BREXIT

Latest news extremely depressing!

Quoting is:

The space is essential!

That is:

copied text

Latest news extremely depressing!

A mon avis!

I know that the French for a roundabout (carousel – fairground) is “un manege”, But I need to look-up roller-coaster!

Apparently it’s Russian Mountains, montagnes russes!

OK, let’s blame the Russians again!

It’s all their fault!

bq.[space]copied text

Or even this, which is more specific to these forums?

OK

Here we are with the world falling apart, but at least I can now add a quote.

I blame the Daily Mail and the Sun. They print entropy, not information.

Daily Mail, yes.
The Sun ain’t got nothing on the Express.
Also the habitual liar The Telegraph.

Queen’s Little speech? Both sides claimed victory.
Yesterday’s stupid vote? Both sides claimed victory.

A fundamental and critical problem for the UK is that for decades now a large part of the meeja has spouted what we now call ‘fake news’. Largely as cover for what the people with real power and money are up to or want. Papers like the Scum and Daily Hate lose money. But they have wealthy non-dom owners who shift their money out of the UK to dodge taxes, etc. (Think also some of the ‘ERG’ members here.)

I renounce all loyalty to Britain. I pledge full allegiance and full loyalty to the European Union.

I renounce all loyalty to Britain.

What took you? ;-)

I gave up months ago, when it was quite clear that I (as an expat) am completely expendable and the government that would expect me to fight to defend it would happily toss me aside in their hunt for the magic unicorn.
This, doubled with the fact that pointing out to people about those expats who were unable to vote, is usually met first with “why should you?” and then with “f—k off, we don’t want you here anyway”.

Well, fine, I guess the feeling is mutual as I would need to be literally dead before I return to England. The past two and a half years has eradicated any desire I have to ever return, if even for a holiday. If I want English speaking, I’ll go to Cork (ferry from Roscoff, I believe sick bags are obligatory on that one!). The (maybe not so) United Kingdom is now a place I remember from my childhood and the place that issues my passport. That’s it.

I pledge full allegiance and full loyalty

…to France. My current home. Hopefully my future home.

to the European Union.

JRM, BloJo, Maybot, et al are doing all they can to make that a non-option. And that, honestly, pisses me off more than I can describe. I’m proud to be a European. And soon I’ll probably count for less than the hoardes of migrants apparently falling over each other to bust into the UK (the Express said it, it must be true)…

Bear in mind that about 3/4 of the population of the UK did NOT vote for Brexit. So you can expect many of them to be bothered by what is happening and a mere 1/4 being taken as “the will of the peeps”.

Note also that it now seems likely the UK may simply no longer exist ten years from now. The Scots may be first to do their own “Leave”, followed by NI. Don’t judge NI by the DUP. They’ve blocked democracy in NI as well as crowbarred the UK. The demographics in NI have been moving towards a change, and Brexit will probably accellerate that. In the end, the dinosaurs died out…

Bear in mind that about 3/4 of the population of the UK did NOT vote for Brexit. So you can expect many of them to be bothered by what is happening and a mere 1/4 being taken as “the will of the peeps”.

Voting does not work that way. The only thing you can say about that half of the population that abstained from voting is, that whatever the rest voted for, they would be happy to accept. It might be that 3/4 are for Brexit, it might be that 3/4 are against Brexit, you cannot possibly know.

People who could have, but did not bother to vote (either way) can’t complain about the outcome, neither can they counted to be part of the losing side to make the losers the majority – simples…

that whatever the rest voted for, they would be happy to accept.

You absolutely cannot say that (I’ve seen this trick being used by Brexiteers to inflate how many people support them). It could equally be that the ones that didn’t vote figured nobody in their right mind would vote for Brexit so why waste time on a foregone conclusion…

In fact, the only thing that can be said about the people who didn’t vote is… that they didn’t vote.

It could equally be that the ones that didn’t vote figured nobody in their right mind would vote for Brexit so why waste time on a foregone conclusion…

Exactly. I mean, how many people in their right mind would imagine that anyone would follow the lead given by nutters like Forage and co?
Mind you, didn’t someone once say “never underestimate the stupidity of the general public” or something like that.

