BREXIT

Tonight I  “caught-up”  with the Channel 4 dramatisation called “Brexit: The Uncivil War”.

In itself it was very interesting and stimulating, all 93 minutes of it, and claimed to be a true story with the proviso that certain scenes had been added for dramatic continuity.

It was inter-cut with real footage, and dealt with the Remain and Leave campaigns relating to the EU referendum.

The really interesting bit, though, appeared in the ending captions, and these are well-worth watching if you haven’t got time for the whole program. Just the last 3 minutes or so!

A summary is that both AggregateQI, used by the Leave campaign itself, and Cambridge Analytica, used by the Farage lot – were both used to manipulate by targetted (US targeted) advertisements to social media users on the likes of FaceBook, and they are both financially linked to a billionaire businessman Robert Mercer – who went on to become the largest donor to the election campaign of Donald Trump.

I wasn’t aware of any of this before seeing the program.

Makes you think!

Anyway, made me think! And I haven’t noticed any High Court orders suppressing this information!

Interesting times in which we live!

Haven’t seen it, but heard plenty of shouting from the right when it was first shown. Seems what they’re good at, shouting bollocks and if that doesn’t work, shouting louder.

As I said a long time ago, this has little to do with any democracy (before Brexit, polling put the importance of the EU at around 6%) and a lot more to do with “follow the money”. Follow the money in three senses.

In the first sense we have the rich who like the UK’s lack of regulations. They’re easy to spot, they live outside the UK, hide their taxes in loopholes, and then tell the British what to think. Barclay brothers and Murdoch are good examples. Lesser versions of this are wealthy-ish company owners who are hoping an end to EU “interference” will mean they can lobby ministers to erode workers rights.

In the second sense, we have those who have realised that wrecking the British economy is pretty much a money printing exercise. Here we have such delights as hedge fund managers who bet against the pound and cashed in, and of course the infamous Rees-Mogg (how he can continue to be an MP with a conflict of interest the size of Texas just shows how corrupt Westminster is now).

And, finally, we have the useful idiots. In other words the shouty-shouty far right nutcases who are largely funded by overseas interests. These are actually the most dangerous not only because they are fairly plentiful, but also because (like with the manipulation through social media), there is an active interest in bringing the UK down. Actually, I think they want to pretty much bring the West down, but with a useful idiot already running America, kicking the UK is basically a bit of lulz.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/07/tommy-robinson-global-support-brexit-march

We certainly do live in interesting times. Our concept of democracy and governance has completely failed to understand the massively invasive nature of social media. There are rules for what can be said on TV or in print, lies will usually need to be held accountable (not that Boris ever got censured for his £350M bus), and political funding declared and checked (how we know Leave broke the law). Social media, on the other hand, is barely better than a pile of “a mate of a mate told me” stories being relentlessly thrown at marks (determined by algorithm) to sway their thoughts. I have not seen such a thing as I don’t bother with the likes of Facebook any more, but I would imagine it to pander to “confirmation bias”, that is to say that those people who already have a negative opinion will be fed stories designed to support and confirm their negative thoughts. Not that the clearly anti-foreigner government itself isn’t engaging in similar tactics. I mean, WTF was all that crap about emergency meetings because eight people turned up in a boat?

As for high court orders, there could be. The typical British gagging order also gags one from mentioning that they are being gagged. I think it was the Guardian that pointed out the obvious lunacy of gagging something and gagging the gag, meaning that it was extremely easy to fall foul of the gag because nobody knew it was gagged. Confused yet? It was all that stuff about some footballer’s infidelities a few years back.
Of course, anybody with half a brain would toddle over to an international incarnation of Google and simply toss in a few queries to see what came up. I did and found out in… uh… Le Figaro, I think. Not that I knew (or cared) who it was, just thought it was stupid to make a super-maxi gagging order on the entire United Kingdom when, you know, the rest of the world exists…

The Uncivil War was entertaining, but a condensed look at the subject. The book it’s based on, All Out War by Tim Shipman is a very good read.

