The benefits of Brexit - the future of the United Kingdom

JoeBloggs777 · Mar 25, 2019

Taleweaver said:
The UK is still a democracy, right?

we had a democratic vote and the majority voted out, I wonder if at the next election these MP's would be happy to stand for a second vote if the oppersition kicked up a fuss ?

THe MP's on both sides have caused all the problems, we all know most don't want ot leave the EU, they don't care what the majority voted for, how is that democracy ?

notimp · Mar 25, 2019

i actually like the posting above, because it makes you think about structural influences.

Lets get into it for a while.

So UKIP wants to - essentially - leave at all cost. Says ireland issue is overblown. "Just do it." Still gives them political capital, because they are not in power (can curse out the existing admin, if things go wrong).

Labour is useless in regards to this question as of now - their actions currently are done to gain domestic policy capital, with the folks agree, that the vote was idiotic (harms the people who voted for it (lower income) most - in the upcoming years - is a very likely outcome). But to demand a second vote so soon - isnt going to fly from a democratic perspective.

Admin is trying to do the following. Not to provoke a crisis with ireland (just think of it, as one of the countries, that looses the most, when leaving the EU), not lose access to EU markets (thats a thing where both the UK and the EU win, if thats the outcome, but the EU cant do it at "here have it for free" cost, and the costs would always have to be "you have to adher to EU rules, or get a worse outcome on a trade deal", otherwise the thing (EU) blows up) -- and strangely enough, to play for time.

Now the conventional wisdom is, that they play for time, to get the current agreement through parliament for the third time - but that seems idiotic, and not very likely. (Speaker of the house spoke out against it, but that means nothing if push comes to shove.)

Imho - more likely scenario is, that UK is playing for time, to get their preliminary deals in place with important partners all over the world. For that the current back stop deal is "hindering". So publicly delaying serves two purposes. First, buying time. Second, to get the EU moving time after time, after time on an issue that negatively impacts their trade negotiations (preliminary ones, arent called that right now), which buys them "face".

Now the EU essentially has said, stop doing that - we are not believing in your good will anymore, and calling your bluff.

The thing is, that economically, access to the EU markets is still very important for both partners - and what you are seeing right now, is positioning to get a better outcome on each side. In the end, this also goes for ireland (will get subsidized in a harder exit scenario).

I dont believe for a moment, that this is all people running around having no idea what to do.

Again, thats just UKIP telling you this, so you vote for them.

Brexit - likely - will still mean a very substantial trade deal between the EU and britain. If the EU does that without putting the UK down in the public eye, they loose heavily. So everything that makes the UK seem like total wankers, is good for "face" on the EU side. If a deal is brokered, a "you have to look like total wankers for a bit" clause is likely to be part of it.

If everything turns out no deal, things become hostile, and this logic goes out of the window.

notimp · Mar 25, 2019

This is also why the "what he said, she said - and then they said" game of "public" politics is entirely useless, if you want to get a sense of the overall picture on a certain issue. Its fluff. If you are "into politics" for that - you dont understand politics.

Politics to a larger extend is, and always will be "my delegation talks to your delegation behind closed doors - then an outcome is brokered, then somone announces it publicly" - especially in foreign politics.

Concepts like the Chatham House Rule ( ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule) really drive that point home. Which is just a very interesting concept (diplomacy).

If you break it down, it goes like this. If you are intelligent. You always play the "public image" on important issues as well. The public stage, isnt the entirety of "whats done" to begin with, its just part of it. And in the end you cant help but to get drawn into the drama of the public sphere ("whats been announced, and when") as well - so you arent only "the driver" of the whole thing.

This - in concept, doesnt rely on the existence of "elites", it just makes a point for - intelligent people, dont let others see their hands, just because a journalist asks them to. This is universally correct and always will be. Also - deals arent brokered in front of the press, they are brokered in rooms - where the press waits outside - and then after its done, someone goes out to them and announces the outcome. This as well is universally correct, and always will be.

(If you are in an event where the press gets "universal access" and is allowed to write about everything - something has gone wrong substencialy..

Those are just deliberations that should make you think about politics less on a "and those where the five things the house did today, and this is what they mean - level". To follow the overall scope of things, those things (and personal politics) matter very little. Yet its all that media usually "is about". Newspapers "the least", but even they have to drum up personal drama and tell you about different faces in public to sell their work.

