to not understand certain thing but I don't see where my problem with understanding lies.

Edit: our suck it up and.install a border between NI and the UK? It was GB tht got themself into this mess so fix it internally?

 

[Touring Mars]

So the btexiteers vote for brexit so they can enforce their own border. But then when the eu says that means the border between NI and Ireland to it's a problem because of the good friday agreement? Didn't they vote for a border?

Brexiteers did indeed vote to 'Take back control of our borders', but, ironically, the only land border between the UK and the EU happens to be the Irish border and that is obviously a special case.

This seems more like the problem of the UK rather then that of the eu.

I would say it is a major problem for both - however, the EU will have no say over what the UK does after Brexit... but, it does have a major say in what Ireland can do. Unfortunately, the one thing that the EU will need to demand of Ireland is the one thing that Ireland has repeatedly ruled out, and that is to erect a hard border.

if there is a custums union between ireland and europe and there is a custumsunion between ireland and the UK doesn't that mean the entire endeaver of having control over the border been for nothing?

Yes. If the UK were to stay in a Customs Union with the EU, then the Irish border problem vanishes... but, it also means that the UK needs to remain in the EU's free movement area, which most Brexit voters rejected.

And number 2 what would be the issue with the end of the good friday agreement. Is not having a hard border all that keeps people from murderibg each other? If so boy that escalated quickly. (Might be to young to understand the issue in depth)

No, but the UK and Ireland tried having a hard border and it didn't go well. Ireland as a whole works better for everyone when there is free movement and no barriers (physical or otherwise) to trade or anything else for that matter. (I'm sure there's a lesson in there somewhere...!!). But committing to no hard border in Ireland was an essential ingredient in a complex peace negotiation between many rival factions in Ireland - and while it is still not entirely resolved, it is universally agreed that a hard border in Ireland would be a disastrous backward step.

But this issue sounds like something unsolvable. If there has to be a hard brexit doesn't that automaticly mean the end of the good friday agreement?

Not unsolvable, just hard to resolve. Unfortunately there are no simple answers, and the situation is not helped when both sides have 'red lines' that they are not prepared (or indeed not able) to compromise on. The Good Friday Agreement is the ultimate red line though - unfortunately, both the UK and the EU believe (with some justification on both sides) that their approach is the best way of respecting the GFA.

suck it up and.install a border between NI and the UK? It was GB tht got themself into this mess so fix it internally?

The UK voted democratically to remove itself from an increasingly undemocratic supranational construct that is moving inexorably toward full political union - the UK people have every right to leave the EU. Yes, Brexit has caused problems and it has also been executed terribly by both the UK Government and a terribly unfit-for-purpose Article 50 process, as enforced by the EU, but the fact remains that any member state has a fundamental right to leave if it so chooses.

From all but a UK perspective, it makes perfect sense to just carve off NI from the rest of the UK or even to push for the reunification of Ireland.... but, as things stand, Northern Ireland is still part of the UK and it benefits more from membership of the UK internal market than it does from its membership (via the UK) of the EU single market. From a UK perspective, the EU are attempting to extend its political control over part of the UK's sovereign territory - an unprecedented move that would have very serious ramifications for international law.

Brexit - however ill-judged, ill-advised and poorly executed it may be - is morally acceptable and a democratic right of the UK people. Over-reach by the EU to attempt to break up a sovereign nation is neither.

 

[Mr Tree]

Brexiteers did indeed vote to 'Take back control of our borders', but, ironically, the only land border between the UK and the EU happens to be the Irish border and that is obviously a special case.


I would say it is a major problem for both - however, the EU will have no say over what the UK does after Brexit... but, it does have a major say in what Ireland can do. Unfortunately, the one thing that the EU will need to demand of Ireland is the one thing that Ireland has repeatedly ruled out, and that is to erect a hard border.


Yes. If the UK were to stay in a Customs Union with the EU, then the Irish border problem vanishes... but, it also means that the UK needs to remain in the EU's free movement area, which most Brexit voters rejected.


No, but the UK and Ireland tried having a hard border and it didn't go well. Ireland as a whole works better for everyone when there is free movement and no barriers (physical or otherwise) to trade or anything else for that matter. (I'm sure there's a lesson in there somewhere...!!). But committing to no hard border in Ireland was an essential ingredient in a complex peace negotiation between many rival factions in Ireland - and while it is still not entirely resolved, it is universally agreed that a hard border in Ireland would be a disastrous backward step.


Not unsolvable, just hard to resolve. Unfortunately there are no simple answers, and the situation is not helped when both sides have 'red lines' that they are not prepared (or indeed not able) to compromise on. The Good Friday Agreement is the ultimate red line though - unfortunately, both the UK and the EU believe (with some justification on both sides) that their approach is the best way of respecting the GFA.


