How do we resolve the Brexit mess?

[Vic]

It’d certainly persuade me if I was doorstepped in an upcoming election campaign.

“Would you like to spend half an hour discussing how Victorian policy has influenced Labour’s current immigration policies?”

That's weird, since you raised the issue of control of immigration without realising the Victorians repealed the only legislation that did control immigration to Britain.

(Oh, good grief, a gif as well!)

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

That's weird, since you raised the issue of control of immigration without realising the Victorians repealed the only legislation that did control immigration to Britain.

 

[Fred_Quimby]

Maybe @Churchlawtonblue can give us his say on how Brexit could have been handled differently. All, and I mean all, economists agree that Brexit has been a disaster but maybe, just maybe, he knows differently??

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

So someone posts - jokingly I assume - about Dracula in the context of immigration policy, and then goes off on one when it's pointed out that umpteen academic studies have made a link between Dracula and antisemitism, and fear of foreign influence, and even that Bela Lugosi wore a six-pointed star in the 1931 film.

The Dracula movie that Mel Brooks directed in 1995 was even more antisemitic.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Maybe @Churchlawtonblue can give us his say on how Brexit could have been handled differently. All, and I mean all, economists agree that Brexit has been a disaster but maybe, just maybe, he knows differently??

Whilst not aimed at me, the answer to this is very straightforward from my perspective.

From 1973 to 2016 the British people were broadly split down the middle when it came to our membership of the EU/EEC. Our relationship with the EU/EEC was shaped by this landscape.

We never joined the Euro, had loads of exemptions and opts out and were given more concessions than any other member state. This was a reflection of the inveterate strain of Euroscepticism that ran through about half of our population, which is fair enough. That’s how democracy should actually work, not this pathetic winner takes all system that hampers us so as a nation, and has done so when it has comes to Brexit.

And then 52% of the people that voted in the referendum wanted to leave and the wishes of the 48% counted for fuck all.

This meant leaving in a way that damaged us economically, unnecessarily increased red tape and hugely damaged our relationships with our closest neighbours. And in a way that was completely avoidable.

So the broad answer to the question is that we should have left (which we absolutely should) in a way that reflected the overall feelings of the British people and not in a way that simply reflected the wishes of the 52%.

And if we had, the damage would have been far less acute and enduring imo.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

The Dracula movie that Mel Brooks directed in 1995 was even more antisemitic.

Not a patch on Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves though.

 

[Saddleworth2]

Whilst not aimed at me, the answer to this is very straightforward from my perspective.

From 1973 to 2016 the British people were broadly split down the middle when it came to our membership of the EU/EEC. Our relationship with the EU/EEC was shaped by this landscape.

We never joined the Euro, had loads of exemptions and opts out and were given more concessions than any other member state. This was a reflection of the inveterate strain of Euroscepticism that ran through about half of our population, which is fair enough. That’s how democracy should actually work, not this pathetic winner takes all system that hampers us so as a nation, and has done so when it has comes to Brexit.

And then 52% of the people that voted in the referendum wanted to leave and the wishes of the 48% counted for fuck all.

This meant leaving in a way that damaged us economically, unnecessarily increased red tape and hugely damaged our relationships with our closest neighbours. And in a way that was completely avoidable.

So the broad answer to the question is that we should have left (which we absolutely should) in a way that reflected the overall feelings of the British people and not in a way that simply reflected the wishes of the 52%.

And if we had, the damage would have been far less acute and enduring imo.

Its probably where we will end up but will have taken 20 years to get there. Whilst the EU zone has outperformed UK by about 5% since Brexit, current projections for 2025 are more favourable to the UK. That hides a great deal though like the damage done to Agriculture, Hospitality and Fishing industries. I would certainly put a radical shake up of our voting system as a priority in front of any potential push to rejoin. A relaxation of free movement of people and easier trade has to be the priority for rebuilding relationships with the EU.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Whilst not aimed at me, the answer to this is very straightforward from my perspective.