This is an awfy small audience* for a great rant, Rick. Do you blog anywhere more exposed?

* and probably largely already singing from the same hymn sheet

lies will usually need to be held accountable (not that Boris ever got censured for his £350M bus), and political funding declared and checked (how we know Leave broke the law).

What puzzles me is why the process hasn’t been subjected to normal election law.
Illegal funds, people subjected to nothing but lies from one platform etc. Normally it would trigger a re-run with the guilty party excluded. Ah, right, OK.
So the re-run would be an expensive “Our choice is remain and like it or remain”.

I tend to think – that this debate has been going on – for 2 Thou odd years – ie since Queen Boudica times.

People who supported the advantages of the ‘Empire’ ‘Goods’ etc and the ones who wanted to be apart.

I presume Rick has got himself a life with the ‘Gauls’ :-)

and signed up in a place where he can vote in the UK – if some kind of vote is called.

Do you blog anywhere more exposed?

Well, given there’s a good chance that more people read this than my blog… ;-)

What puzzles me is why the process hasn’t been subjected to normal election law.

It smacks of manipulation in order to try to push Brexit. Many of those most likely to vote in favour of the EU were excluded, lies were rampant without any checks, and very few of the politicians bothered to try to make a reasonable case for why breaking away in the current global economic situation would be…dumb.
I wonder if it comes to pass, if the UK will simply be asset stripped and left as a third world remnant of how the mighty can fall?
Meanwhile those who want Brexit are saying nothing’s wrong, while the exclusions are mounting, the money is leaving the city, and supermarkets are starting to stockpile “just in case”. Yup, nothing’s wrong…

So the re-run

A small measure of amusement is the number of brexiteers who seem to think that there’s no point holding a second referendum because leave would still win, so it’s a waste of time.
Okay, if they’re so certain, then there’s no harm in checking that “the will of the people” is still for leaving, right?

That said, mob rule and referenda are a stupid way of running a country. I mean, let’s put it like this. If the government made a “future tax plan” referendum with three choices: 50% of current taxation, no change, or 200% of current taxation – what do you think will happen? And what do you think the knock-on effects would be to, say, education and the NHS?
It isn’t a bad idea to poll “the people” to see what is concerning them (a failure to do so could arrive at a situation like les gilets jaunes (the proper ones, not the anarchist tossers)), however the people alone should not be given the final say. They cannot understand the implications and consequences (my god, two and a half years later half the government still doesn’t understand). Instead, the people elect representatives, and together they are supposed to implement what the people need rather than necessarily what they want.
People, on the whole, want a health service that works, towns and cities amenities, and feeling safe to walk around, maintained roads, a decent level of education for their podlings, a secure job with reasonable pay for what they are doing, and a useful pension in their later life.
Reading that list, I can see a sequence of governmental failures. Both in the UK and in France (probably other places too). Westminster has been playing a long game of “blame the EU, it’s not us” for many such failings, so it isn’t really a surprise that people think it’s the EU’s fault when idiots like Boris write giant figures on the side of a bus (£350M seems massive, but in terms of GDP it’s a fairly small figure) and idiots like Farage create faked up posters of EU migration (here’s a hint, the current migrants are not from the EU, so leaving won’t change that, in fact it may well make the situation worse).
That said, look at the job losses and price fluctuations in the past two years. Many will tell you “it’s nothing to do with Brexit, it’s completely unrelated”, glossing over the fact that the UK due to this lunacy has pretty much squandered an economic recovery (it had been doing well since the shocks of 2008), and has already had a number of pan-European entities leave London and set up elsewhere, and having relocated they will not be coming back.

The thing I don’t get is why Corbyn is such an asshole. Okay, he’s some weird union/hippy throwback to a ‘70s that never was… but ultimately Labour is the party of the workers (clue in the name) so there must surely come a point when what’s good for the people is more important than what the leader wants?

