Brexit - The UK leaves the EU

[Touring Mars]

Those costs, and lack of flexibility can’t outweigh the benefits of having access to the worlds biggest economy, otherwise the EU wouldn’t exist as it does.

So long as those paying the costs are willing to do so...

It is increasingly clear that every EU member state benefits, and pays, in very different ways - the German economy has sky-rocketed while the Italian economy has flat-lined, while youth unemployment and government debt in Italy remain ridiculously high. The trouble is not that the EU isn't capable of delivering massive economic benefits to some of its member states, it is more that the costs and benefits are not uniformly distributed and that is causing major problems in the bloc that must be addressed.

I voted to Remain but I was closer to Cameron (and Corbyn) insomuch as I strongly advocate(d) for reform of the EU - but I fear that the EU will find out the hard way that reform is not an option but an absolute necessity.

 

[_ApexPredator]

I'm sorry, was that inaccurate in some fashion?

Clearly yes.

 

[Imari]

-Leave fined for breaking electoral law
(Sorry previous link wasn’t the most helpful)

Cool, thanks for showing me. I mean, it's bad that they cheated but I'm not sure that spending an extra 70k pounds changes the result in any meaningful way.

— sorry I can’t select text at the moment because iOS is WONDERFUL!
But yeah, a referendum is designed to do that. And it failed. The choices where not only too nebulous (due to the nature of what leaving the EU would mean, like for example what do we do about Northern Ireland?) but the campaign(s) where based on lies.

What should the choices have been, in your opinion?

How can you take anything really meaningful from its result?

By taking it at face value. A majority voted to Leave the EU. The details are left to politicians, diplomats and negotiators, as they should be. You can't have 46 million people all sticking their two cents in on how they want the negotiation done. At some point you have to hand it off to a small group of professionals and trust them to get the best deal.

-I don’t only value my own opinion and those like it. But the main tenants of the Leave campaign where not true, so challenging those views seems pretty reasonable to me...

Perhaps, but you are calling for discarding a result that doesn't mesh with your opinion, and redoing the vote until you get the right result.

If you redid the referendum and still got a Leave result, would you call for another redo? What would it take for you to accept a Leave decision as legitimate?

As far as the fundamentals of Leave not being true...I'm not so sure. Certainly I've seen a lot of staggeringly misleading information (it is still politics, after all), but the only outright lie I've seen is the £350 million on the side of the bus. Which I believe just about every news organisation managed to do a piece on about how Leave can't do math.

If there are more that are outright lies rather that opinions or optimistic predictions, I'd like to see them. If only for my own curiosity, it's like the adult version of "Kids Say The Darndest Things" without the rapist presenter.

...like I said earlia on somewhere (haha) if you’re given two choices and one of those choices is a lie, how is it a fair question?

By expecting people in a democracy to take any interest at all in a major policy decision that will determine the future of their country, and assuming that most adults are smart enough to know not to trust people who are professional liars and spin artists. One does not walk into an election or referendum blind and simply choose an answer.

To your earlier example, if someone offered you a choice of sweets or a million dollars, do you not think you'd smell a rat? The first words out of my mouth would be "sorry, what?" or "are you serious?" At some point, it's behold upon the person making the choice or vote to put at least a bare minimum of thought into what they're doing.

I mean, what do you do if it turns out that 52% of the UK is just stupid? That would be a valid result, and would accurately reflect that a majority of the UK would be morons. (Not saying that a majority are, but, y'know...)

Clearly yes.

Not clearly at all, as I had to ask.
But if you want to spam emojis instead of discussing it like a rational adult then I'd kindly ask you to go and troll somewhere else.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I don't consider myself an activist but I'm a leftist. And while I agree a lot of people wouldn't call it out.

I have called out to my friends and family silly things and lies by our socialist party. I thinknif they lie they should be called out on it just as well.

I'm also in favour of rethinking how we look at voting rights/duties. Uninformed people should bot vote over our future. And campaines that outright lied like the leave campaign should invalidate the result even if it was the remain part that lied i would still hold this idea.

I do think these things need to be legislated and clear so this can't be abused to easily.

Again I can't comment on your average activist but can show you my opinion.

Can't believe I agree with a leftist on something but I too stress over the uninformed helping to decide our future. I'd have no problem with the ballot containing a couple of political skill testing questions and if you fail them your vote is invalidated. There might have been a different Brexit outcome had people been asked a couple of relative questions. One of the ideas I floated among my friends is only having taxpayers (income tax payers specifically) vote. They are probably more likely to be informed but they we are paying the bills so we should have the say in how the money is distributed. It's not an easy pill to swallow knowing that I literally support people sitting on their duffs who only get soundbites from radical talk show hosts or biased news media and they get the same say in how the money is spent that I do when I am their only source of income and they don't earn enough money to contribute to the running of the country through income taxes.