From 1973 to 2016 the British people were broadly split down the middle when it came to our membership of the EU/EEC. Our relationship with the EU/EEC was shaped by this landscape.

We never joined the Euro, had loads of exemptions and opts out and were given more concessions than any other member state. This was a reflection of the inveterate strain of Euroscepticism that ran through about half of our population, which is fair enough. That’s how democracy should actually work, not this pathetic winner takes all system that hampers us so as a nation, and has done so when it has comes to Brexit.

And then 52% of the people that voted in the referendum wanted to leave and the wishes of the 48% counted for fuck all.

This meant leaving in a way that damaged us economically, unnecessarily increased red tape and hugely damaged our relationships with our closest neighbours. And in a way that was completely avoidable.

So the broad answer to the question is that we should have left (which we absolutely should) in a way that reflected the overall feelings of the British people and not in a way that simply reflected the wishes of the 52%.

And if we had, the damage would have been far less acute and enduring imo.

Without wishing to stir this again but is there a breakdown of where that 52% / 48% vote came from regionally in the UK.
In a binary choice like a referendum, there is an argument for a higher percentage threshold for a motion being carried especially if the consequences are irreversible or extremely diffy to roll back on.

 

[Vic]

The Dracula movie that Mel Brooks directed in 1995 was even more antisemitic.

Or just more obvious, to make a point?

 

[Saddleworth2]

Without wishing to stir this again but is there a breakdown of where that 52% / 48% vote came from regionally in the UK.
In a binary choice like a referendum, there is an argument for a higher percentage threshold for a motion being carried especially if the consequences are irreversible or extremely diffy to roll back on.

Thats called stirring it again!
As you know Scotland, NI and Greater London voted pretty conclusively to stay whilst every other region voted to leave.

 

[Saddleworth2]

Or just more obvious, to make a point?

make a point or stake?

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Thats called stirring it again!
As you know Scotland, NI and Greater London voted pretty conclusively to stay whilst every other region voted to leave.

And what are your thoughts Sadds, on the FUCK. With OFFices in Edinburgh, Belfast and Dublin.


Okay, I’m just being bold now.

 

[inbetween]

Whilst not aimed at me, the answer to this is very straightforward from my perspective.

From 1973 to 2016 the British people were broadly split down the middle when it came to our membership of the EU/EEC. Our relationship with the EU/EEC was shaped by this landscape.

We never joined the Euro, had loads of exemptions and opts out and were given more concessions than any other member state. This was a reflection of the inveterate strain of Euroscepticism that ran through about half of our population, which is fair enough. That’s how democracy should actually work, not this pathetic winner takes all system that hampers us so as a nation, and has done so when it has comes to Brexit.

And then 52% of the people that voted in the referendum wanted to leave and the wishes of the 48% counted for fuck all.

This meant leaving in a way that damaged us economically, unnecessarily increased red tape and hugely damaged our relationships with our closest neighbours. And in a way that was completely avoidable.

So the broad answer to the question is that we should have left (which we absolutely should) in a way that reflected the overall feelings of the British people and not in a way that simply reflected the wishes of the 52%.

And if we had, the damage would have been far less acute and enduring imo.

The most critical error was not how the referendum was held or the fact that it was held nor was it the fault of the actual negotiation. The most critical error was triggering Article 50 without any understanding of what type of leave we wanted. We could have spent years trying to determine what leave should be.

Instead of doing this Theresa May triggered Article 50, a timed process to leave without any knowledge of what leave should be. She then held an election and lost every single ounce of whatever Parliamentary authority she had. She then sent people to negotiate leave against the clock and the end result predictably was a total bodge.

The current disaster of Brexit is not down to the fact that people decided to leave. It's 100% down to the chaos and internal battlings in Parliament and especially the Tory Party. At the 2017 election Labour/Corbyn could have been thrust into power, 6 months into a 2 year negotiation process with the EU and Labour had no Brexit policy whatsoever!