I presume Rick has got himself a life with the ‘Gauls’

Yup.

and signed up in a place where he can vote in the UK – if some kind of vote is called.

Been over here too long, I have no rights to vote.
That’s why any discussion about “democratic will of the people” tends to be peppered with obscentities. When all British citzens of majority age are elegible to vote, then we can talk about “democratic will”.

TBH one particular factor in this has irritated me ever since the vote.

The way 17 million votes for ‘Leave’ keeps being described as the ’will of the people which must be obeyed" or “the majority of the people/country”.

The reality is that the population of the “country” (UK) is about 66 million. About 48 million of whom did NOT vote for Brexit.

So about a quarter of the “people” apparently MUST be obeyed and the other three-quarters get ignored/dismissed. Without us knowing why so many were unable or unwilling to vote.

So about a quarter of the “people” apparently MUST be obeyed and the other three-quarters get ignored/dismissed. Without us knowing why so many were unable or unwilling to vote.

To sightly modify what Rick said "When all British citizens of majority age are eligible to vote, and must vote or show good reason why they did not, then we can talk about “democratic will”

All in all, since the process can’t seem to produce a deal that even brexiteers agree on, we could dump the idea and still have 3/4 of the country be reasonably happy.

That’s my own feeling on the issue, but alas, we have a government driven by the frantic desire of the PM to keep the DUP ‘on side’ so her party can cling to power. All else is sacrificed…

FWIW I did burst out laughing when I read about Dyson given the mantra so many chant about “Leave means leave”. :-)

Pretty clear his view of what “Leave” means isn’t quite the same as the one he joined in ‘selling’ to the punters.

Funny as demo of how rhetoric can be totally vacuous. :-)

But that’s how advertising slogans work, innit. Each punter can dream it means what they think it does, and insist they all agree.

FWIW assuming the UK does leave the EU, I then expect at least Scotland to leave the UK within a decade, to join the EU. Possbly also NI once they can get the DUP off their backs and have a working assembly again. Ten years from now England might be surrounded by non-UK EU countries.

Not the future I’d have chosen, but there we go. Leave means Leave, dunnit. 8-]

Possbly also NI once they can get the DUP off their backs and have a working assembly again.

I don’t think it would be necessary to re-convene the NI Assembly (although I expect that will happen as soon as the government frees up enough bandwidth to deal with it, whenever that might be): all that is required, AIUI, is recognition of a likely majority in favour of reunification by the UK govt of the day: the Good Friday Agreement says that the Secy of State can call a referendum “if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland”. To be fair, the proportion of the NI electorate supporting reunification is currently around 20%, compared to roughly 50% in favour of the status quo; however, time is not on the Union’s side – the demographics are clearly in favour of the nationalists, and the further into the future we go the more numbers will favour the latter. An economically adverse Brexit and the arrival of a non-Unionist (Labour) govt in power in the UK could further progress matters. It’s indeed one of many ironies of Brexit that this outpouring of English nationalist ‘sovereign’ sentiment may well result in the reduction of the UK to an English rump, as Jim points out. The DUP may be riding high now, but I wouldn’t put big money on their long-term prospects!

The musings of those clutching at straws springs to mind with the above.

So at a general election lets just give the votes for those who didn’t vote to the losers and then make them the winners , thats fair in what you are proposing.

We all live in an illusion that we have democracy and whilst I agree it was a bad outcome , that doesn’t mean that we should put aside that decision based on some dodgy maths and our own baised opinions.

The fact is this whole mess will just further ensure that even more people will not bother to vote in future and that is a shame.

I said right after the vote that I thought we would end up with another opportunity to vote on this and that is the way it seems to be panning out but be careful for what you want as it may cause even more issues.

The extremes on both sides will have a field day if we end up down that route and I fear that the hatred built up over the past two years will only grow

Still at least the two stooges that got us in this mess are enjoying life away from politics

The DUP may be riding high now,

If their definition of riding high is “crazy hardline minority party that people actually have to talk to right now”, then I guess they’re doing okay.
Their propping up the government is the only reason May hasn’t treated Northern Ireland with the same contempt as she’s treating the Scottish.

that doesn’t mean that we should put aside that decision based on some dodgy maths and our own baised opinions.