 

[Outspacer]

It was a different thing in a different time. In 1975 they were voting for or against what we did this time around.

Not a very different question at all, and my point was that it was a different time (but some of the same voters).

Leave seem to think the past was best, by past I take this to imply prior to the situation we were in when we voted on in the referendum. Given clear Remain/Leave split between Young/Old, it's fair to suggest that the older you are, the more you are nostalgically dreaming of the good old days ...

... but anyway... that's all just stats, I stand by my original point. Younger people are exposed to a more multi-cultural, multi-national society these days and I still think that this leads them to see less division necessary between 'us' and 'them'.

No, it's not fair to suggest that at all. Two correlations, between A and B, and between B and C, do not imply a correlation between A and C. It isn't necessarily the same people that are old and think the best times were past - any young person worried about the future could think the same, particularly when thinking about how/if they can buy a house considering how that's changed.

"Younger people are exposed to a more multi-cultural, multi-national society these days" - true - "and I still think that this leads them to see less division necessary between 'us' and 'them'" - only possibly, and even more dubious that a sizable % of leave voters can be tarred with that brush. Certainly it's a less valid assumption now for Leave than it would've been for the No voters in 1975.

 

[_ApexPredator]

Not clearly at all, as I had to ask.
But if you want to spam emojis instead of discussing it like a rational adult then I'd kindly ask you to go and troll somewhere else.

Well if I'm not laughing (or spamming emojis, in an attempt to convey my hysteric reaction - surely the purest form of emoji use), I'm crying.

So just to be clear, my reaction to your comment:

And that's why in cases where the public cannot make an informed decision the issues are not put to a public referendum.

given the context of our conversation, is yes, that's demonstrably not the case.

 

[baldgye]

Cool, thanks for showing me. I mean, it's bad that they cheated but I'm not sure that spending an extra 70k pounds changes the result in any meaningful way.



What should the choices have been, in your opinion?



By taking it at face value. A majority voted to Leave the EU. The details are left to politicians, diplomats and negotiators, as they should be. You can't have 46 million people all sticking their two cents in on how they want the negotiation done. At some point you have to hand it off to a small group of professionals and trust them to get the best deal.



Perhaps, but you are calling for discarding a result that doesn't mesh with your opinion, and redoing the vote until you get the right result.

If you redid the referendum and still got a Leave result, would you call for another redo? What would it take for you to accept a Leave decision as legitimate?

As far as the fundamentals of Leave not being true...I'm not so sure. Certainly I've seen a lot of staggeringly misleading information (it is still politics, after all), but the only outright lie I've seen is the £350 million on the side of the bus. Which I believe just about every news organisation managed to do a piece on about how Leave can't do math.

If there are more that are outright lies rather that opinions or optimistic predictions, I'd like to see them. If only for my own curiosity, it's like the adult version of "Kids Say The Darndest Things" without the rapist presenter.

I don’t know, I’m not even sure you can hold a referendum on such a thing in such a binary way. I think there needs to be some steps in between, I’d start somewhere in between first. Leaving the EU seems to be the ‘end game’ rather than the starting point? (To tie it into your other question later on in your post) If we want to Leave and there is good and legitimate reasons and ways the U.K. would benefit from, then fine. But that isn’t the case now. I’m not particularly Pro-EU despite me being for Remain, I just don’t see any reason to leave and anyway we can be better off by doing so.


And this follows on to seeing the result at face value. At face value should we just drop Northern Ireland? After all that’s happened and all the people who died, just drop it?
The problem is that because it was so nebulas and full of lies was that the government has no where to go, no where to stand. It can’t be flexible because Leaving means many different things to many different people.


I personally don’t see the result as valid, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is.


http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html

 

[Touring Mars]

At face value should we just drop Northern Ireland? After all that’s happened and all the people who died, just drop it?

No - and why would that happen? The UK internal market is far more important to NI than the EU Single Market - NI does about twice as much trade with the UK as it does with the entire EU, and about 4 times more than with Eire.

But trade considerations aside, there is a more important principle at stake here. The UK and the EU will be two separate economic areas in the near future, but the UK is a sovereign state - the EU cannot impose an economic border within a single sovereign state under any circumstances, but that is what it proposes to do in order to 'maintain the integrity of the EU single market' while also respecting the Good Friday Agreement (and ensure there is not a hard border in Ireland) - but what about the integrity of the UK market? The EU's solution would, in effect, break up a sovereign state - and I believe that would set a dangerous precedent.

