Brexit to go?

[Paul]

Incidentally, WRT Trump's visit to Britain: On news radio this morning a woman who was part of some anti-Trump collective announced that they would be organising a "Carnival Of Resistance" when he comes. Short on details, except that they would follow him around making him aware what they thought of him. She sounded so excited, the prospect of being able to confront Trump was obviously all her Christmases come at once.

[MooseMom]

What in the world is going on with Brexit/Remain?  Every day I read about the current state of affairs, and every day I am just more baffled.

So, earlier today there was a large rally in London against Brexit and for a second referendum.

What do you all think of that?

On top of that, Donald Trump will be meeting the Queen next month.  How do you think the British public will react to that, if at all?  I am curious to see if the visit will even happen (and if Trump will be visiting Europe at all) after the whole separating children from parents disaster.

I'm starting to wonder if Brexit will ever happen.

Everything is just so....chaotic.

[kristina]

Wooh, shouldn't this be in "Political Debates - Thick Skin Required for Entry"? If there are enough British members from each side, this could become the nastiest argument on the board. There could even be blood.

Hello Paul ...  and ... I don't really see a chance for any "heated" arguments about it, because, after all, we don't even have an idea whether or not it might be given a chance to happen during our life-time ...

P.S. There is still a lingering suspicion that politicians were taken by surprise when the outcome of voting did not comply with expectations ...

.... I still agree with what was mentioned above ...  and .... unfortunately, recent developments have suggested, that somehow it seems to go into that direction  ... and  ...  furthermore, I have recently  heard in the radio-news, that the Brexit-deal (whatever that may mean) will cost the British taxpayer around 50--60 Billions ... (whatever that may mean) ...

[Bill Peckham]

Have recent revelations RE Brexit supporter Arron Banks, changed anyone's views in the UK on the legitimacy of the original Brexit vote?

[kristina]

Have recent revelations RE Brexit supporter Arron Banks, changed anyone's views in the UK on the legitimacy of the original Brexit vote?

What an interesting question! Through the media it only has been brought to our attention his connection to Russia and it seems there is an ongoing investigation into the foundation of his wealth ... (How did he do it ?)
You know, there are so many "political wannabees" who want to be noticed, that it is quite difficult to distinguish what or whom to take seriously and what or whom to ignore ... But I would be very surprised if Arron Banks could have any influence on people's thoughts about Brexit ...

[Bill Peckham]

Over here it has been reported to be paralleling the questions around the 2016 Presidential election, complete with the vocabulary of which hunts and fake news. Declarations of innocence that are quickly shown to be false only for new declarations of innocence promising what has been report is the full extent of the story, only for new revelations to require the process to repeat.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/04/uk/uk-brexit-russia-links-arron-banks-intl/index.html

Banks did spend a great deal of money (the provenance of which is in question), that money didn't have any influence?

[MooseMom]

Brits are the masters of irony.  I remember watching a discussion panel on the BBC that included Stephen Fry; the discussion was about how comedy translated from country to country and whether British television comedies would appeal to an American audience.  Stephen Fry commented that Americans do not understand irony and that they see everything in only black and white.

Well, even I can see the irony of this:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-britain/donald-trumps-visit-puts-brexit-britains-dependence-on-show-idUSKBN1JV0R7

And in the spirit of Boaty McBoatface, the Brits will be offering this:

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/vbj4vd/trump-will-be-met-by-a-giant-flying-trump-baby-blimp-when-he-visits-london

Brexit or no, the Brits have not exited from their famous sense of humour.

[Paul]

Have recent revelations RE Brexit supporter Arron Banks, changed anyone's views in the UK on the legitimacy of the original Brexit vote?

The results were so close that this might have been the deciding factor, but so many people hate the EU that I think they (yes, I still think of Brexiteers as "them") would have won anyway.

[Simon Dog]

Have recent revelations RE Brexit supporter Arron Banks, changed anyone's views in the UK on the legitimacy of the original Brexit vote?

The results were so close that this might have been the deciding factor, but so many people hate the EU that I think they (yes, I still think of Brexiteers as "them") would have won anyway.

Questioning the legitimacy of a vote or demanding a re-vote because people voted incorrectly is standard operating procedure for the losing side in any dispute.

[MooseMom]

The Brexit vote was different than any vote we've had in US history.  Neither side in the Brexit referendum really knew what they were voting for because leaving the EU had never been done before.

There is still considerable debate on what "Brexit" will even look like.  It's not as simple as voting for a US president or congressperson; if that person disappoints us, we can vote them out.  But once the UK leaves the EU, if the people are disapointed by the result some years down the road, too bad.

People didn't vote "incorrectly", but they certainly voted on something that didn't yet exist.  And they won't be able to truly vote on "Brexit" because they won't know what it really means until it is done.  The UK people have no say at all in the Brexit process because they don't get to vote on the final result.

The final shape of Brexit is not solely in the hands of British politicians nor in the hands of the British people.  And THAT is part of what the British did not get to vote on.

[Simon Dog]

People didn't vote "incorrectly"

My point was that there would be no questioning of the legitimacy or advocates calling for another vote if Brexit was voted down.