You'll arrive at this logically without the need of "shortcuts" like, 'fake news', 'elites we cant get rid of'. It just makes sense, on its own.

Taleweaver · Mar 25, 2019

JoeBloggs777 said:
we had a democratic vote and the majority voted out, I wonder if at the next election these MP's would be happy to stand for a second vote if the oppersition kicked up a fuss ?

THe MP's on both sides have caused all the problems, we all know most don't want ot leave the EU, they don't care what the majority voted for, how is that democracy ?

You certainly had a democratic vote. And no matter how you turn it: it has been followed through. There has been huge negotiations with the EU, problems have been found and...erm...with some notable and important exceptions aside, they have at least been addressed somewhat. There was a deal. It didn't fulfill the pipedream that was promised, but it was a deal nonetheless. Like you say: it wasn't the EU's fault that it was shot down twice.

But here's the thing: the no deal brexit won't bring that pipedream of "taking back control" any closer to reality either. Well...perhaps more strictly: it might, but at what cost? What's the point of having the freedom to make deals on your own terms if using that freedom might leave you without trade partners(1)?

You interestingly mention the next election. That got me thinking: why is it that you vote a new government each four years, but is the brexit referendum (that has - no offence to your government - a much larger role on the daily lives of inhabitants) so set in stone?

Look...to me, it's like with Trump in the USA. I don't really mind someone disagreeing with my stance, but I hate it when my stance is being mocked for something that it isn't. The EU certainly has some disadvantages, but has advantages as well. If the UK wanted out because they disliked the disadvantages too much, so be it (the EU isn't a prison). I would've been fine with it if it wasn't for the cherry picking that followed. "We want total independence!!! Oh, wait...skip that...we want total independence, but we'll gladly take that free goods movement advantage from the EU, mmkay? What do you mean 'follow EU regulations for that'? We said we want total independence!".
And it's one thing that you want to negotiate better trade deal than what you currently have, but why would anyone agree to it if that means they're getting a worse deal? And spreading the rumor your trade partner is "a bureaucratic nightmare" isn't the way to go either...that only lessens the chance of any deal to begin with.

...and I realise I'm mostly rambling with something that has only partially to do with your post. Sorry about that.

(1): let's take food safety regulations as an example. There are European guidelines for this. Do you really want the liberty to set up your own regulations if that means that no EU country would want to import your food?

Taleweaver · Mar 25, 2019

JoeBloggs777 said:
we had a democratic vote and the majority voted out, I wonder if at the next election these MP's would be happy to stand for a second vote if the oppersition kicked up a fuss ?

THe MP's on both sides have caused all the problems, we all know most don't want ot leave the EU, they don't care what the majority voted for, how is that democracy ?

You certainly had a democratic vote. And no matter how you turn it: it has been followed through. There has been huge negotiations with the EU, problems have been found and...erm...with some notable and important exceptions aside, they have at least been addressed somewhat. There was a deal. It didn't fulfill the pipedream that was promised, but it was a deal nonetheless. Like you say: it wasn't the EU's fault that it was shot down twice.

But here's the thing: the no deal brexit won't bring that pipedream of "taking back control" any closer to reality either. Well...perhaps more strictly: it might, but at what cost? What's the point of having the freedom to make deals on your own terms if using that freedom might leave you without trade partners(1)?

You interestingly mention the next election. That got me thinking: why is it that you vote a new government each four years, but is the brexit referendum (that has - no offence to your governme

(1): let's take food safety regulations as an example. There are European guidelines for this. Do you really want the liberty to set up your own regulations if that means that no EU country would want to import your food?

shamzie said:
WTO is a trade deal. This sums it up better than I can.

I gotta say this is a pretty interesting graph. I was pretty surprised to see the amount of regions that voted 'leave'...until I saw what those regions were. Yeah...if Gibraltar (95% remain) gets lumped up with South West England, then it can be perceived that way. Likewise, apparently Scotland and Northern Ireland are "just" one region each.