Unfortunately for the EU, the straightforward solution - a hard border in Ireland - has already been formally ruled out by the only states that matter in this debate - Ireland and the UK. Thus it is hard to see how the EU can get its way - either wreck the Good Friday Agreement (and restart a war in the process), or split up a sovereign state (and start a war in the process). They literally have no choice but to do something else.

 

[baldgye]

No - and why would that happen? The UK internal market is far more important to NI than the EU Single Market - NI does about twice as much trade with the UK as it does with the entire EU, and about 4 times more than with Eire.

But trade considerations aside, there is a more important principle at stake here. The UK and the EU will be two separate economic areas in the near future, but the UK is a sovereign state - the EU cannot impose an economic border within a single sovereign state under any circumstances, but that is what it proposes to do in order to respect the Good Friday Agreement (and ensure there is not a hard border in Ireland). The EU's solution would, in effect, break up a sovereign state - and I believe that would set a dangerous precedent.

Unfortunately for the EU, the straightforward solution - a hard border in Ireland - has already been formally ruled out by the only states that matter in this debate - Ireland and the UK. Thus it is hard to see how the EU can get its way - either wreck the Good Friday Agreement (and restart a war in the process), or split up a sovereign state (and start a war in the process). They literally have no choice but to do something else.

Agreed. Yet it’s up to our politicians to come up with a solution, as I’m constantly told. Solutions we both know don’t exist, or can’t exist. And the EU can chill, they don’t have to rush anything. We are the ones who wanted to leave and ‘actived’ (for want of a better word) art.50.
Which is why I stand by my opinion that Brexit, as it is can’t happen.


Did the people who voted to leave vote for another war with Ireland?

It’s why I said earlia that I’m not even sure you can hold a referendum on something so complex, you need first steps. Ok we want to leave the EU, what do we do with Northern Ireland? Nope instead that was ignored and we went straight to the end point because of the possibility of short term political gain (on all sides).

 

[Mr Tree]

Can't believe I agree with a leftist on something but I too stress over the uninformed helping to decide our future. I'd have no problem with the ballot containing a couple of political skill testing questions and if you fail them your vote is invalidated. There might have been a different Brexit outcome had people been asked a couple of relative questions. One of the ideas I floated among my friends is only having taxpayers (income tax payers specifically) vote. They are probably more likely to be informed but they we are paying the bills so we should have the say in how the money is distributed. It's not an easy pill to swallow knowing that I literally support people sitting on their duffs who only get soundbites from radical talk show hosts or biased news media and they get the same say in how the money is spent that I do when I am their only source of income and they don't earn enough money to contribute to the running of the country through income taxes.

I'm not sure paying taxes or not is the right way to go. I did like you first idea about the politcal insight questions. It doesn't even have to be hard. I've got friends who don't even.understand the 'political qaudrants' (left-right liberal-authoritarian) yet they have to vote (belgium voting is manditory) and their vote is worth as much as yours and mine. That's what I don't get

 

[Imari]

I don’t know, I’m not even sure you can hold a referendum on such a thing in such a binary way. I think there needs to be some steps in between, I’d start somewhere in between first.

What's in between? You're either in the EU or you're not.

This is why I asked you for actual options. There can be more than two if you want. But if you're writing the referendum, what choices do you give?

It's harder than it looks. It's very easy to say "the options were crap", it's actually very hard to come up with ones that are superior to a simple in or out.

And this follows on to seeing the result at face value. At face value should we just drop Northern Ireland? After all that’s happened and all the people who died, just drop it?

If that's what you want to do, but I doubt it's to the UKs advantage. It was known that borders with EU countries would be a problem.

The problem is that because it was so nebulas and full of lies was that the government has no where to go, no where to stand. It can’t be flexible because Leaving means many different things to many different people.

Leaving means not being in the EU any more. You obviously think a lot of people weren't clear on what that meant, and that may be so. But in real terms, leaving the EU is pretty cut and dried. There's no ambiguity there, despite what fluff people might like to throw around.

It's a very simple concept that even a child can understand. The UK was in a group of other countries that agreed to always do things together. Leaving means that the UK won't be part of that group any more. Sometimes the UK can do things with the EU and sometimes not, but they'll have to organise it first. Is that ELI5 enough?

To put it in personal terms, if you move to another country there's some obvious changes that come with that. You're in a different house, you have different friends, and so on. There are also less obvious changes that you may not have thought of, you're allergic to common plants there, it's not common to be able to find your favourite sauce, it's really expensive to call your home country.