How about this then?

• Leave definitely broke the law.
• Everybody lied.
• Boris, even now, is lying about lying (no, Turkey isn’t about to join the EU).
• The figures proposed by Leave (remember that big number painted on the side of the bus?) was rubbish…
• …as were the promises of what would be done with said money.
• One of the biggest Brexiteers (JRM) stands to gain quite hansomely from the chaos.
• Of course, those with connections have been sorting out passports, moving money out of the UK, or just relocating altogether.
• No matter what anybody claims, the people did not understand what they were voting for. How could they, when two and a half years later the government still hasn’t figured it out?
• Half the Brexit supporters I’ve spoken to want to kick out all the illegal immigrants (leaving the EU will likely make that worse, not better), the other half wanted rid of Cameron.
• Given the number of people who should have voted but were denied the ability to do so (funny, those demographically most likely to vote in favour of the EU…), do not expect me to consider the referendum anything that even remotely resembles democratic.

And this isn’t even discussion the manipulation, lies, and smear campaigns both on social media and in national newspapers. I see the Daily Fail is still providing headshots of all those MPs who might dare to question the holy sancity of Brexit.

The fact is this whole mess will just

…hopefully bring an end to the disaster that is the Tory party.

will just further ensure that even more people will not bother to vote in future and that is a shame.

It might teach people that democracy is a delicate thing, and giving people the possibility to vote in a binary choice on a very complicated subject, after spending decades unfairly blaming said subject for all the incompetence of the past, is much more a demonstration of how easily people can be misled and how simple confirmation bias is to evoke.
Believe me, in the future Brexit will be used in class discussions about democracy. It won’t be used in the way you hope it will, though.

and that is the way it seems to be panning out

You think?

I’m leaning on two possibilities here.

1. May will hang on to her golden unicorn until the bitter end and it will be a crash-out Brexit because there is no alternative. This is the incompetence at play again. Something she is really good at.

Or:

2. They will do the decent thing and revoke article 50. This is less likely, but the least catastrophic option in the long run.

About the first point, note that the EU has sounded the warning that it is not sufficient to “take no-deal of the table”, it must be replaced with a viable alternative. Thanks to article 50, the default setting is “no deal” unless something else is arranged.

I fear that the hatred built up over the past two years will only grow

No matter what Her Maj alludes so, this is only going to grow. There will not be a reasonable reconciliation, not for at least the lifetime of those in school today. You’ll have half the country thinking they got screwed and lied to (if Brexit) or half the country thinking they got screwed and lied to (if not Brexit). EVERY SINGLE THING that happens in the future will be the result of (not) Brexit (as applicable)…

It’s stuff like this that leads to civil wars.

How about this then?

Those who voted to remain are useful stooges and will always do what they are told by those in charge and are unable to think for themselves.

Remain had the full weight of HM Gov and the state behind it so wrote the rules itself and hence it’s covered up what it really spent.

The people knew what they voted for as set out by HM Gov , at least those that read the leaflet that was sent to everyone.

JRM is a true leader and him a Farage will make GB great again and the 50’s really were our best years. :-)

We all put a slant on things for what we believe in.

That is the point about politics it is about persuading the majority who can be bothered to vote that you are telling the truth and lots of things come in to play.

Still DC and GO have done good out of it and so has a certain NF, when you put it like that it really does make sense on his views.

Your comments illustrate neatly that the referendum was run mainly on the basis of rhetoric, opinions, and wishful thinking on both sides. And as events since have amply demonstrated, that’s not a reliable way to run even a whelk stall, let alone a modern ‘democracy’. Hardly surprising that it has created a mess which Parliament struggles to resolve. Project Fear versus Project Unicorn.