People who could have, but did not bother to vote (either way) can’t complain about the outcome, neither can they counted to be part of the losing side to make the losers the majority – simples…

Yes, that presumption is often trotted out. :-) It is rarer for anyone to have bothered to find out the facts, though, about all of those people. So they just trot out the above as an article of faith.

Many millions were unable to vote for one reason or another. Despight many saying they wanted to, but were denied being allowed.

I also saw and heard many people on TV and radio who said that the could not decide because the propaganda on both sides was such contradictory and fact-free nonsense they had no basis for making a decision. Some pleaded for the media to give them facts, but the media was more interested in opinions and the usual “he said, she said”. Unicorns versus fear.

Hence as Rick says, we don’t know what they thought, or which way they would have voted given reliably info, and the chance to vote. Personally, I felt those younger than 18 should have been made eligable, and said this long before the vote. IIRC they were in the Scots IndyRef. That would have added many potential voters, and who knows what change that might have made…

Here are some figures though:

Voted leave = 17.41m
Voted remain = 16.14m
Abstained = 12.92m
Not registered = 4.86m
Ineligible = 13.75m

That’s about the sum total of what we know about what people decided. Given the small margin between the leave and remain votes it is absurd to pretend that we can take for granted what the other millions would have voted, or think now. The idea that they’d have split precisely the same way as those who voted is a sandcastle.

But that still doesn’t tell you what their intentions were – how they would have voted if they had bothered to. I’m not talking about people who could not vote for whatever reason, just those who could have but didn’t. We can’t presume to know how they would have voted, so we can’t add them to the figures for or against.

For the record, I voted remain – but reluctantly. I could see through most of the outright lies from the leave side and many of the issues that they glossed over, but I wasn’t happy with the status quo of the way the EU operates or its intentions for future power grabs either. I don’t think that the remain team were very effective, but again the leave lies tended to swamp them out (“Project Fear”, etc).

But that still doesn’t tell you what their intentions were – how they would have voted if they had bothered to. I’m not talking about people who could not vote for whatever reason, just those who could have but didn’t. We can’t presume to know how they would have voted, so we can’t add them to the figures for or against.

But we can conclude that:

It means we CAN’T take for granted that the vote results are the “will of the people” and thus MUST be obeyed – thus ignoring ALL the (three times bigger number of!) people who did NOT vote for Brexit of any kind.

Given this and the narrow margin it is also pretty much an ‘in the noise’ result. Which, frankly, means that a ‘verification vote’ would make sense.

But the government seem determined to ignore this minor point, and the press seem to clueless about facts to even raise the question of the way so many people are being ignored.

It’s not that they just did not vote for Brexit, they also didn’t vote to remain either – therefore no assumptions can be made one way or the other on their intentions.

I also think that a second referendum is the wrong thing to do. It attempts to nullify the results of the first vote. If the result is different, do you have a best of three, best of five, …? If there was to be a second referendum it should only be a choice of how we leave from one of two or more options, respecting the first vote. I would also like to see MPs then bound to support whatever their constituents decided, not what their party, their affiliations, their best friend’s Mum, etc want.

and the press seem to clueless about facts to even raise the question of the way so many people are being ignored.

How about the many who would have wanted to vote, but were not permitted to do so ?

I also think that a second referendum is the wrong thing to do. It attempts to nullify the results of the first vote.

Not at all. This is typical Leave spin because they don’t want a second vote.

If you ask the same demographic (18yr+, UK resident citizen…) the same question, it does not nullify anything. Or do you think it’s not possible for a person to ever change their minds about anything? It would be a rather bizarre mindset given that May has changed her mind numberous times and Corbyn is pathologically incapable of making any decision whatsoever.

And, to be honest, given what has happened in the past two and a half years, it would be extremely pertinent to have an “are you sure?” before the horse has bolted.

Let’s put it like this, if the people vote to plough on with Brexit, well, the government can keep on doing its incompetent thing. Eventually the EU will get fed up, no extension will be offered, and it will be a crash-out by default.