Moving country is simple. Learning to live in a new country can be hard. That's where y'all are heading right now. You're already unhappy that Leave supposedly lied, so please don't try and stoop to their game by saying that Leaving means different things. It doesn't. It means being out of the EU, and the only difference in opinions is what connections remain afterwards, which was always going to be up for negotiation.

I personally don’t see the result as valid, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is.

I'm glad you can admit that. But I'll ask again, what would it take for you to see a Leave result as valid? Or would it never be valid for you?

 

[baldgye]

@Imari (sorry this it’s easier to reply like this)

It is clear cut, leaving the EU or not. However leaving it isn’t clear cut and the process in how to do that isn’t simple or quick.

By other steps I mean, what to do with Northern Ireland, EU migrants rights etc... the problem is that the vote put a VERY short timeline on it and Leave has no clear mandate as it continues to change its stance (or at least Farage, it’s biggest proponent).

So I guess, I would start with a time line, say 5-10 years? There would be the initial vote, which was worded in the same way, then at the end of that 5-10 years the government who ever it was would be required to put forward a solution in carrying out the result and at the end of that we could have the referendum again. But then again, I’m not sure how successful that would be, at doing anything.
Like I said, the biggest issue is the misinformation and lies that was peddled. And I don’t know how you combat that, or undo the damage it’s done.



And I would see Leave as valid if both sides had campaigned on fair honest grounds. I’ve voted in the last 4 general elections and the last time it didn’t go how I voted, but I didn’t call that invalid, despite the Torys buying the DUP.
I’m not nationalist, left wing, right wing or allianed with any party. I’m not rampantly pro-eu, I’m just pro-choice and pro-freedom. I think it’s ridiculous I need a little book with all my information and picture on, to prove who I am so I can cross an imaginary boundary on a tiny rock in an infinite universe...

The problem as I see it with Brexit is that, the reason Leave championed lies over truths and facts, is that there isn’t a logically sound reason to leave that isn’t based on prejudice or xenophobia. Frankly I don’t see those are credible reasons to do anything.


Edit: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...an-union-article-50-theresa-may-a8400441.html

I think this is worth adding to my post. The EU is looking at the possibility of extending the time in which Brexit would happen. As a proposal would need to be submitted by October so it could be ratified in time. Three months, for the fate of this countries economy to be decided... even if your gun-hoe about leaving... three months isn’t enough time, given that within over a year, nothing has happened or changed.

 

[_ApexPredator]

What's in between? You're either in the EU or you're not.
This is why I asked you for actual options. There can be more than two if you want. But if you're writing the referendum, what choices do you give?
It's harder than it looks.

Precisely, which is why (as has already been said numerous times) choosing to host a binary In/Out referendum on such a complex issue was a clear mistake.
As for what's in between: how about committing to being a proactive member of the EU and striving to push forward reform as a strong influencer from within. We always had sovereignty and unique freedom of movement clauses that gave us control of our borders. It was our governments that didn't want the hassle of enforcing them - far easier to blame the EU.

But in real terms, leaving the EU is pretty cut and dried. There's no ambiguity there, despite what fluff people might like to throw around.

You may like to think that, but actually there is a lot of ambiguity there. Did we vote to leave to become worse off? To lose our seat at the EU negotiations but still have to conform to tariffs and free-movement arrangements in order to maintain access to our biggest markets?

Maybe some did, but maybe some didn't. Did some vote thinking we could adopt a Scandinavian model? Or how about thinking we could revert to WTO rules? Did everyone understand the knock-on repercussions that the vote could have on fishing & farming industries? Did we want to devalue the £? Some claim they did, I highly doubt everyone did - it's already become pretty nuanced, wouldn't you say?

I would agree that the referendum was simple, and the votes cast were simple - but that does not mean that the issue being voted upon was simple, hence my strong view that the referendum was a total mistake; a political gamble gone horribly wrong, and all evidence suggests it'll be those hit hardest by austerity measures that will be hit hardest once more by the consequences of this vote.

It's a very simple concept that even a child can understand. The UK was in a group of other countries that agreed to always do things together. Leaving means that the UK won't be part of that group any more. Sometimes the UK can do things with the EU and sometimes not, but they'll have to organise it first. Is that ELI5 enough?

That's certainly a simple understanding, and a simple explanation of events, agreed.
However the reality of leaving, and the economic, industrial, and commercial consequences of doing so, are far from simple.

If it's so simple that even a child can understand, why are we two years into the planning process and still no clearer on how we're going to leave?

Obviously it could be very simple; yes there was a referendum vote and yes that vote was to leave - but at all costs? and for what tangible benefits?
Platitudes & wishful thinking won't cut it in the real world.

 

[polysmut]

I was gutted that the result of the referendum went against my vote and I think we're all :censored:ed.