The entire process was ridiculously easy pickings for the EU because there was never any parliamentary authority and there was also no other alternative as it would have been worse under Labour. It was always going to either get reversed or end in some form of compromise, Boris was eventually elected and he just accepted anything which is where it has ended.

Who has been held accountable for this total failure and how many inquiries have there been into what actually happened? None. So how can anybody blame voters who were asked a single question with just two possible answers? The burden of this is not on voters, it's on the morons who drove us off the cliff, Theresa May even got a peerage for it!

 

[Saddleworth2]

And what are your thoughts Sadds, on the FUCK. With OFFices in Edinburgh, Belfast and Dublin.


Okay, I’m just being bold now.

I'm trying to interpret your code as I don't believe you would tell me to fuck off this early in the conversation. :-)
If you mean independence. For Scotland, it clearly suffered under the problems associated with the SNP (bit like City, everyone thinks they are guilty as fuck of all charges levelled), but folk make the mistake of conflating the SNP with independence. They are not the same thing, the SNP was merely the most likely vehicle to deliver it.

Imo it might take another decade but it will come. The only thing that might stop it is massive decentralisation from Westminster and I'm looking forward to seeing Labour's bill on the first steps of that. For NI, ditto with the continued march of Sinn Fein.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The most critical error was not how the referendum was held or the fact that it was held nor was it the fault of the actual negotiation. The most critical error was triggering Article 50 without any understanding of what type of leave we wanted. We could have spent years trying to determine what leave should be.

Instead of doing this Theresa May triggered Article 50, a timed process to leave without any knowledge of what leave should be. She then held an election and lost every single ounce of whatever Parliamentary authority she had. She then sent people to negotiate leave against the clock and the end result predictably was a total bodge.

The current disaster of Brexit is not down to the fact that people decided to leave. It's 100% down to the chaos and internal battlings in Parliament and especially the Tory Party. At the 2017 election Labour/Corbyn could have been thrust into power, 6 months into a 2 year negotiation process with the EU and Labour had no Brexit policy whatsoever!

The entire process was ridiculously easy pickings for the EU because there was never any parliamentary authority and there was also no other alternative as it would have been worse under Labour. It was always going to either get reversed or end in some form of compromise, Boris was eventually elected and he just accepted anything which is where it has ended.

Who has been held accountable for this total failure and how many inquiries have there been into what actually happened? None. So how can anybody blame voters who were asked a single question with just two possible answers? The burden of this is not on voters, it's on the morons who drove us off the cliff, Theresa May even got a peerage for it!

You say the electors in the referendum are blameless and that the state of our politics is to blame, but it was the former that was foolish enough to believe that the latter would deliver in a way they manifestly did not, the triggering of Article 50 being a case in point. Teresa May wouldn’t last five minutes in the commercial world and yet she headed up our withdrawal from the EU and the associated negotiations.

So I agree that the triggering of Article 50 in that way was unbelievably stupid which made the UK a hostage to fortune in a completely avoidable way, but that was the symptom not the cause of our misfortune, all of which was ultimately founded upon egregious national hubris.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

I'm trying to interpret your code as I don't believe you would tell me to fuck off this early in the conversation. :-)
If you mean independence. For Scotland, it clearly suffered under the problems associated with the SNP (bit like City, everyone thinks they are guilty as fuck of all charges levelled), but folk make the mistake of conflating the SNP with independence. They are not the same thing, the SNP was merely the most likely vehicle to deliver it.

Imo it might take another decade but it will come. The only thing that might stop it is massive decentralisation from Westminster and I'm looking forward to seeing Labour's bill on the first steps of that. For NI, ditto with the continued march of Sinn Fein.

Sorry Sadds. You know I’d never tell you to do one.
No. I was referring to to a suggestion I threw together earlier, rather hastily and without a lot of thought into how it would operate.
Federal Union of Celtic Kingdoms.