However if the people realise that it’s likely to all go to hell in a handbasket (my prediction, given that “negotiations” have been two years of Tory fighting Tory and even now they seem to think their holidays are more important than trivialities like the future of the country). So if people vote in favour of the EU, the Article 50 can be halted and damage limitation put into effect.

To quote far too many people, “Out means out”, so once the UK is out (and it won’t be orderly, if the government wanted an orderly exit we wouldn’t be where we are now disagreeing with everything so far agreed) then saying “oh crap, this isn’t what we expected, we want to come back”… it’s not that simple. That woman in Sunderland who was interviewed on R4 thinking “we can always opt back in again later”, no, that’s not how it works.

If there was to be a second referendum it should only be a choice of how we leave from one of two or more options,

Exactly the same question – in or out. Otherwise it cannot be called the “democratic will of the people”. It isn’t really up to the people to decide what sort of “out” that means, that’s what the politicians are supposed to be doing…

respecting the first vote.

…don’t fall into the trap of thinking the first vote is some sort of sacred mythos. There are enough questions about statements made, funding, international interference, outright lies, and the closeness of the end result, that it cannot be considered a decisive result. Had Brexit won by something like 65:35, then there would be no doubt. But, since a large chunk of the British media is anti-EU, nobody is asking the questions that ought to be asked.

Oh, and you might have noticed that a number of things that “project fear” predicted are actually starting to happen. How many of the Leave predictions have actually happened?

I would also like to see MPs then bound to support whatever their constituents decided,

The UK is a parliamentary democracy. That is why the referendum was non-binding. The MPs are supposed to debate these sorts of things from a position of greater expertise. You can ask the public for an opinion to guide general direction, but it is utterly ridiculous to attempt to govern by referenda. It simply won’t work – people cannot be expected to understand the issues involved when their source of information is Farage soundbites quoted in The Sun. You can see this every time people complain about the “unelected Juncker”. Of course he’s “unelected”, he’s the EU’s equivalent of a civil servant, appointed by the elected MEPs. Of course, if the English think it’s funny to vote for people like Farage to represent them in the EU, it’s no bloody wonder that they don’t have a clue about how the EU actually functions (and, as I pointed out earlier, nobody seems to care when he is pictured standing outside Westminster spouting bollocks – that’s because it’s as close as he can actually get given that he is an unelected politician, but there’s nothing wrong with double-standards, right?).

If you really truly believe that important issues should be put to dumbed down “binary choice” referenda, then please ask your MPs to support the following three votes which must be absolutely followed by the government:

• Homosexual people are mentally ill and should be treated as such: Yes / No
• Having sex with a girl is not rape if she said she likes you: Yes / No
• In times of austerity, people need to save every penny, therefore people earning less than £100K should be exempt from all forms of taxation: Yes / No

Note that I don’t agree with the points made, I’m just thinking of good examples of referendum questions that could blow up spectactularly (though rather less than Europe: In/Out).

not what their party, their affiliations, their best friend’s Mum, etc want.

First – be aware that family pattern voting is quite common. I remember a friend, many years ago, who fell out with his family because he voted Tory (and not Labour). You’d be a fool if you don’t think that there wasn’t any element of peer pressure involved in any vote.

Second – party affilations? Party and affilations? We’re in this mess because the Tories don’t know what they want, Labour doesn’t know what it wants (well, they do, but they’re saddled with a leader only marginally more competent than May (that’s not a compliment)). So I wouldn’t say that party lines or whipping mean a damned thing any more. I mean, the Tories were generally pro-Europe, but who knows what anybody in Westminster thinks or wants any more? For certain, they don’t know. Two and a half years later. Which is yet another bit of evidence to point to the fact that “the people” did not know or fully understand what they were voting for. Because if they did, the UK wouldn’t be in this mess now.

.

Sounds like they want to extend the deadline, so this ridiculous pantomime will carry on a little longer. Wonderful. If I were the EU, I’d tell Britain that it can have one extension, to expire on April 1st. That will be a fitting date for when the UK crashes out by default.