Even so, I see it as important to look at things from a theoretical and philosophical point of view. If we ignore the question that was asked, the result returned, and the projected outcome of following through; we're left with a choice of whether or not to respect the result. The people voted to leave the EU so the government must comply. Even if I hate it.

 

[Imari]

So I guess, I would start with a time line, say 5-10 years? There would be the initial vote, which was worded in the same way, then at the end of that 5-10 years the government who ever it was would be required to put forward a solution in carrying out the result and at the end of that we could have the referendum again. But then again, I’m not sure how successful that would be, at doing anything.
Like I said, the biggest issue is the misinformation and lies that was peddled. And I don’t know how you combat that, or undo the damage it’s done.

Well, Article 50 was triggered 9 months after the referendum, and that gives at least 2 more years (depending on extensions from the EU as you outline below). Three years doesn't seem like an impossible task if the government pulled it's finger out and just got on with the job.

However, as you say little has changed in the last year. That's a problem with the government and the people who should be organising the exit from the EU. not with the idea of a Brexit itself.

And lets remember that the EU wouldn't allow the UK 10 years to figure out an exit. If I recall correctly they were pushing for the UK to submit Article 50 pretty quickly after the referendum, as it's damaging to the EU to have a partner that is known to be on it's way out. Again, this is maybe something that could have been negotiated or organised before the referendum, and I rather wonder if the government didn't bother to plan for a potential Leave outcome because they thought it couldn't happen.

Again, that's a failing of the government. A lot of the problems I see here aren't necessarily to do with Brexit as they are to do with the UK government spending more time trying to avoid Brexit than deal with it.

I think it’s ridiculous I need a little book with all my information and picture on, to prove who I am so I can cross an imaginary boundary on a tiny rock in an infinite universe...

You do understand why these things exist though, right? This tiny rock is currently all we have, and as such there's some small amount of competition for bits of it.

The problem as I see it with Brexit is that, the reason Leave championed lies over truths and facts, is that there isn’t a logically sound reason to leave that isn’t based on prejudice or xenophobia. Frankly I don’t see those are credible reasons to do anything.

You don't see those as credible reasons to do anything (and I agree with you), but the entirety of western civilisation is basically built on prejudice and xenophobia. It's only relatively recently that we're even starting to get away from that as the underlying basis for the culture.

Given that, making decisions based on prejudice and xenophobia is about as logical as anything else. I don't like it either, but I've ceased to be surprised at the inability of most people to see beyond their own social group and whatever propaganda they feel reinforces their irrational hatreds. You can see it quite clearly in the North Korea discussions where Americans and most westerners are completely unable to grasp why a country like NK would feel like it needed nuclear weapons to ensure it's continued existence. People will quite happily espouse support for war and killing of people they've never met just because they don't see anyone outside their own ethnic group as human.

Edit: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...an-union-article-50-theresa-may-a8400441.html

I think this is worth adding to my post. The EU is looking at the possibility of extending the time in which Brexit would happen. As a proposal would need to be submitted by October so it could be ratified in time. Three months, for the fate of this countries economy to be decided... even if your gun-hoe about leaving... three months isn’t enough time, given that within over a year, nothing has happened or changed.

I hope they do extend it. But if nothing has happened or changed in a year, that's your government hanging you out to dry. I wonder if the government is trying to get a bad deal as a way of reinforcing control for the future, "Look at what happens when you don't do what we tell you to".

That sounds conspiratorial, but I wouldn't put that past any modern government.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Well, Article 50 was triggered 9 months after the referendum, and that gives at least 2 more years (depending on extensions from the EU as you outline below). Three years doesn't seem like an impossible task if the government pulled it's finger out and just got on with the job.

We've hadtwo general elections EDIT: One election Ten, you fool in that time. The first was when the referendum incumbent resigned and the second was when the May-bot replacement went rogue and called an extra one. That puts much of government business into purdah.

But if nothing has happened or changed in a year, that's your government hanging you out to dry.

I'm not supporting the government here but it really isn't as simple as that. If it was simply up to the UK government to say "we want x,y and z" and then hand round printouts it might be quite easy. In the last year negotiations with Barnier et al have gone on and on and on. What the government negotiators have been unable to thrash out is any common ground on what the UK wants in order to satisfy the Leavers and what the EU finds acceptable. It's not a lack of action but a lack of agreement. Not that I blame the EU for that, the UK's position is to have everything we want and nothing we don't. I've seen commercial contracts take longer than two years to be fully negotiated and, while complex, they weren't the immense legal turd that this is.

 

[Imari]

As for what's in between: how about committing to being a proactive member of the EU and striving to push forward reform as a strong influencer from within.