However one of the key reasons for having a Parliamentary democracy – as we do – is that this allows the Parliament to decide when a popular view is bonkers and they can then decide to do something more rational or even fact-based. One of the slogans was “We want out Country back” IIRC. Well, that country is one where the “Crown is in Parliament”.

That means that the ‘Government’ is actually an ‘executive’ – there to facilitate the will of the House of Commons when push comes to shove. Not to bully the HoC because the PM is terrified she or the Tories might lose power.

However having ‘emigrated’ to Scotland some years ago (cf. http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html) I guess I can take the longer view and expect that Scotland will now probably have another IndyRef in a matter of a few years, and then leave the UK to rejoin the EU. Main questions in my mind are:

Will the Tories shift and Labour come in to Westminster, only to get the impedending crash that has been rebuilding happen, and once again then get the the blame for the failures of previous Tory governments? Or can the Tories cling on and be hit by the crash they’ve done nothing to prevent and take the blame for that and Brexit as younger people backlash?

May you live in interesting times… 8-]

Project Fear versus Project Unicorn

Like it and yes you have summed it up nicely.

However one of the key reasons for having a Parliamentary democracy – as we do – is that this allows the Parliament to decide when a popular view is bonkers and they can then decide to do something more rational or even fact-based

Well they passed an act to say they would let us the people decide and then most parties stood on an election mandate to honour the result so compounding things even more.

Here is an idea if it gets to another public vote they could have three options, stay, a deal of some sorts or lets just leave and really fxxx it up.

If the NZ flag referendum is anything to go by the two leave camps will be split and we all stay after two plus years of hot air.

As to Scotland then I think if there is another go for Indy then the Union supporters can just point to the mess that has been made on the EU decision and say it would be unworkable as if you think Brexit is hard it would be even more so.

Equally I think we could end up with some more reforms with powers being moved and if the Tories are in power then be careful what you wish for would be the word as I think the SNP are already in danger of falling in to a trap set by them if you look at the tax situation with different rates/thresholds etc. It was funny that the Tories did relatively well last time round in Scotland.

Well they passed an act to say they would let us the people decide

A lot of people seem to think that was the act they passed, but it wasn’t. The act was expressly written that the result was non-binding; the referendum was to gauge opinion and inform parliament, but not to commit parliament to any particular course of action.

Agree as it couldn’t be but on numerous occasions our MP’s said they would abide by it and also as part of triggering Article 50 the same discussions were had.

Now I all for blurring lines but would we be even having this discussion if the result was the other way round.

The fact is everyone thought we would never get the result that happened and it’s so evident by the turmoil it’s created amongst those who should be making decisions and that can only do further damage to our democracy.

The other laughable thing is JRM and the erg lot trying to suspend parliament if they don’t get their way when they said vote leave to get parliament sovereignty back.

is that this allows the Parliament to decide when a popular view is bonkers and they can then decide to do something more rational or even fact-based.

That’s about as wishful thinking as the “we can work on WTO rules” rubbish. It seems to me that “the party” is more interested in staying in power than any concern for the wellbeing of the country as a whole. Indeed, one might ask “in power of what” post-Brexit.

I guess I can take the longer view and expect that Scotland will now probably have another IndyRef in a matter of a few years

Yes, and as an actual Scottish person (who grew up with the nutters down south), I say bring it on.

It’s amazing the hypocrisy of the Brexiteers who say to the Scottish “you had your referendum, so shut up and go away” while at the same time saying that the EU now is nothing like what they signed up for in the early ‘70s.
Well, no, the EU didn’t exist. The harmonisation project grew in the past four decades to encompass more things, the infamous four freedoms.

As for Scotland, they voted to remain a part of the UK which was a part of the EU. The path of least disturbance. Since then, the English have not moved the goalposts so much as smashed them to the ground, set fire to the splintered pieces, and then urinated on the charred remains.

and then most parties stood on an election mandate to honour the result so compounding things even more.

About the only time in history that an election promise hasn’t been ignored the day after.

if it gets to another public vote they could have three options, stay, a deal of some sorts or lets just leave and really fxxx it up.

The only way it’s going to be anything resembling “fair” (defined as “each side won’t spend decades bitching at the other”) is to ask the same binary choice now that some of the actual non-unicorn effects are starting to be clearer. And, of course, if every British citizen of majority age has the proper opportunity to vote.

and say it would be unworkable as if you think Brexit is hard it would be even more so.

Not necessarily, as anybody who supports independence can point to the current mess and state one simple truth – it’s those bloody idiots that got us in this mess in the first place.

Will independence be easy? No, of course not. But surely there comes a time when the pain and misery of taking that route and all it involves will be less than the pain and misery of being led around by a bunch of people who are only superior in numbers who think only of themselves – remember every time you hear “democratic will of the people” what they really mean is “pseudo-democratic will of the English at one point in time and to hell with everything else”.

Equally I think we could end up with some more reforms with powers being moved

In general the Scots are pro-EU and proud of it. Being dragged out against their democratic will will not go down well, especially given as how pretty much the only thing you hear regarding SNP politicians in Commons is some Tory asshole mocking them for something or other. Didn’t one recently tell a Scot with an accent to speak English?
Yeah, I don’t think “some powers being moved” is going to cut it this time.

The act was expressly written that the result was non-binding

Tell the likes of Rees-Mogg that. The non-binding referendum is a sacred thing that must never be questioned…

but not to commit parliament to any particular course of action.

He’s probably referring to that paper that idiot Cameron posted to everybody saying “The government will implement your decision”. Funny thing is, as much as Brexit supporters like to point to that, it was not backed up by any actual act of Parliament (the one that was implemented said the direct opposite), so that paper has about as much value as any other piece of unwanted advertising. Cameron will do what you say, you’ve won a brand new iPhone, blah blah…

but would we be even having this discussion if the result was the other way round.

Probably. Farage said a 52-48 result would be “unfinished business”, and that the Brexit crowd would keep pushing for a second referendum (and a third? and a fourth?).
These, of course, being the same people that now say “you lost, suck it up, loser”.

The fact is everyone thought we would never get the result that happened

Not a surprise actually. I told mom beforehand that if I was in the UK, I’d have put a bet on the result being Brexit.
The remain camp said very little, at all. The leave camp basically stoked everybody’s fears (including some ridiculous lies). Most of what was heard prior to the election was Farage (an unelected politician, I might add, just like the ones in Brussels that he complains about) and Boris. Brexit, itself, and all sorts of other simple slogans to appear to simple minds were prevalent in the news.
And what did Remain offer? Somebody, I forget who, provided an economic forecast that might have been accurate, but was presented in the manner of a typical radio four documentary – the audience would be asleep before the end of the opening chapter. Your average northern pensioner (original brexit demographic) probably doesn’t know or care what quantative easing and stuff like that is. Things important to them are the ability to see a doctor, hospitals that aren’t so crowded that they can’t get in and when they can it won’t be a date post-mortem. And maybe a pension that doesn’t suck. These are all things that Leave played upon, suggesting that it was those horrible foreigners filling up the hospitals. So it becomes a simple choice. “Get rid of the foreigners so I can have a place at hospital if I need it” versus some incomprehensible waffle that was quickly and repeatedly dismissed with another cute slogan – “project fear”.
Well, they’re getting what they wanted. The foreigners are leaving the hospitals. Sadly, however, they weren’t so much takers of medical services as providers of it…

that can only do further damage to our democracy.

From my point of view, it hasn’t been anything resembling democracy for several years now. Most polling (excepting that one by Sky News and anything printed in The Express) shows that the will of the people is not in favour of Brexit. And, yet, the country is being led by a mad woman who seems utterly incapable of understanding that nobody wants to ride her golden unicorn. If she’s trying to out-psyche the EU, it’s a dangerous game because the EU is obliged to look after it’s own best interests and that may mean telling the UK that time’s up, goodbye.
It isn’t as if this hasn’t been pointed out nearly endlessly. Poor Mr. Barnier could make his life a lot simpler by just replacing himself with a loop tape, for all that the English actually bother to listen.