As I said, I voted remain, but as the lesser of two evils. I would rather that the EU had been more open to discussion about reforming their institutions. Personally I’d just about rather be in than out, but a choice has been made, just like a choice is made at every election, every committee meeting, etc. I don’t believe it can be right to keep replaying the vote until the choice you want is achieved. Maybe if there was a new vote the outcome would be different, maybe it would be the same – and either way would the ‘losers’ then want another and another ad infinitum?

My choice was made because I understood the damage that could be done to trade, investment and jobs – the Irish border issue didn’t come into play at the time and didn’t seem to get much mention until well after the vote. Any time remain made points about the detrimental effects it was bluffed and blustered over by leave as lacking courage, project fear, no faith in our abilities, etc. I also understood some of the issues that we have with the EU and could understand why people would find leave attractive, like the fishing industry. But I couldn’t understand how people could just accept the view that we would tell the EU exactly how we wanted the breakup settlement to go (totally in our favour of course), and they would just bow and scrape and give us exactly what we asked for and probably more on top.

Labour don’t seem to know what they really want either and have their red lines too. Their solution is to remain in a customs union, with all the restrictions & controls that entails, but without any say in the rules we have to follow. If it comes to that, we really would be better off remaining.

But the biggest problem of all is that every individual MP has their own view of how Brexit should pan out. It would be impossible to find a compromise that all of them could agree with and vote for because they each have a different vision of what Brexit should achieve, from cancellation to absolute isolation from Europe and flooding the Channel Tunnel at each extreme.

Maybe if there was more (some?) truth available during the campaign the outcome would have been different, but like any fake news, there’s always those that will hear exactly what they want if it reinforces their viewpoint.

I would rather that the EU had been more open to discussion about reforming their institutions.

Isn’t that part of what Macron is trying to achieve?
Of course there wouldn’t be much desire to reform if the UK said so, as the UK has, on the whole, not been very pro-EU. Well, remember, the UK has the likes of Farage representing it.

I don’t believe it can be right to keep replaying the vote until the choice you want is achieved.

Nor do I, but likewise I don’t believe it can be right to base the future of generations of millions of people on a one-off vote based, largely, upon lies.

and didn’t seem to get much mention until well after the vote.

Like many things (the truth about WTO trading, Gibraltar, etc) the border issue was swept under the carpet as a non-issue. It wasn’t until May finally published her white paper that people started to try to understand exactly what sort of “out” Britain wanted. You’ll notice that before the vote, it was portrayed as a simple bit of negotiation. Didn’t somebody (Davis?) say that the things that needed done would be concluded in a matter of weeks? Didn’t he also say that all British citizens in the EU would retain all their existing rights? All of this was just fantasy. Two years after invoking article 50, here we sit with no idea what’s going to happen next month, no idea what sort of rights anybody anywhere will have, no idea if any of this makes any sense any more.
I mean, we’re talking about a group of politicians who, when told that negotiations have finished, decided to hold a vote in order to reopen negotiations. Europe will not do that for the simple reason that Britain has been very forthcoming about what it does not want (namely: everything) and has pretty much failed to present any sort of viable plan about what it does want (and no, “freedom of goods without people and not paying for it” is not an option).
It is also perhaps worth pointing out that simply switching to join EFTA would technically respect the wording of the referendum (the UK will have ‘left’ the EU), so nobody on this side of the channel made much noise about borders until they understood what was actually sort-of wanted.

It seems as time goes by people get more and more polarised. Now the shouty politicians generally want to have absolutely nothing to do with the EU. Do you think people would have been so favourable towards Brexit at the time of the referendum if it was phrased as “we’ll just crash out and god only knows what’ll happen next”? Because that is a scary reality that you may be living in a few weeks time.
Quite a number of people would probably support it now because, well, let’s just say this is a great can of worms that really shouldn’t have been opened.