But on my end, I have to concede three things:
1) 2% difference in outcome votes still means over a million votes. It's easy to lose track of that when just comparing the difference.
2) the results are less polarizing that I thought they'd be. Or more, depending on how to interpret things. Almost all regions have in the 40-60 scale. With only a few exceptions, there are few regions that were fully backed on either side. To me, it was always implied that "Scotland and Northern Ireland might rebel", but that seems pretty unlikely, going by this kind of outcome. Scotland probably won't attempt to get rid of the UK and join the EU independently, as I've heard suggest...38% brexit votes (or one in every four citizens) is no small minority for such a dramatic action.
3) the MP's indeed do not reflect the general public's view on things.

Hmm...

FAST6191 · Mar 25, 2019

blahblah said:
I really wish I knew why people use GBAtemp as a website to launder right wing crypto-fascist garbage they were taught from YouTube.

There are no benefits to Brexit. It would irreparably harm England, and much of the world with it. It will not wind up happening as a result.

blahblah said:
Why is this thread allowed to exist? Lock it, delete it, let's move on. Stop allowing crypto-fascists to launder garbage they were taught by Youtube.

So you have been twice now and at neither time have you offered any reasoning for it. You are once more invited to provide some.

Doran754 · Mar 25, 2019

Taleweaver said:
(1): let's take food safety regulations as an example. There are European guidelines for this. Do you really want the liberty to set up your own regulations if that means that no EU country would want to import your food?

Yes, yes I do. Because that's what it's all about. The EU isn't everything, and you're certainly going to struggle when the UK stops paying in net billions each year. There's another 180 countries around the world to trade with.

About your point of a second referendum - the first vote hasn't been enacted yet. The only people who want a second referendum or a "final say" (You'll note they're calling it a final say because they wouldn't want a third referendum if they win, so leave has to win twice but remain only once? lol) There's nothing democratic about it, It was once in a generation. You can't change the rules because you lost. What happens if its remain by even less than vote leave won this time. Like I said, the only reason you advocate another vote is because you want YOUR WAY. It's not going too happen. All another vote does is disenfranchise everybody who voted to leave, it undermines our very process of democracy and further divides the country.

FAST6191 said:
So you have been twice now and at neither time have you offered any reasoning for it. You are once more invited to provide some.

He's been twice, cried about a differing point of view twice and tried to shut down free speech. I wonder if he's on the left?

FAST6191 · Mar 25, 2019

shamzie said:
About your point of a second referendum - the first vote hasn't been enacted yet. The only people who want a second referendum or a "final say" (You'll note they're calling it a final say because they wouldn't want a third referendum if they win, so leave has to win twice but remain only once? lol) There's nothing democratic about it, It was once in a generation. You can't change the rules because you lost. What happens if its remain by even less than vote leave won this time. Like I said, the only reason you advocate another vote is because you want YOUR WAY. It's not going too happen. All another vote does is disenfranchise everybody who voted to leave, it undermines our very process of democracy and further divides the country.

There are occasions where laws have been repealed because their effects had some unforeseen repercussions, the ability to implement it was too taxing or just change of will. Given the UK politicos seem to be acting blindly with thumbs up their arses for years now... and as amusing as it is to see demonstrable evidence that this crop could not organise a piss up in a brewery it could see a change in will.
If people had voted leave and expected... baseline competence in politics and diplomacy (a reasonable expectation given the UK is some starving third world shithole just yet) then given what we have got I could see it. To have it happen would represent the proverbial cherry on top of the failure sundae, and erode even more trust in UK politicos than this last few years already has so I am not expecting anything.

As for the other thing I did find it amusing that now sitting in 20 pages of usually reasonable discussion wherein numbers, points of logic and all sorts of things related to economics, history, politics, diplomacy and all the rest are being brought and discussed, counters and further discussion.

Taleweaver · Mar 25, 2019

shamzie said:
Yes, yes I do. Because that's what it's all about. The EU isn't everything, and you're certainly going to struggle when the UK stops paying in net billions each year. There's another 180 countries around the world to trade with.

*sigh*

Where did I say the EU was "everything"? To my knowledge, nothing was stopping you from making trade deals with others. However, the brexit argument reduces the EU to less than it is. I don't want to tout (okay...I admit: I sort of do) but the absense of tension between Northern Ireland and Ireland hinges on the membership of the same union. I can understand the criticism on May's deal that it doesn't properly addresses that situation, but at least it somewhat addresses it. the 'no deal' scenario basically makes it an incident in the making.