[MooseMom]

Well, we don't know that.  But you are probably right in that the UK would remain in the EU and would go on as usual.  There would be no great mystery as membership in the EU is a known quantity, so there would really be no need for another vote.

But there is no real outcry about the vote being "illegitimate" (other than some wondering whether or not Russia had a hand in it all).  The real question is "What exactly did we vote for?"  Like I've said, we still don't know if it will be a "hard" or "soft" Brexit, and as such, there IS a question on whether or not UK citizens should be able to vote for or against the final Brexit blueprint.

What muddies the waters is the fact that Brexiteers and pro-EU MPs don't vote along party lines.

[Simon Dog]

I suspect that the Brexit outcome was all about controlling immigration, and not about a desire for economic separation or return to pounds sterling.

[MooseMom]

I suspect that the Brexit outcome was all about controlling immigration, and not about a desire for economic separation or return to pounds sterling.

You're right in a sense, but since Brexit is by necessity more than about "controlling immigration", you've proved my point.  Again, the vote wasn't illegitimate rather than "information depleted". 

The UK never joined the Eurozone, so they still use sterling.

As for controlling immigration, that's a bit misleading.  One of the pillars of the EU is the free flow of people/labor, so if you live in, say, Poland, you can legally work in the UK and vice versa.  Those who wanted to leave the EU wanted to control that sort of movement of people, which isn't the same thing as what we think of as "immigration".

So that leaves us with a row over who should be allowed to remain in the UK.  If you are a German citizen and have lived and worked in the UK for 20 years, what happens to you and your family?  If you are British but have lived in France for 20 years, what will happen to you and YOUR family? 

Since most people don't look past the end of their own noses, more people than not who voted for Brexit neither anticipated nor particularly care about these sorts of issues.  What will happen to shared nuclear/defense resources?  What will happen to the Northern Ireland border?  All sorts of questions like this pop up every single day.

What about the free flow of goods into and out of a UK that is no longer part of the EU?  What will the approach to the Channel Tunnel look like once Brexit has arrived and lorries carrying British goods for export to the Continent have to go through further customs checks?  Calais will become a nightmare.

Like it or not, the City of London is the economic hub of, if not the entire country, at least the entire southern half of England.  Brexit will almost assuredly see the end of the City's place as the center of finance and insurance in all of Europe since we would no longer see the free flow of services.  Lloyd's of London is certainly the center of the energy industry's insurance market, but after Brexit, that honor might go to, oh I dunno, maybe Oslo in Europe and Singapore in Asia.

How many of these questions were posed before the referendum?  If what you supposed is correct, are people really so angry about "immigration" that they would cripple the financial safety of their nation?  Perhaps the answer to that is "yes". 

Brexit will be formed by negotiation with the EU unless the UK would be willing to leave without any deal at all (which may indeed happen).  In light of that, whatever deal or non-deal is made, UK citizens won't be allowed to show their approval or disapproval of the final result.  Which again leads me back to my original point which is that the original vote/referendum left much to be desired.  If I had voted for Brexit, I might well be very disappointed in the final negotiated treaty and would be very resentful of the lack of opportunity to vote on it.

[Paul]

Questioning the legitimacy of a vote or demanding a re-vote because people voted incorrectly is standard operating procedure for the losing side in any dispute.

Yes but irrelevant because:
(A) In this case there were some seriously illegal shenanigans, regardless of the result people should be prosecuted.
(B) Even accepting point "A", the brexiteers would almost certainly have won anyway, so a re-referendum would be pointless.

My point was that there would be no questioning of the legitimacy or advocates calling for another vote if Brexit was voted down.

Not true. The loosing party in our last general election were accused of using illegal methods to obtain votes. No idea where that went, because I lost interest in the damn election long before that and did not follow the story. But my point is there is questioning of legitimacy occasionally brought against the loosing side.

[Paul]

I suspect that the Brexit outcome was all about controlling immigration, and not about a desire for economic separation or return to pounds sterling.

Partially correct.

Firstly, you are correct about it having very little to do with "economic separation", most brexiteers did not believe this would happen. The campaign for brexit actually claimed that after brexit the EU would want trade to continue as it was before brexit, and it came as a nasty shock to them when they did not, and "economic separation" became a reality.

However it had nothing to do with "return to pounds sterling" because we never started using the Euro, we still use the "British" pound (sterling), and would have continued to do so if we had remained in the EU. You are thinking of the "Eurozone", which is different to the EU, not all EU member countries are members of the "Eurozone".

You are also correct in saying that controlling immigration was the main reason that brexiteers voted "out". However the second reason for the out vote came pretty close. This was that, at the time of the vote (not now), Germany had the chairmanship of the EU. Many people saw this as "Germany running Europe", which was basically what Hitler wanted, and this left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. One of the most memorable news snippets after the result was announced was an elderly WW2 veteran in tears of joy, saying that at last we had won the war and that (as he believed when we were part of the EU) his "boys" had now not died in vain.

[kickingandscreaming]

Always good to hear the local perspective.

[MooseMom]

Paul, what would you personally like Brexit to look like?

And, what do you THINK it will end up looking like?

