Is Brexit actually going to happen?

[gosub]

I doubt it, although all the issues that were being agitated pre-vote would still be being agitated, so who knows? People are discussing a second referendum in Scotland despite the fact that 'no change' won last time, and by a larger margin than Brexit.

Thing about this referendum (and Scottish 'independence' would have suffered from exactly the same problem) is that 'how you do it', and even what 'it' might be exactly, wasn't on the ballot paper.

Actually, Scottish one, YES did make what it would do reasonably clear. And most of the discussions I heard tended to be built round who you thought was bluffing.... Same as EUro one there were a lot of lies and distortions, on both sides, and inreality probably was just as risky game of dice for the UK and the rest of the worlds economy.....But it actually felt enjoyable...the EUro one just left an unpleasant taste in the mouth

 

[billbond]

What if remain had won by a gnat's bollock and then been caught cheating?

Still probably no tbf. But I do love this stuff about a second referendum being 100% anti-democratic as if everything up to this point has been entirely unproblematic and above board. The whole entire shitshow is anti-democratic. Another vote would just be an opportunity for yet more fuckery from all concerned. It would be an excercise in throwing good votes after bad.

Remain were caught cheating

 

[gosub]

Third vote. Remain won fair and square in 1975.

The Common Market and the EU are not the same thing. That it evolved as far as it did without public consultation was part of the problem

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Actually, Scottish one, YES did make what it would do reasonably clear.

Well there was an organised group planning for the future, for sure, but it was far from clear what independence meant. 'Independence means Independence' may have been the cry, as those negotiating to leave the UK attempted to divvy up powers/armed forces/public resources/debt/control of the money supply/immigration controls, etc, etc. No 'independent' Scotland would have been fully independent of the UK, so what degree of separation would have constituted 'true' independence would have been a very tangled point.

 

[Fozzie Bear]

You think the pro-brexit tories would have done that? He might have told them to do it, but what authority did he have/would he have had if the vote had gone narrowly the other way?

The authority of the party whip.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The authority of the party whip.

Didn't help John Major much with his 'bastards'. Cameron had a similarly sized majority to work with.

We can't know because it didn't happen, but I think we can be pretty confident that the problems that led to the referendum in the first place would not have gone away with a narrow remain majority.

 

[gosub]

Well there was an organised group planning for the future, for sure, but it was far from clear what independence meant. 'Independence means Independence' may have been the cry, as those negotiating to leave the UK attempted to divvy up powers/armed forces/public resources/debt/control of the money supply/immigration controls, etc, etc. No 'independent' Scotland would have been fully independent of the UK, so what degree of separation would have constituted 'true' independence would have been a very tangled point.

Well was more Holyrood covered up the letter telling them they'd be out of the EU, but was more about the £ and associated debts and bonds - split would have pushed everything off a cliff and it was down to whether you thought that that would lead to one, two or no parachutes being deployed

 

[Fozzie Bear]

Didn't help John Major much with his 'bastards'. Cameron had a similarly sized majority to work with.

Major's legacy doesn't include a massive split in the Tory party. This is partly because there wasn't a sizeable anti-EU party to its right.

Cameron gambled on the referendum keeping the party together, which it just about has. But he also assumed (as most people did) that Remain would win.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well was more Holyrood covered up the letter telling them they'd be out of the EU, but was more about the £ and associated debts and bonds - split would have pushed everything off a cliff and it was down to whether you thought that that would lead to one, two or no parachutes being deployed

Certainly there was at least as much bullshit from both sides during that referendum as there was during Brexit. I don't believe for one second that an independent Scotland would have been forced out of the EU, btw, but there were plenty in the EU who didn't want to see it happen.

 

[Winot]

The Common Market and the EU are not the same thing. That it evolved as far as it did without public consultation was part of the problem

And yet a proposal which would basically take us back to the Common Market (the Norway model)) is suddenly anathema to Brexiteers.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Remain were caught cheating

Leave were caught cheating more. And more importantly, they won. The winning side broke the law, but the result stands. You can't accept that state of affairs and then moan about some other thing being anti-democratic.

 

[gosub]

And yet a proposal which would basically take us back to the Common Market (the Norway model)) is suddenly anathema to Brexiteers.

Not to me. Its more, Leave / Remain and everything since has felt like it was pretty much no platformed. Whilst the 'actual' debate....