Here you go. Save you a search;

Who knows what the world will look like in a couple of decades.

Edit;
I just had an idea, or maybe you could call it a brainfart. Depends where you’re coming from.

Perhaps the future will involve Ireland/NI/Scotland solving the shared history of NI Catholic/Protestant conundrum. The colonist’s/disposessed centuries old differences now, satisfying both traditions and history by forming the Federal Union of Celtic Kingdoms, or FUCK, for short.
Three separate authorities in Edinburgh Belfast and Dublin, with the seat of government to be discussed or maybe rotated.
NI and Scotland to be subsumed back into the EU and we’d still have a land border with the remains of the UK along Hadrians wall or wherever.

 

[Saddleworth2]

Sorry Sadds. You know I’d never tell you to do one.
No. I was referring to to a suggestion I threw together earlier, rather hastily and without a lot of thought into how it would operate.
Federal Union of Celtic Kingdoms.

Here you go. Save you a search;

Who knows what the world will look like in a couple of decades.

Edit;
I just had an idea, or maybe you could call it a brainfart. Depends where you’re coming from.

Perhaps the future will involve Ireland/NI/Scotland solving the shared history of NI Catholic/Protestant conundrum. The colonist’s/disposessed centuries old differences now, satisfying both traditions and history by forming the Federal Union of Celtic Kingdoms, or FUCK, for short.
Three separate authorities in Edinburgh Belfast and Dublin, with the seat of government to be discussed or maybe rotated.
NI and Scotland to be subsumed back into the EU and we’d still have a land border with the remains of the UK along Hadrians wall or wherever.

Neither Scotland or NI could be said to have prospered within the UK in recent years. The NI economy used to be bigger than Ireland but now is dwarfed by it. I like the idea but suspect unless it was drawn up properly, power would be centred in Dublin rather than Belfast or Edinburgh.

Nothing that has happened recently gives me any confidence that England have finished being attracted to Right Wing politics so whilst there is realistic chances that the UK will be governed by Tory/Reform I still want out. Wether that is a Celtic alliance or the EU..............

 

[inbetween]

You say the electors in the referendum are blameless and that the state of our politics is to blame, but it was the former that was foolish enough to believe that the latter would deliver in a way they manifestly did not, the triggering of Article 50 being a case in point. Teresa May wouldn’t last five minutes in the commercial world and yet she headed up our withdrawal from the EU and the associated negotiations.

So I agree that the triggering of Article 50 in that way was unbelievably stupid which made the UK a hostage to fortune in a completely avoidable way, but that was the symptom not the cause of our misfortune, all of which was ultimately founded upon egregious national hubris.

It is hubris on both sides that pushed us into this place. Remember that remain wasn't exactly a simple decision. A huge number of remainers are skeptics and most only voted remain because leave was the worse option of two. I was one of those people, I voted remain but I'm not a staunch remainer. I don't like the EU as a political ovearching entity so I would leave if a better option was available but at no point have I been able to vote for such an option.

Even despite this the remain argument was lost nearly 10 years ago so arguing for remain is stupid because it would require a second referendum which was never held and it never will be because we're out. The people otherwise voted to leave as an absolute and more people voted for it than anything ever before. It would be like Scotland voting to leave the UK and then not leaving the UK.

MP's should have spent years trying to find the best option. Instead they spent years trying to frustrate and degrade the process and the choice became an option between something shit or something shitter. It is Theresa May who stupidly started the inevitable process towards one of these two options, why did she do it??!

She burnt every piece of authority she had when she started that process. Remainers merely had to hold their ground by rejecting compromise in hope of a second referendum given the looming apocalypse of no deal. Leavers also just needed to do the same which would ensure Brexit did happen or they were always happy to leave with no deal.

 

[law74]

You didn't vote for the Brexit on offer then did you? The vote was never about being a Norway or Switzerland. It was always going to be the most extreme separation.