Do you think there will be a new Prime Minister by the time Brexit negotiations are finalized?

[Paul]

Paul, what would you personally like Brexit to look like?

Personally I'd like to wake up and find it was all a dream, and that either the remainers won the referendum, or there was no referendum at all. However, in the real world I would like to see some open borders deal, trade wise. But most importantly I would like to see the health service arrangements between Britain and the EU remain. At the moment I can get free dialysis anywhere in the EU, which makes holidays easy. I doubt this will survive brexit (but I am hoping).

And, what do you THINK it will end up looking like?

The biggest financial disaster to hit Britain ever.

Plus: I live about as far south as it is possible to live and still qualify as living in outer London. But if we get no deal on open borders, I expect the traffic for ferries to build up far enough for it to cause problems if I travel in a southern direction.

In short, it will be a nightmare, be prepared to get frantic begging emails from anyone you still know in Britain.

Do you think there will be a new Prime Minister by the time Brexit negotiations are finalized?

No, I think the idiot May will continue in the post until brexit is done and dusted. I doubt she will last long afterwards though.

At this point in the negotiations it would be a bad idea to change the person in charge, however incompetent she may be. But afterwards, she is bad for the country and bad for her party. The last election should have been a landslide victory for her, instead she managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and is only in power because she managed to arrange a coalition with another minor (in Westminster, not minor in NI) party. I expect her party will ditch her as soon as brexit is over, as she will loose them the next election. With her at the helm they could easily become the third party, something that hasn't happened ever, to my knowledge. And if they don't ditch her, her party will loose the next election, so she will be gone either way.

[Bill Peckham]

All you need to know is the age of the people most involved. In this case they are baby boomers, of which I am one, and thus a member of the Worst Generation. As a group the generation born after the war and before some point in the early '60s is a selfish group all too ready to cash in the civic equity their fathers and grandfathers built. As a generation we are trust fund babies living off all the wise investments of others. And like trust fund babies generally their primary interest is in themselves, everyone else be damned.


Of course some trust fund babies do great things but as group they are a greedy, narcissistic lot. Bridges crumble (literally and figuratively), institutions destroyed and the mob of Boomers cheer.

[kristina]

... Would you believe it ... Today I heard in the radio-news that a second vote for or against Brexit might be prepared because - apparently - the first vote "went wrong", mainly because many youngsters were too young at the time to vote but they understand now what Brexit might be all about and how it would/could affect them and they have decided to take part in public demonstrations to demand very strongly a second chance to vote for or against Brexit ... 

[cassandra]

I doubt there's going to be one, but as reasonable reasons for a second referendum are being denied, than maybe this completely absurd one is going to win the gray vote over.

[Paul]

because many youngsters were too young at the time to vote

I agree that another general referendum is a bad idea. But the point the youngsters make is a valid one. They never got to vote in their own future, they deserve a say. What we need is a referendum for those too young to vote last time ONLY, not those who voted last time. Preferably everyone over 16, but failing that, everyone who will be over 18 by the time we finally leave. Then add their votes to the votes cast in the previous referendum and recount using the results of both referendums.

Mrs May keeps banging on about how having a second referendum would be anti-democratic, which may be true (I'll leave wiser minds to adjudicate on that one). However not giving a vote to everyone, including those who will have to live their entire lives from the fallout of Brexit,  is not just anti-democratic - it is fascism!

[Simon Dog]

The problem with a revote is that it is undemocratic, unless you buy into the premise that there would also be a revote if Brexit was turned down.   It reeks of 'You did not vote correctly the first time, so we are giving you a chance to get it right".

We have that in MA and NY.   If a school budget or tax increase is turned down, token changes are made and the vote re-taken until the answer is "Yes".  If the answer to any such vote is "Yes", those opposed are not given the opportunity for a revote.

However not giving a vote to everyone, including those who will have to live their entire lives from the fallout of Brexit,  is not just anti-democratic - it is fascism!

So if the answer is still "no", it there an annual revote to count those just turning voting age?  And what of those who wanted "no"?  Are they given a revote to count the votes of newly eligible voters every time a new batch come of age, or is a revote reserved only for those cases where the citizenry voted "incorrectly"?

[kristina]

because many youngsters were too young at the time to vote

I agree that another general referendum is a bad idea. But the point the youngsters make is a valid one. They never got to vote in their own future, they deserve a say. What we need is a referendum for those too young to vote last time ONLY, not those who voted last time. Preferably everyone over 16, but failing that, everyone who will be over 18 by the time we finally leave. Then add their votes to the votes cast in the previous referendum and recount using the results of both referendums.

Mrs May keeps banging on about how having a second referendum would be anti-democratic, which may be true (I'll leave wiser minds to adjudicate on that one). However not giving a vote to everyone, including those who will have to live their entire lives from the fallout of Brexit,  is not just anti-democratic - it is fascism!

Hello Paul, I quite agree with what you say and especially the point of the youngsters is a valid one... the only problem that could develop though, is the fact that many voting-decisions were made when you and/or I were youngsters and, too young to vote, we had to accept the voting-decisions of our seniors, whether we agreed with it or not...