 

[littlebabyjesus]

And yet a proposal which would basically take us back to the Common Market (the Norway model)) is suddenly anathema to Brexiteers.

It's not so surprising - the Norway model isn't really leaving. It's more like an associate membership. Kind of much like the UK's membership now, but without the voting privileges. It's a pretty stupid thing to want to happen in many ways - any country joining the EU now doesn't get given the option of the kind of associate membership with full voting rights that the UK currently has. That said, I'm sure it's a thing that most of the 48 per cent of people who voted remain would prefer over other 'hard' options. Add in a fair few who voted leave who would prefer this option to staying in fully, and you may have some kind of a democratic compromise, but it would be a wholly pointless exercise, just highlighting the absurdity of the whole thing.

 

[gosub]

Leave were caught cheating more. And more importantly, they won. The winning side broke the law, but the result stands. You can't accept that state of affairs and then moan about some other thing being anti-democratic.

Not 'more'. Its just that's where the attention has been focused (understandably). It a bit like the US Presidential's, I damn sure the Democrat's did n't play fair and square, but Trump won so it's his activities that get the stronger forensic analysis

 

[gosub]

It's not so surprising - the Norway model isn't really leaving. It's more like an associate membership. Kind of much like the UK's membership now, but without the voting privileges. It's a pretty stupid thing to want to happen in many ways - any country joining the EU now doesn't get given the option of the kind of associate membership with full voting rights that the UK currently has. That said, I'm sure it's a thing that most of the 48 per cent of people who voted remain would prefer over other 'hard' options. Add in a fair few who voted leave who would prefer this option to staying in fully, and you may have some kind of a democratic compromise, but it would be a wholly pointless exercise, just highlighting the absurdity of the whole thing.

Not really, if you look at that god awful video I posted a little bit upthread that May has come up with, she is having to lie her arse off about what Norway would mean. Though was nice to finally hear acknowledgement of the existence of Global Bodies (even though that apparently is only relevant to her utterly fucked Chequers plan for some reason. AND the difference between Norway and the Associate Membership we were being lined up be cul-de-sac'd with was the ability to do our own trade deals...But doesn't cover freedom of movement.


Smart Leave, was to Norway, regroup and build separate international ties - then Canada (after another referendum)

As it is what we've had is just a mess where the only real option is an Art 50 extension, which arch remainers unfortunately are also calling for as part of their plan to overturn the whole thing

 

[littlebabyjesus]

All this discussion of trade deals is a bit of a strange one. I really could not give one flying fuck over whether or not the UK is allowed to negotiate trade deals separately from the EU. From the very little I know about such things, it sounds like it would be better being part of that bigger group when negotiating. I also have no illusions that tory types want to negotiate separate deals because the EU doesn't demand sufficiently high standards. In fact, various of them, including David Davis, have been explicit that they seek a race to the bottom in such affairs. This comes directly back to the question 'What exactly is Brexit for?'

 

[SpackleFrog]

Didn't help John Major much with his 'bastards'. Cameron had a similarly sized majority to work with.

We can't know because it didn't happen, but I think we can be pretty confident that the problems that led to the referendum in the first place would not have gone away with a narrow remain majority.

On that we can definitely agree.

 

[SpackleFrog]

All this discussion of trade deals is a bit of a strange one. I really could not give one flying fuck over whether or not the UK is allowed to negotiate trade deals separately from the EU. From the very little I know about such things, it sounds like it would be better being part of that bigger group when negotiating. I also have no illusions that tory types want to negotiate separate deals because the EU doesn't demand sufficiently high standards. In fact, various of them, including David Davis, have been explicit that they seek a race to the bottom in such affairs. This comes directly back to the question 'What exactly is Brexit for?'

Who said it was 'for' anything? It's the result of the mounting contradictions within the British ruling class and political establishment but that doesn't make it 'for' something.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Macron: "Brexit is the choice of the British people... pushed by those who predicted easy solutions... Those people are liars. They left the next day so they didn’t have to manage it."

Boris stayed a bit longer than that...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Who said it was 'for' anything? It's the result of the mounting contradictions within the British ruling class and political establishment but that doesn't make it 'for' something.

Plenty of people think it is for things, I would say. Quite a few people think it is for 'control' of borders and keeping foreigners out, and more to the point, the likes of the Mail, Express, Murdoch's lot, the Telegraph, are all pushing this line hard, hence the Norway model has not been an option thus far. Rightwingers even have a name for it now: 'Brino', mirroring r/w Republicans' 'Rino'.

That matters, and it is something that needs to be challenged, regardless of how you voted in the referendum.

 

[gosub]

All this discussion of trade deals is a bit of a strange one. I really could not give one flying fuck over whether or not the UK is allowed to negotiate trade deals separately from the EU. From the very little I know about such things, it sounds like it would be better being part of that bigger group when negotiating. I also have no illusions that tory types want to negotiate separate deals because the EU doesn't demand sufficiently high standards. In fact, various of them, including David Davis, have been explicit that they seek a race to the bottom in such affairs. This comes directly back to the question 'What exactly is Brexit for?'

What isn't understood properly is the cold water shock part of leaving. And the chaos it may very well cause, probably to the whole of EUrope. Mrs May says no deal Brexit isn't the end of the world...MI5's maxim is "we are 4 meals from anarchy' (that's the negative anarchy rather than people helping each other out that is already stretched to its limit). A No deal Brexit definitely endangers those 4 meals, not just for UK but most likely the rest of EUrope. Who knows, maybe MI5 could change their Maxim to ''It's not the end of the world" but that might impact on their funding and shit they can get away with in the name of 'National Security.


Brexit should have been about calmly detaching ourselves from a continent headed in a direction that would have been a bad fit for non Euro /non Schengen UK

 

[Supine]

Does anyone believe that we'd be discussing a second vote if Remain had won?

Considering farage said that would happen on the night - before winning - I suspect the answer is yes.

 

[Wolveryeti]

This comes directly back to the question 'What exactly is Brexit for?'

A means for disaster capitalists to earn $$$.
A project to preserve unity on the political right - and hence power.
An opportunity for those who feel the liberalised free-market model has failed them to make themselves poorer.
A fun historical experiment to demonstrate to future students why dull things like common standards, regulations and trading in blocs are useful.

 

[Pickman's model]

What isn't understood properly is the cold water shock part of leaving. And the chaos it may very well cause, probably to the whole of EUrope. Mrs May says no deal Brexit isn't the end of the world...MI5's maxim is "we are 4 meals from anarchy' (that's the negative anarchy rather than people helping each other out that is already stretched to its limit). A No deal Brexit definitely endangers those 4 meals, not just for UK but most likely the rest of EUrope. Who knows, maybe MI5 could change their Maxim to ''It's not the end of the world" but that might impact on their funding and shit they can get away with in the name of 'National Security.


Brexit should have been about calmly detaching ourselves from a continent headed in a direction that would have been a bad fit for non Euro /non Schengen UK

In 1906 Alfred Henry Lewis said we were nine meals away from anarchy. What happened to the other five meals?

 

[gosub]

If he'd been the smart cookie he thought he was he'd

In 1906 Alfred Henry Lewis said we were nine meals away from anarchy. What happened to the other five meals?

Government efficency savings, and/or you are are using real time when you put patches in place.

 

[MickiQ]

In 1906 Alfred Henry Lewis said we were nine meals away from anarchy. What happened to the other five meals?

Adjusted for annual inflation

 

[Mr Moose]

Does anyone believe that we'd be discussing a second vote if Remain had won?

Well no, because staying in is workable. Neither no deal nor Chequers are.

 

[MickiQ]

Government efficency savings, and/or you are are using real time when you put patches in place.

Damn you gosub beating me to it with the jokes

 

[SpackleFrog]

Plenty of people think it is for things, I would say. Quite a few people think it is for 'control' of borders and keeping foreigners out, and more to the point, the likes of the Mail, Express, Murdoch's lot, the Telegraph, are all pushing this line hard, hence the Norway model has not been an option thus far. Rightwingers even have a name for it now: 'Brino', mirroring r/w Republicans' 'Rino'.

That matters, and it is something that needs to be challenged, regardless of how you voted in the referendum.

Ok sure but among people who understand what has happened, who said Brexit was 'for' anything?

 

[SpackleFrog]

An opportunity for those who feel the liberalised free-market model has failed them to make themselves poorer.
A fun historical experiment to demonstrate to future students why dull things like common standards, regulations and trading in blocs are useful.

Which thing is it you think the EU embodies sorry? Liberalisation or regulation?