The most critical error was not how the referendum was held or the fact that it was held nor was it the fault of the actual negotiation. The most critical error was triggering Article 50 without any understanding of what type of leave we wanted. We could have spent years trying to determine what leave should be.

Instead of doing this Theresa May triggered Article 50, a timed process to leave without any knowledge of what leave should be. She then held an election and lost every single ounce of whatever Parliamentary authority she had. She then sent people to negotiate leave against the clock and the end result predictably was a total bodge.

The current disaster of Brexit is not down to the fact that people decided to leave. It's 100% down to the chaos and internal battlings in Parliament and especially the Tory Party. At the 2017 election Labour/Corbyn could have been thrust into power, 6 months into a 2 year negotiation process with the EU and Labour had no Brexit policy whatsoever!

The entire process was ridiculously easy pickings for the EU because there was never any parliamentary authority and there was also no other alternative as it would have been worse under Labour. It was always going to either get reversed or end in some form of compromise, Boris was eventually elected and he just accepted anything which is where it has ended.

Who has been held accountable for this total failure and how many inquiries have there been into what actually happened? None. So how can anybody blame voters who were asked a single question with just two possible answers? The burden of this is not on voters, it's on the morons who drove us off the cliff, Theresa May even got a peerage for it!

The issue is that the clown Cameron decided arrogantly to have a referendum with no terms of reference, then we had bad faith actors like bozo and farage refusing to enter into meaningful dialogue as to the terms of what and how any Brexit might look, with meaningless three word slogans like "Brexit means brexit" and when (occasionally) challenged just retorted to "project fear".
IF Cameron hadn't been so arrogant, we could have had a referendum that said that if a majority voted to leave, a choice of three withdrawal agreements would be drawn up, and the electorate given the choice.
If Her Majesties Media had driven home the point that it would certainly have meant the Irish Sea Border, about 200,000 in Northern Ireland, and I would say quite a few from the Dumfries and Galloway and Ayrshire areas would have flipped, likewise the need for visa'sif you wish to reside within the EU would have flipped quite a lot of the "exiled in the Costa's"
Though I agree that May triggering Article 50 was idiotically stupid.

 

[inbetween]

The issue is that the clown Cameron decided arrogantly to have a referendum with no terms of reference, then we had bad faith actors like bozo and farage refusing to enter into meaningful dialogue as to the terms of what and how any Brexit might look, with meaningless three word slogans like "Brexit means brexit" and when (occasionally) challenged just retorted to "project fear".
IF Cameron hadn't been so arrogant, we could have had a referendum that said that if a majority voted to leave, a choice of three withdrawal agreements would be drawn up, and the electorate given the choice.
If Her Majesties Media had driven home the point that it would certainly have meant the Irish Sea Border, about 200,000 in Northern Ireland, and I would say quite a few from the Dumfries and Galloway and Ayrshire areas would have flipped, likewise the need for visa'sif you wish to reside within the EU would have flipped quite a lot of the "exiled in the Costa's"
Though I agree that May triggering Article 50 was idiotically stupid.

Which three withdrawal agreements would you have drawn up? If you want me to vote upon one then I'll take the one with the most cherrys please. It isn't fair to place this burden upon people because they just won't know unless it's relatively absolute. Either way the EU refused to negotiate any form of withdrawal agreement unless we triggered Article 50 so this was definitely impossible to do as part of a referendum.

We couldn't say to the EU for example that we're thinking of leaving so what leave would you accept? They would not entertain that in any shape or form. This is the only part that I can forgive with May but she would of had much more authority if she knew something of what she wanted with a party that supported her but she went ahead with neither of these.

Remember that at the time of the referendum the Tory party were in government and not Farage, Cameron was elected in 2015 to deliver a referendum. The Tory position at the referendum was to remain and that was the position of the majority of the establishment, big finance, big business etc. It wasn't the high class establishment that caused Brexit, it was the opposite, a rejection of that establishment.