The other laughable thing is JRM and the erg lot trying to suspend parliament

They are bullies. They are, as I pointed out before, bullies that stand to cash in from Brexit. The messier the better (messier = more complex = longer to resolve = kerching!).

This is where it is extremely painfully clear that May is no Thatcher. Asides from being pro-Europe (and arranging a lot of Britain’s cushy deals and opt-outs), the would have tossed JRM out on his ear for his insolence. Instead May is so weak that the moment she walks out of a room, everybody turns on the TV to see JRM and co directly contradicting everything she’s just said.
That, plus the fact that she’s had to get in bed with the DUP thus assuring that there will never ever be a satisfactory solution in Ireland. I mean, it would probably do May to say “border’s in the North Sea, that respects Good Friday, shut up” but with the DUP propping up her ailing unicorn, she simply can’t. Instead it’s left to everybody to try to come up with all manner of idiotic ideas – and credit here to John Humphreys who suggested (apparently seriously) to an Irish politician that the answer was simple, that Ireland should just leave the EU and join the UK.

There’s really no response to that other than a sharp intake of breath, so… goodnight!

Now I all for blurring lines but would we be even having this discussion if the result was the other way round.

I should imagine that we would. If it had been 48/52 the other way, how long do you think that UKIP would have waited before starting to campaign for a second referendum?

Well, it looks as if Javid’s proposal has sailed through the commons (thanks Corbyn, you useless twat).

An actively foreigner hostile government making a proposal contrary to EU rules (that would apply during any transition period) and a PM who refuses to stop talking about no deal.

What does that say to you?

[[ ..is that this allows the Parliament to decide when a popular view is bonkers and they can then decide to do something more rational or even fact-based. ]]

[ .. That’s about as wishful thinking as the “we can work on WTO rules” rubbish. It seems to me that “the party” is more interested in staying in power than any concern for the wellbeing of the country as a whole. Indeed, one might ask “in power of what” post-Brexit]

Sorry, can’t figger out how to quote properly. However…

My point there was about the law and constitutional norms of the UK Parliament, not any ‘party’. The legal/constitutional position is that we elect MPs on a constituency basis, and then our law, stems from what they decide to vote for (or agin) in Parliament. The rest is a rigamarole of ‘checks, balances, and convenience’ that – in theory – makes passing ‘bad’ laws harder.

It’s myth ingrained by indoctrination that the people elect a ‘party’ or a PM. We don’t. But the system is gamed towards that happening as it makes it easier for the big parties to present MPs as interchangeble spare parts. 8-]

Parties can ‘whip’ their MPs, but MPs (as you may have noticed recently) can choose to ignore that.

In practice whipping and party lines generally rule. But it is pretty clear that isn’t the current situation wrt Brexit.

One clear problem of course is that the EU isn’t in the UK. :-) So it doesn’t give a fig what Parliament may ‘decide’ one way or another. Nor does it care what our ‘Government’ (sic) or more accurately ‘Executive’ decide.

I don’t know if Scotland will leave the UK or not following the UK leaving the EU. But I think it likely. TBH my main regret if we do is that I may lose full access to BBC Radio! Having lived the first ~30 years of my life in London and then the following ~30 in Scotland I’ve come to feel that ‘England’ is now to me not the place I recall.

Partition the country. The south and east leave, Scotland and the North and west stays. Displace anyone on the wrong side of the divide.

The British did far worse abroad (India, Middle East).

Build a big wall between the two sides, job done.

Barbed wire entanglements are much cheaper than walls. Land mines are illegal, but when did that stop anyone?

Sorry, can’t figger out how to quote properly. However…

You can do things like an html markup with stuff like blockquote and /blockquote either side of a multi-line block.
However, the common cheat is to read the little set of instructions under the pane you type into :)
“Formatting Help”
|
|
V