That would be a Remain vote.

You may like to think that, but actually there is a lot of ambiguity there. Did we vote to leave to become worse off? To lose our seat at the EU negotiations but still have to conform to tariffs and free-movement arrangements in order to maintain access to our biggest markets?

Probably yes and yes. These things are unknown until negotiations happen though. And negotiations for an exit were highly unlikely to happen until the UK actually committed to an exit. There are questions that you would never get a clear answer to beforehand, although there was no shortage of experts before the referendum giving their opinions on how it would play out if people wanted to know.

Maybe some did, but maybe some didn't. Did some vote thinking we could adopt a Scandinavian model? Or how about thinking we could revert to WTO rules? Did everyone understand the knock-on repercussions that the vote could have on fishing & farming industries? Did we want to devalue the £? Some claim they did, I highly doubt everyone did - it's already become pretty nuanced, wouldn't you say?

Not really. Does every single voter need to have a complete understanding of every issue that might be affected by such a vote? I'd say no, because I'm not sure that there's any one person anywhere that has that sort of knowledge. People can look at what affects them and decide based on that. Or not do any research at all and vote randomly, as I'm sure some people did.

I would agree that the referendum was simple, and the votes cast were simple - but that does not mean that the issue being voted upon was simple, hence my strong view that the referendum was a total mistake; a political gamble gone horribly wrong, and all evidence suggests it'll be those hit hardest by austerity measures that will be hit hardest once more by the consequences of this vote.

Of course the issue isn't simple, you're talking about major economic policy for an entire country/group of countries. Humans still don't really understand economics at the best of times, as evidenced by when it fairly regularly goes tits up.

Of course those at the bottom will be those hardest hit. That's how modern societies work. Those with money have power. Those with power use it to keep their money and power. Those at the bottom have little say in what goes on, and simply get to bend over and take it.

If it's so simple that even a child can understand, why are we two years into the planning process and still no clearer on how we're going to leave?

I'm going to assume that you know that there's a difference between being able to comprehend what is happening and actually following through on it in reality. I can explain to you basically how a rocket engine works, but chances of you actually being able to build one are slim to 🤬-all.

We've had two general elections in that time. The first was when the referendum incumbent resigned and the second was when the May-bot replacement went rogue and called an extra one. That puts much of government business into purdah.

Those things too were the decision of the government.

I'm not supporting the government here but it really isn't as simple as that. If it was simply up to the UK government to say "we want x,y and z" and then hand round printouts it might be quite easy. In the last year negotiations with Barnier et al have gone on and on and on. What the government negotiators have been unable to thrash out is any common ground on what the UK wants in order to satisfy the Leavers and what the EU finds acceptable. It's not a lack of action but a lack of agreement. Not that I blame the EU for that, the UK's position is to have everything we want and nothing we don't. I've seen commercial contracts take longer than two years to be fully negotiated and, while complex, they weren't the immense legal turd that this is.

Fair enough. I'm with you on this one. The government is likely doing their best, but is unable to achieve anything for pretty good reasons.

Let's be fair, the UK is "negotiating" from a position of basically no power at all. The UK has a fixed result that they have to achieve: Leave. The EU doesn't really have to achieve anything. Arguably their best result comes from achieving no deal at all as far as I can tell. And it's to their advantage to make this as bad as possible for the UK, even at some cost to the EU, to discourage further countries from pulling out.

As a result there's not really any negotiation to be had. One side can just refuse to play ball, and negotiations only work when there's the possibility for mutually beneficial arrangements. The UK is going to be out on it's arse, starting from scratch and owing the EU for it's portion of whatever activities it agreed to while it was there. I'm sure there's more nuance there somewhere, but I'm too lazy to go dumpster diving through EU bureaucracy to find it. I doubt it makes a huge difference.

I guess this is why the "but what about...?" from @_ApexPredator doesn't really resonate with me. I've always unconsciously assumed that a Leave vote was "would you leave the EU if we just cut ties with them tomorrow?" A worst case scenario, if you will, but one that seemed reasonably likely to me down here in Upsidedownland. That people actually thought that they could vote for Leave and get serious concessions out of the EU for doing so...

I mean, what do you do if it turns out that 52% of the UK is just stupid?

It feels like someone who thought they could quit their job, spit in the boss' face and key his car on the way out, and then get hired back as a consultant at twice the wage. One could absolutely do all the first part, but you're not getting re-hired on better terms. I'd really expect any adult who can put their own pants on in under twenty minutes to be able to grasp this.