The UK voted democratically to remove itself from an increasingly undemocratic supranational construct that is moving inexorably toward full political union - the UK people have every right to leave the EU. Yes, Brexit has caused problems and it has also been executed terribly by both the UK Government and a terribly unfit-for-purpose Article 50 process, as enforced by the EU, but the fact remains that any member state has a fundamental right to leave if it so chooses.

From all but a UK perspective, it makes perfect sense to just carve off NI from the rest of the UK or even to push for the reunification of Ireland.... but, as things stand, Northern Ireland is still part of the UK and it benefits more from membership of the UK internal market than it does from its membership (via the UK) of the EU single market. From a UK perspective, the EU are attempting to extend its political control over part of the UK's sovereign territory - an unprecedented move that would have very serious ramifications for international law.

Brexit - however ill-judged and ill-advised it is - is morally acceptable and a democratic right of the UK people. Over-reach by the EU to attempt to break up a sovereign nation is neither.

But I don't see the solution. Imagine there is a hard border between EU and the UK. But there isn't.one between ireland and Northern Ireland, there also is no hard border between Northern Ireland and the UK. Doesn't that effectivly mean there is no border between the EU and GB.

And on the souvereign right, I totally agree. I just don't see why we can't pull of the same thing and play hardball. The UK is leaving one way or another if we say hard border you cqn do what you want vut isn't that out souvereign right?

If Ireland doesn't want to and we kick them out that would seem rather democratic within a union. It's that or give up our souvereignity to save some other nations souvereignity.

Again I seem to be missing info to fully grasp the situation. Thanks for the explanations.

 

[Touring Mars]

But I don't see the solution. Imagine there is a hard border between EU and the UK. But there isn't.one between ireland and Northern Ireland, there also is no hard border between Northern Ireland and the UK. Doesn't that effectivly mean there is no border between the EU and GB.

Yes, it would mean no border between the EU and the UK - but one possible solution would be for the EU and the UK to have already agreed a trade deal that maintains the status quo on trade, standards and customs checks at UK and Irish borders. But that is not possible because the EU insist that the UK can only negotiate a trade deal after we've left. There are other possibilities as well, but unfortunately most of them require time to implement, which means a 'transition period' of several years... which will not happen unless a deal can be agreed between the EU and the UK. One possible, temporary solution would be to effectively force a transition period by invoking WTO rules to keep tariffs etc. as they are until the dispute is resolved.

And on the souvereign right, I totally agree. I just don't see why we can't pull of the same thing and play hardball. The UK is leaving one way or another if we say hard border you cqn do what you want vut isn't that out souvereign right?

Who's "we"?

The UK and Ireland are sovereign states and both would have a right to erect a hard border in Ireland if they chose to do so - but neither wants a hard border and neither is prepared to enforce one... the EU doesn't want a border either, but it is insisting that there must be one if Northern Ireland (and the UK) leave the Customs Union.

If Ireland doesn't want to and we kick them out that would seem rather democratic within a union. It's that or give up our souvereignity to save some other nations souvereignity.

Again, I don't really know what you mean by "we". The EU is not a sovereign state, but it does represent sovereign states. However, the most likely route to resolving the Irish border issue is for the two sovereign states involved - the UK and Ireland - to come to an arrangement between them that keeps disruption to a minimum, while also attempting to respect the integrity of both the EU Single Market and the UK internal market.

But you are right - there doesn't appear to be a 'solution' as such - someone somewhere is not going to be at all happy with whatever happens.

 

[Mr Tree]

The UK and Ireland are sovereign states and both would have a right to erect a hard border in Ireland if they chose to do so - but neither wants a hard border and neither is prepared to enforce one... the EU doesn't want a border either, but it is insisting that there must be one if Northern Ireland (and the UK) leave the Customs Union.

We as in.the member states that wouldn't really bother with said border.

If we don't have a border with ireland due to eu regulation then Irelands choice about how to handle it's border effectd us to doesn't it?

Last 3 questions i think:
How does customs union function if it doesn't uphold it's borders?

If the new trade agreement means free exchange of goods and services wouldn't that make this take back control over our borders crowd unhappy?

Am I wrong if most voted for that issue?

Also in

 

[Touring Mars]

We as in.the member states that wouldn't really bother with said border.

If we don't have a border with ireland due to eu regulation then Irelands choice about how to handle it's border effectd us to doesn't it?