I also understood some of the issues that we have with the EU

Certainly. The EU is not perfect, it has its share of faults. However I have not seen anybody coming up with a better viable plan to do what the EU is attempting to achieve. Instead, we are seeing an increase in nationalism and right wing extremism. Well, “every country for itself” does not work. We have centuries of history littered with corpses to attest to that fact. The concept of the EU was borne from the terrible spectre of wars, because “the war to end all wars” was followed by one that was even worse. The countries involved vowed “never again” and the result is the EU. I think it says a lot that Germany and France are so close, given what happened. But they are, and they are trying to make an institution that helps to integrate things. Unity of regulation, unity of paperwork, money, blah blah.
Like I said, it’s not perfect. But I believe that participation is greatly better than throwing toys out of prams. It will need to reform, to evolve, to try to re-engage people in its mission. But I believe that Europe without the EU would be a poorer place.

why people would find leave attractive, like the fishing industry.

Oh, you mean the fishing industry that is happy to use a mixture of EU rules and self-appointed fishing zones of hundreds of miles to enter into French waters, drop down bottom-scraping dredges, and tear up scallops and anything else in the way at times when European fishermen are leaving the scallop beds alone so they can reproduce and repopulate?
Believe me, the French press reported that incident a little differently to the British press. As usual…

As for Britain’s ridiculous fishing zone distances, no, British trawlers can’t go in (very small) circles around the Brabantse Biesbosch.

how people could just accept the view that we would tell the EU exactly how we wanted the breakup settlement to go

That’s easy. “Pink bits”. You just have to listen to the stuff that Boris and Rees-Mogg say to realise that they have received a very skewed education favouring their colonial past. I guess it must have been quite a shock to realise that the former commonwealth isn’t really that interested to ship stuff halfway across the planet when they have better trade agreements with geographically closer countries.

To a point, I think this is America’s problem as well. Put bluntly, it’s angry white men shouting at foreigners suddenly realising that their perceived power over said foreigners evaporated long ago. The foreigners are no longer interested in bowing and scraping to their anglophone masters as said masters no longer have anything to offer other than a dubious history.

If it comes to that, we really would be better off remaining.

Indeed. There are only two viable options. A full separation (and likely crash out) or remaining. Half way deals like EFTA or integrated customs union just don’t make sense at all when you realise that Thatcher et al actually helped to secure a pretty cushy deal for Britain. All those opt-outs and rebates that other countries don’t enjoy. There’s your “best deal” right there.

because they each have a different vision of what Brexit should achieve

Yet more evidence that “the people” had no idea what they were voting for, and yet more evidence to call into question the validity of the referendum.
I mean, come on, if the politicians are incapable of forming any sort of coherent concensus after two and a half years…

and flooding the Channel Tunnel at each extreme.

Well, that won’t do much. Those immigrants, they come in boats you know… :-)

there’s always those that will hear exactly what they want if it reinforces their viewpoint.

It’s called confirmation bias and it’s a game the leave campaigns played extremely well.

This one made me laugh.

Fantastic cartoon!

And in the mean time the costs of (hard) BREXIT are getting higher and higher. Just heard that the CE mark is European, so there will be another mark now for the UK, something like UK CA. This means higher costs for manufacturers (testing, packaging).

FWIW although I voted ‘remain’ I’m well aware of, and wish to urgently change, many of the practices and policies of the current EU. I think they damage both people in the EU and outside it. However the reality is that we will be affected by those things – in or out! By leaving we lose much of our ability to try and change the EU for the better, but still get affected. We also abandon the others in the EU who want and need those changes. So I view leaving as foolish for us and abandoning others who we could have joined with to help us all.

I also think that a second referendum is the wrong thing to do. It attempts to nullify the results of the first vote.

No. It allows people to say if they want to leave on the proposed basis or not, now we know what the terms (or non-terms) are. This means that those, for example, who did not know which way to vote before can now decide on the evidence rather than the fairy tales they were given before. And those who did vote last time can let us know if they now feel they were mislead and wish to register they have changed their mind now they are better informed.

It is quite normal elsewhere for those involved in a negotiation to decide at the end of that process if they wish to accept the results or not. This simply verifies, “Is this what you wanted/expected, or sufficiently close to be acceptable, or not?”

Our current problem is we simply don’t know what ‘most people’ actually want or would prefer. A number vastly bigger than the margin between those who voted one way or the other last time. So without such a verification we can’t say that the outcome of the negotiations, etc, is or is not what people want. Which doesn’t seem much like ‘democracy’ to me.