And honestly, I think a lot of people did and do. They're anti-EU enough that they truly think they're better off (whatever that means) as an island by themselves than attached to the rest of Europe. I assume that they're mostly happy to pay whatever price it costs to get out of the EU so that they can be the British Empire II: Eclectic Baconbutty.

 

[baldgye]

Well, Article 50 was triggered 9 months after the referendum, and that gives at least 2 more years (depending on extensions from the EU as you outline below). Three years doesn't seem like an impossible task if the government pulled it's finger out and just got on with the job.

However, as you say little has changed in the last year. That's a problem with the government and the people who should be organising the exit from the EU. not with the idea of a Brexit itself.

And lets remember that the EU wouldn't allow the UK 10 years to figure out an exit. If I recall correctly they were pushing for the UK to submit Article 50 pretty quickly after the referendum, as it's damaging to the EU to have a partner that is known to be on it's way out. Again, this is maybe something that could have been negotiated or organised before the referendum, and I rather wonder if the government didn't bother to plan for a potential Leave outcome because they thought it couldn't happen.

Again, that's a failing of the government. A lot of the problems I see here aren't necessarily to do with Brexit as they are to do with the UK government spending more time trying to avoid Brexit than deal with it.



You do understand why these things exist though, right? This tiny rock is currently all we have, and as such there's some small amount of competition for bits of it.



You don't see those as credible reasons to do anything (and I agree with you), but the entirety of western civilisation is basically built on prejudice and xenophobia. It's only relatively recently that we're even starting to get away from that as the underlying basis for the culture.

Given that, making decisions based on prejudice and xenophobia is about as logical as anything else. I don't like it either, but I've ceased to be surprised at the inability of most people to see beyond their own social group and whatever propaganda they feel reinforces their irrational hatreds. You can see it quite clearly in the North Korea discussions where Americans and most westerners are completely unable to grasp why a country like NK would feel like it needed nuclear weapons to ensure it's continued existence. People will quite happily espouse support for war and killing of people they've never met just because they don't see anyone outside their own ethnic group as human.



I hope they do extend it. But if nothing has happened or changed in a year, that's your government hanging you out to dry. I wonder if the government is trying to get a bad deal as a way of reinforcing control for the future, "Look at what happens when you don't do what we tell you to".

That sounds conspiratorial, but I wouldn't put that past any modern government.

I dislike our racist government more than most, but I can’t logically see any way for Brexit to proceed. As I’ve said before and to others, the task is impossible at the moment.

Again it’s impossible because the people who voted to Leave did so because they wanted things that they couldn’t ever have... and then the government just had to figure it out...

Again it’s why I’m not sure you can have a referendum on such a complex international treaty, it might be a simple question in theory, but in practice it’s pretty complex.
And what does blaming the government achieve? They can’t negotiate Brexit, Labour struggled elect its own leader and that was still a farce and the Lib Dem’s have been campaigning to remain in local elections. So who could do a better job from the leading parties?

On your last point... what deal? There is no deal.. at the moment the ‘deal’ looks like a war with Ireland and having to re-negotiate 700+ trade agreements.... neither of which I’m pretty sure anyone actually voted for.


Edit: two and a bit years isn’t a long time... company mergers can take over a year, buying a house can take months... we are leaving the worlds biggest economy which we’ve been a large member off. And Art.50 wasn’t ever intended to be used as a nation like us leaving...

 

[Touring Mars]

The main reason that the Northern Ireland issue is such a problem is because the EU will not countenance the idea that the whole of the UK could remain in a customs and trade arrangement that would essentially keep the UK's trading relationship with the EU the same as it was before - that is the simple solution that keeps everyone in Ireland happy (a rare trick indeed!), but the EU won't allow it because it makes leaving the EU look like a good idea.

 

[Tired Tyres]

The main reason that the Northern Ireland issue is such a problem is because the EU will not countenance the idea that the whole of the UK could remain in a customs and trade arrangement that would essentially keep the UK's trading relationship with the EU the same as it was before - that is the simple solution that keeps everyone in Ireland happy (a rare trick indeed!), but the EU won't allow it because it makes leaving the EU look like a good idea.

Except that of the EU members who are net contributers only Denmark and Sweden don't have the Euro as currency. Since there is no exit from the Euro then they are the only ones who could leave. They don't want to as far as I know so the EU is wrong in their stance. It doesn't encourage leaving as none of them can leave....

 

[UKMikey]

I assume that they're mostly happy to pay whatever price it costs to get out of the EU so that they can be the British Empire II: Eclectic Baconbutty.

Either that or they're happy for their grandchildren to pay the price, as the case might be.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Except that of the EU members who are net contributers only Denmark and Sweden don't have the Euro as currency. Since there is no exit from the Euro then they are the only ones who could leave. They don't want to as far as I know so the EU is wrong in their stance. It doesn't encourage leaving as none of them can leave....