Yes - however the EU only have power to enforce its own rules and that means it only really has influence over its own member states. But, forcing Ireland to do something that it has sworn not to do puts both Ireland and the EU in a very difficult position. It would be utterly wrong and self-defeating for the EU to sanction Ireland for respecting the Good Friday Agreement (and protecting its vital trade and social relationships with the North), but the EU may not have any other option but to consider expelling Ireland from the Single Market, if it deems Ireland to be in breach of its rules on enforcing the EU's Single Market external border.

How does customs union function if it doesn't uphold it's borders?

By agreeing a trade deal with the bordering nation that eliminates tariffs and customs checks at a physical border. No-one knows exactly how that can be done (the truth is that it cannot be done yet), but... it is going to have to be done, so the quicker all sides get used to that idea, the better IMHO.

If the new trade agreement means free exchange of goods and services wouldn't that make this take back control over our borders crowd unhappy?

Provided it doesn't involve staying under the control of EU law, then I don't see why it would be a problem for most Brexit voters. The trouble is that the EU consider 'free exchange of goods and services' to be inseparable from the 'free movement of people' as well, and hence they do not want the UK to have one without the other - but in addition it would all be done under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), and that is a problem for Brexiteers. It is also a major problem for Remainers too - I, for one, do not mind the UK being subject to EU law, provided we are full members of the EU and have control over how EU laws are made and how they pertain to the UK. Being in a Customs Union but not a member of the EU is crazy and a really terrible idea that nobody in the UK wants. However, a new arrangement where the UK continues to benefit from tariff-free trade with the EU while not being subject to EU laws with no say in how they are made, is viewed by the EU as 'having our cake and eating it'... unfortunately that is a pretty fair and true assessment, but the alternative is that the EU cuts off its nose to spite its face and makes everyone worse off - at a time when the Eurozone is fighting for its survival, that choice seems incredibly ill-advised.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Porsche are reportedly preparing to add a 10% tariff to UK customers who purchased after January 17. BBC.

As an aside, there's a weird paragraph in that story:

The company, famous for its red sports cars, makes a range of other models.

Porsche aren't the company I'd primarily associate with red sports cars.

 

[Dennisch]

Quality research.

 

[Tornado]

I shouldn't have to retake my test or apply for an IDP.

 

[mustafur]

Thus far, the only solution to the Irish border issue in the view of the EU is to keep Northern Ireland in the Customs Union permanently, even if the rest of the UK leaves. But this solution has been unanimously rejected (a miracle in itself) by the UK Parliament for a multitude of reasons, the main ones being that it effectively creates a customs border within the UK's internal single market and sovereign territory, and upsets the Unionist elements within Northern Ireland (who are demanding that there is no difference Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK after Brexit). The EU's solution is technically easy and appears to make perfect sense to the EU and to technocrats alike - but, crucially, it is and always has been politically impossible.

The UK's solution, on the other hand, is messy, unproven and potentially fraught with difficulty - it also (apparently) fails to deliver the same level of certainty over the one thing that all sides want, which is to avoid a hard border. But, as has been said many times already - the UK and Ireland have both committed time and time again to never returning to a hard border, and that is effectively enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement. The political and social reality of the situation is that a hard border will not re-emerge under any circumstances... but that puts both the UK and Ireland in awkward legal positions when it comes to the fact that two separate customs areas will have no enforcable border between them.

While Ireland is split into two parts which belong to separate customs and trading arrangements, the UK/NI could find themselves in breach of WTO rules and Ireland will certainly be in breach of EU rules, albeit through no fault of their own. And therein lies the rub - irrespective of what happens to the UK, the EU will face a terrible dilemma on how to handle Ireland. I guess that the reality is that there is actually very little the EU can do - and meanwhile, Ireland will have no choice but to continue trading with both its largest trading partners - the UK and the EU - simultaneously. I reckon most Brexiteers have been banking on this 'reality' all along, but the truth is that even if they are right and that the reality on the ground will trump any other considerations, it will certainly not be smooth, easy or good-natured.

I think it's the best solution, afterall Northern Ireland did majority vote to stay in the EU, although not as much as Scotland did, which will probably create a huge issue, even though Scotland doesn't exactly have terrorists ready to bomb English institutions within Scotland.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I think it's the best solution, afterall Northern Ireland did majority vote to stay in the EU, although not as much as Scotland did, which will probably create a huge issue, even though Scotland doesn't exactly have terrorists ready to bomb English institutions within Scotland.

However much I agree the majority of the UK (or a majority of those who voted, to be more precise) voted to Leave. It's hard to see how letting one country effectively remain will be satisfactory for Leave voters. And, if they can, why can't Scotland do the same thing? It would also be disastrous for England and Wales - surely any businesses manager who's not region-locked by their product (e.g. protected-name foodstuffs) is going to move to Scotland or Northern Ireland?

Further to that: the Conservatives only have a "working" parliamentary majority through their coalition with the DUP (aka the swivel-eyed loons) who say a firm Nigh to the idea of Northern Ireland ever looking like it's more a part of Ireland than it is of the UK. If May were to pursue a permanent NI customs union then she'd finally collapse her government. Finally... honestly I'm surprised it's got this far.

 

[Liquid]

Another blow to post-Brexit Britain with the news that Honda is supposedly set to close its Swindon plant by 2022.

 

[Scaff]

Another blow to post-Brexit Britain with the news that Honda is supposedly set to close its Swindon plant by 2022.

That's my home town seriously screwed.

With the new EU Japan free trade deal and the utter uncertainty over how we will leave then it makes prefect sense from Honda's point of view to run out production lines in Swindon and then shutter the place.

Its an outcome I seriously wish I hadn't been right about predicting.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Sad, but not surprising.

 

[Keef]

If y'all had an opportunity to re-vote to cancel this Brexit thing, would you (the country) choose to cancel it?

 

[UKMikey]

If y'all had an opportunity to re-vote to cancel this Brexit thing, would you (the country) choose to cancel it?

I'd love to know.

 

[Touring Mars]

If y'all had an opportunity to re-vote to cancel this Brexit thing, would you (the country) choose to cancel it?

I suspect that Remain would probably win a re-run of the vote - but I think there shouldn't be another vote.

 

[Keef]

but I think there shouldn't be another vote.

Why not?

It might just be propaganda, but all the news I get about it suggests this is a terrible idea. It seems even worse than what Trump is doing with our trade, more like a state leaving the union.

 

[Famine]

Another blow to post-Brexit Britain with the news that Honda is supposedly set to close its Swindon plant by 2022.

It's also closing Gebze in Turkey (notably not in the EU), as it's consolidating production in Japan. Probably also due to the reduction in tariffs under the EU-Japan trade agreement.

 

[Touring Mars]

Why not?

Because a vote has already been held on whether to remain inside or leave the EU.

A vote to Remain would have resulted in nothing happening - zero. However, a vote to Leave entailed instigating fundamental change, a great deal of uncertainty, facing certain difficulties and uncertain benefits etc.... as such, it is not merely unsurprising that some people may have changed their minds... it's inevitable. But - that doesn't make a second vote any more legitimate - or wise.

Another blow to post-Brexit Britain with the news that Honda is supposedly set to close its Swindon plant by 2022.

Nobody's forcing them to leave - they're leaving of their own Accord.

 

[Liquid]

Nobody's forcing them to leave - they're leaving of their own Accord.

They will consult Civic leaders in an attempt to persuade them it's an Integra-l part of their future plans.

 

[Scaff]

Because a vote has already been held on whether to remain inside or leave the EU.

This is honestly the single worst argument to not hold another vote

How many things as a democracy do we regularly vote on, particularly as information changes?

 

[Robin]

If y'all had an opportunity to re-vote to cancel this Brexit thing, would you (the country) choose to cancel it?

I also disagree that their should be a second vote because were does it end if you run votes again and again till to get the 'right' outcome, whatever that is. If there was another vote and leave won again would we have to run it yet again!? We had the vote which was preceded by plenty of discussion and cases put forward for both leave and remain.

As for Honda it's not surprising given the news from both Jaguar and Nissan in the past few weeks. The auto industry is in a real slump at the moment as the emerging markets have cooled.

 

[Dotini]

More democracy will get you out of the trouble democracy got you into?

 

[Keef]

A vote to Remain would have resulted in nothing happening - zero. However, a vote to Leave entailed instigating fundamental change, a great deal of uncertainty, facing certain difficulties and uncertain benefits etc.... as such, it is not merely unsurprising that some people may have changed their minds... it's inevitable. But - that doesn't make a second vote any more legitimate - or wise.

From what I've read in the news, the population voted to leave the EU out of some weird nationalistic "I'm angry and Make Britain Great Again" thing. Same thing going on here. I've seen no evidence that the population at large studied anything at all about this, and virtually every discovery since the vote seems to show that leaving the EU is a terrible idea.

Is continuing with an objectively bad idea a good thing? It seems like Trump trying to build a wall because it's the only campaign promise he's remotely able to keep.

I'm sensing a trend in a lot of nations of the world that, for some weird reason, "democracy" has led to a ton of bad decisions being made out of anger and misinformation.

 

[baldgye]

More democracy will get you out of the trouble democracy got you into?

The vote was not democratic. One side was found guilty of breaking electoral law.

 

[Dotini]

The vote was not democratic. One side was found guilty of breaking electoral law.

Has it been established that the Leave campaign was financed and organized by US nationals?