Oh, and...I doubt the EU will be struggling because the UK has about the same amount of EU money flowing into it as UK money was flowing in the EU.

shamzie said:
About your point of a second referendum - the first vote hasn't been enacted yet. The only people who want a second referendum or a "final say" (You'll note they're calling it a final say because they wouldn't want a third referendum if they win, so leave has to win twice but remain only once? lol) There's nothing democratic about it, It was once in a generation. You can't change the rules because you lost. What happens if its remain by even less than vote leave won this time. Like I said, the only reason you advocate another vote is because you want YOUR WAY. It's not going too happen. All another vote does is disenfranchise everybody who voted to leave, it undermines our very process of democracy and further divides the country.

You think I'd be here "complaining" if the UK government hadn't made such a mess? Leave's promises were flat out lies, which is clearly reflected in the actual deal being denied.

Holding a second referendum on the same topic could be against some legislation, but if Bercow's argument holds water, shouldn't that be only the case if the referendum is "substantially the same"? Again: the brexit deal (or deals if you want to cram May's deal in it as well) is not the one people voted for. If you go out and buy a Rolls Royce, but upon delivery just get a bike with the words 'Rolls Royce' on it, it'd be pretty silly that the salespeople say that you ran out of time to choose a car and therefore have to obey some ancient mystic car dealership rules that say that you can't change your car vote and go with the bike.

Yes, yes...I know: the comparison only works if the proposed brexit is actually different than what would happen under May's deal (or no deal). Well...lemme google this for you:
11 broken brexit promises
the border backdrop situation
more analysis of the difference between promise and reality

I can dig up some Dutch news articles as well (which basically spell the same thing), but I assume these are more credible within the UK.

Doran754 · Mar 25, 2019

Taleweaver said:
I gotta say this is a pretty interesting graph. I was pretty surprised to see the amount of regions that voted 'leave'...until I saw what those regions were. Yeah...if Gibraltar (95% remain) gets lumped up with South West England, then it can be perceived that way. Likewise, apparently Scotland and Northern Ireland are "just" one region each.

But on my end, I have to concede three things:
1) 2% difference in outcome votes still means over a million votes. It's easy to lose track of that when just comparing the difference.
2) the results are less polarizing that I thought they'd be. Or more, depending on how to interpret things. Almost all regions have in the 40-60 scale. With only a few exceptions, there are few regions that were fully backed on either side. To me, it was always implied that "Scotland and Northern Ireland might rebel", but that seems pretty unlikely, going by this kind of outcome. Scotland probably won't attempt to get rid of the UK and join the EU independently, as I've heard suggest...38% brexit votes (or one in every four citizens) is no small minority for such a dramatic action.
3) the MP's indeed do not reflect the general public's view on things.

Hmm...

You're knowledge is wrong, the EU is literally stopping us making our own trade deals right now because were still a member of the customs union, so that amazing democractic union (who's never been audited or whos presidents i didn't vote for and i can't remove) is deciding our trade policy. Every vote counted. It doesn't matter if Scotland or London or Gibraltar voted to leave or stay, their votes were tallied the same as everybody elses. It always makes me laugh this argument. The rules were setout before hand. This tired of argument of Scotland voted to stay wahh, It wasn't just England, Wales voted to leave aswell. Wales voted for their own parliamentary assembly by 0.3% and guess what happened? The vote was enacted. You need to get over all the crap the mainstream (lefty) media is spouting. I knew exactly what I voted for, the gravy train is over. You'll have to find another country with Germany and France to subsidise you.

I'm not going over the same old points above, "lies, we didn't know what we voted for! we'll have no medicine!" I'm bored of the same old tired rhetoric above from people who lost the vote. You LOST the vote, the only people complaining are the losers because you didn't get your way, the vote was legal and democratic. If it's turned into such a shitstorm its because of people like yourselves who are unwilling to let go of the fact that you're in the minority and people dont actually agree with your warped world view.

blahblah · Mar 25, 2019

At least change the thread's title. Again - zero benefits and won't wind up happening. Fascist-adjacent brexiters (aka all of them) will just have to deal with that reality.

FAST6191 · Mar 25, 2019

blahblah said:
At least change the thread's title. Again - zero benefits and won't wind up happening. Fascist-adjacent brexiters (aka all of them) will just have to deal with that reality.