There are about 20 countries that use the Euro but aren't in the EU. So it's do-able.

Those things too were the decision of the government.

I should correct - there was one general election. The leader of the party in power resigned the day after the Leave vote as he didn't support it and felt he had no mandate. The leader who took over from him after a party leadership vote called a snap general election some months later to strengthen her position. And failed to do so even though she won.

Goodness knows how I thought it was two, I blame a combination of beer and endless elections

 

[baldgye]

The Leave campaign in further trouble


Edit: Umberto Eco in 1995

 

[Touring Mars]

It's Groundhog Day in the House of Commons as Parliament votes on the EU (Withdrawal) bill once again tonight, in a re-run of the vote(s) from last week where MPs will vote on whether to accept or reject the amendments tabled by the House of Lords.

The trouble is that the government won the votes last week by assuring rebels within their own party that key concessions would be made, only for those to be essentially empty promises that ultimately would ensure the government and Theresa May get their way and the (pro-Remain) rebels don't.

Obviously, this now poses a major problem to Theresa May who now surely cannot rely on the support of the rebels - a sizable chunk of her own party - to vote in her favour, and thus the vote will hinge on cross-party support.

The consequences of losing a key vote in the Commons (which I believe would result in the Lord's 'soft-Brexit'-leaning amendments being accepted) could trigger a vote of no confidence in May, or even precipitate her resignation - either way, it could well be the beginning of the end for May as PM, and the whole Brexit process will be thrown into mega-shambles.

 

[baldgye]

and the whole Brexit process will be thrown into mega-shambles.

Which is an achievement the current PM can be proud off, on her way out

 

[MatskiMonk]

... and the whole Brexit process will be thrown into mega-shambles.

Granted, I'm not following the domestic politics of the situation, but as I understand it, we're still squabbling internally over how we're going to go about negotiating, not what we're negotiating? With 726 days gone since the vote, and 282 days until we're out, I think we find ourselves in this situation because it's all ready a mega shambles.... this is at least going to become a Giga-shambles... perhaps even a Tera-shambles.

 

[baldgye]

It's Groundhog Day in the House of Commons as Parliament votes on the EU (Withdrawal) bill once again tonight, in a re-run of the vote(s) from last week where MPs will vote on whether to accept or reject the amendments tabled by the House of Lords.

The trouble is that the government won the votes last week by assuring rebels within their own party that key concessions would be made, only for those to be essentially empty promises that ultimately would ensure the government and Theresa May get their way and the (pro-Remain) rebels don't.

Obviously, this now poses a major problem to Theresa May who now surely cannot rely on the support of the rebels - a sizable chunk of her own party - to vote in her favour, and thus the vote will hinge on cross-party support.

The consequences of losing a key vote in the Commons (which I believe would result in the Lord's 'soft-Brexit'-leaning amendments being accepted) could trigger a vote of no confidence in May, or even precipitate her resignation - either way, it could well be the beginning of the end for May as PM, and the whole Brexit process will be thrown into mega-shambles.

If this does happen and the EU give us more time (something they are possibly preparing to do), there could be a general election before we leave... with the Lib Dems positioning themselves as Remainers... we could have another coalition government

 

[Touring Mars]

Granted, I'm not following the domestic politics of the situation, but as I understand it, we're still squabbling internally over how we're going to go about negotiating, not what we're negotiating? With 726 days gone since the vote, and 282 days until we're out, I think we find ourselves in this situation because it's all ready a mega shambles.... this is at least going to become a Giga-shambles... perhaps even a Tera-shambles.

Pretty much.

If this does happen and the EU give us more time (something they are possibly preparing to do), there could be a general election before we leave... with the Lib Dems positioning themselves as Remainers... we could have another coalition government

Peta-shambles!

 

[Tired Tyres]

Conservatives = hard brexit = 2nd world economy.

Labour = customs Union = No voice in EU = Do as you are told.

Liberal Democrat = Stay in EU.

Share of vote in last Gneral Election = 1st Conservatives, 2nd Labour, 3rd Liberal Democrat. You get the government you deserve and you get the economy you deserve = democracy.

 

[baldgye]

Conservatives = hard brexit = 2nd world economy.

Labour = customs Union = No voice in EU.

Liberal Democrat = Stay in EU.

Share of vote in last Gneral Election = 1st Conservatives, 2nd Labour, 3rd Liberal Democrat. You get the government you deserve and you get the economy you deserve = democracy.

I don't think it's so clear cut, both Labour and the Conservates are having issues with keeping their MP's in line