The thread's title is pretty neutral, and uses a fairly standard discussion topic phrasing method. The opening post continues with the theme and looks at making something of a dispassionate analysis and seeking further discussion, which is what has been done ever since.

You are the main one crying over things, making baseless claims, insulting people and otherwise making a nuisance when the rest of us are trying to have a conversation (or playing devil's advocate).

Xzi · Mar 25, 2019

Apparently the 77-year-old lady who started the petition to remain is receiving multiple death threats:

https://news.sky.com/story/woman-be...death-threats-as-it-passes-4-million-11673447

Pretty fucked up. The petition has over 4 million signatures now.

AmandaRose · Mar 25, 2019

Xzi said:
Apparently the 77-year-old lady who started the petition to remain is receiving multiple death threats:

https://news.sky.com/story/woman-be...death-threats-as-it-passes-4-million-11673447

Pretty fucked up. The petition has over 4 million signatures now.

The petition is actually sitting currently at 5,629,213 signatures

Doran754 · Mar 25, 2019

Xzi said:
Apparently the 77-year-old lady who started the petition to remain is receiving multiple death threats:

https://news.sky.com/story/woman-be...death-threats-as-it-passes-4-million-11673447

Pretty fucked up. The petition has over 4 million signatures now.

She has also made plenty of death threats, I've seen the screenshots.

Doran754 · Mar 27, 2019

She should be our PM

JoeBloggs777 · Mar 27, 2019

shamzie said:
She should be our PM

that sums everything up nicely

I'm in 2 minds about May, shes screwed up calling an early election, if she had not maybe all this messed would have never happened, she would not have been in a weaker position to cut a deal the EU.

then shes a strong woman weaked by the bickering remainer MP's, she was and is determined to take the UK out of the EU

oh breaking news, she will quit if her deal goes thru.

Doran754 · Mar 27, 2019

She's a remainer. She always planned this, they all did. Come out with an atrocious deal, knowing it will never pass then she can say "oh well I tried" which makes the EU look amazing in comparison.

Taleweaver · Mar 28, 2019

Interesting times in the UK right now. Since it has become personal against May (also in this thread, at quite some times), May offered to resign if it'd get her deal through. Instead, parliament held...erm...I'm not sure if I should call it a petition, a motion or a coup, but no matter the name: they took over. They voted for what kind of deal they wanted to achieve(1)...

And voted no on no less than eight possible alternatives.

(1): which is about two years too late, as the EU was done negotiating before the last two delays

shamzie said:
She should be our PM

Yeah...the problem is that you currently have such a PM. One that starts with the assumption that the EU needs the UK more than vice versa, and is convinced that all that is needed is a clear vision of what the UK needs to achieve. It's kind of self-evident, but...the EU also wants things. And while I personally disagree with May's deal (as obvious, I just want you guys to remain), at least she understands this. Both the UK and EU have - or should have - a good relationship as common goal, and as such, talking terms used are in the vein of "partners", "trade deals" and "good standing". That news reporter suggests just passing by what terms the EU deems necessary for a union to work, just cherry picking the parts the UK likes and contributing nothing but joined projects (erm...isn't the maintenance of free movement part of that contribution?).

shamzie said:
She's a remainer. She always planned this, they all did. Come out with an atrocious deal, knowing it will never pass then she can say "oh well I tried" which makes the EU look amazing in comparison.

Yes, she's a remainer, indeed. And do you remember WHY she got that position?
It's because none of the brexiteers had a solid plan to work on, had no idea on the details they wanted to achieve or how to do it. And this isn't even me being sarcastic about things: Farage quit ukip mere days after the brexit result, and Boris Johnson and Michael Gove were busy backstabbing each other. I might be wrong (and to be honest: I'm all ears on news sources that point out an alternative narrative

), but I think May was just chosen because nobody else wanted the hassle of dealing with the EU (well knowing that they'd never agree on the wild promises that were given to the people).

tooknie · Mar 28, 2019

Jonathan Pie captures it perfectly

The benefits of Brexit - the future of the United Kingdom

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Storywriter

Storywriter

Techromancer

Conform comrades

Techromancer

Storywriter

Conform comrades

Well-Known Member

Techromancer

Time to fly, 621

Do what I do. Hold tight and pretend it’s a plan

Conform comrades

Conform comrades

Well-Known Member

Conform comrades

Storywriter

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum