The Brexit aftermath thread

[Deleted]

But you are arguing against people changing their minds - and you're using bad numbers to do so. How long ago was the Brexit vote? 6 months you say?

Sorry if I wasn't clear, i'm going off of when Brexit actually started, when we put in Article 50, about 6 months ago.

And no once again, i'm not arguing against people changing there minds, i'm arguing against those changed opinions having an effect on policy.

[Acidbaron]

I just want to clear something up here, because I feel like it needs to be stated. I voted Remain, I don't want Brexit to happen.

A second one would tell us that after we've already triggered Article 50 and started the process of Brexit people don't want to do it anymore.

Which anyone with a brain could already tell you, people don't like change, they don't want change, they don't want uncertainty, so they'll vote to Remain and hopefully end the process.

My argument is, after all that is done, and on the off chance that the EU says "Hey sure, let's just forget about everything thats happened since the Referendum result was announced", what do you think the people who voted Leave in both referendums are going to do? Do you think there just gonna shut up about it and respect the result of the second referendum?

If we have a second referendum, a third is inevitable, anything else would be at best base hypocrisy and at worst a completely debasement of democracy.

And so the cycle would continue and whos at fault really? British politicians who have made it into a sport of demonizing and scapegoating every national british issue on the EU.

What probably again boils down to your simply outdated politican 2 party system, where there is very little room for sensible and moderate discussions.

[Deleted]

One referendum to enter exhausting talks (demonstrate willingness / unwillingness), one referendum to decide on the final conditions (acceptable? unacceptable?).
This is what the referendum should have been about in the first place, not "Brexit means Brexit we be burnin' every bridge no matter the cost".

My only argument against this approach was that we had already had talks about the UKs membership in the EU, prior to the Referendum vote. Cameron went and negotiated to try and get us a better deal (not that we deserved it in the slightest) and he got us a slightly better one.

That and the fact that I doubt the EU would be willing to let us back in with the same deal that we had previously, so no ones going to vote to accept those terms because they look far worse than what we originally had.

- - - Updated - - -

And so the cycle would continue and whos at fault really? British politicians who have made it into a sport of demonizing and scapegoating every national british issue on the EU.

What probably again boils down to your simply outdated politican 2 party system, where there is very little room for sensible and moderate discussions.

I don't disagree?

[Acidbaron]

I don't disagree?

I wasn't implying that you were, merely pointing out that a brexit was bound to happen due to the political structure and (social) media focus on politics and politicians.

[Noradin]

It has been decided by the will of the people to leave the eu.

Apparently it is the will of the people to make the UK leave the EU but stay in France themselves.

[cubby]

Sorry if I wasn't clear, i'm going off of when Brexit actually started, when we put in Article 50, about 6 months ago.

Ah, gotcha - I'm not sure that is a very "fair" timeline to use, as people decided 15 months ago. I can see using both time frames though. For future, I'm using the referendum vote. I'll remember you're using the A50.

And no once again, i'm not arguing against people changing there minds, i'm arguing against those changed opinions having an effect on policy.

But that's exactly how policy is made - by people changing their minds. They decide that what is happening isn't good and they make a change. Move forward with what they decided. And if new info comes to light that makes that decision not-so-good, then they can redirect their efforts.

I know I keep harping on this - but I think it's a key perspective to remember. Changing minds is a function of democracy. If you realize you did something bad, fixing it is the best thing possible. Right?

Also, on an aside, I appreciate your arguing on this - knowing that you thought/think Brexit was a bad idea. Good conversation.

[Deleted]

de gaulle was an asshole and a cynic who at the last moment changed britain's entry details to give up our fisheries, dooming our waters to spain and france.

there's also a famous quote:

and for what it's worth, a no deal brexit is a victory for Britain because it's what the public have voted for. either eu capitulates and Britain wins, or Britains walks from talks and wins.

like i said earlier, checkmate. we've got you.

Say, what you want about the man. He was right about Perfidious Albion.
Also, you were only let in after he was dead. It was Pompidou, who caved, stopped blocking UK membership and changed the the Common Fisheries Policy. Not his fault if you do not have decent representives.

[Noradin]

Now personally, I don't think we should have referendums, because I don't think the average person understands enough to make an informed decision which leads to votes being cast for emotional reasons, which will never lead us anywhere.

I think the problem is even more fundamental: It is almost always impossible to reduce the complex problems where referendums matter down to a question that can be answered with a simple yes or no. I have voted in quite a few referendums where both sides were equally unsupportable if the outcome would have been binding.

[Mayhem]

One referendum to enter exhausting talks (demonstrate willingness / unwillingness), one referendum to decide on the final conditions (acceptable? unacceptable?).
This is what the referendum should have been about in the first place, not "Brexit means Brexit we be burnin' every bridge no matter the cost".

I mean even average Joe should understand the logic. Most big decisions in life (should) be made like that. First you talk with your wife whether the family needs a new car, and if the answer is "yes", you check out available offers. And once you have all the information on the table you make the final decision. Maybe you will come to the conclusion that your old car is still good enough compared to the new one, maybe you realize that you can't afford the new car without saving elsewhere, or maybe the car salesman is such an arrogant piece of shit that you simply don't buy the car - out of principle. But whatever the final decision might be, you thought things through. Things on the table, not in a castle in the air.

Either way at this point I don't mind either way, because I do believe that the current government of GB is harmful to the union and should leave as soon as possible, but this is how I would want referendums to be done in general. And once those two referendums are held, the decision lasts for exactly one generation, round about 25 years.

That would be terrible though. Having the EU in constant negotiations with it's partners about staying a part of the Union would make the Union not working at all rendering it basically a useless club where every member is always arguing about what benefits they should get out of it.

Also i don't quite get your analogy. Is the wife, the car or the salesman the EU? Because if it's the wife, then it would be either a new car or divorce, if it's the car then who the hell is the wife, and if it's the salesman who the fuck is the car and the wife?

- - - Updated - - -

But that's exactly how policy is made - by people changing their minds. They decide that what is happening isn't good and they make a change. Move forward with what they decided. And if new info comes to light that makes that decision not-so-good, then they can redirect their efforts.

I know I keep harping on this - but I think it's a key perspective to remember. Changing minds is a function of democracy. If you realize you did something bad, fixing it is the best thing possible. Right?

What you seem to keep ignoring is that this is not the sole decision of the British people anymore as A50 has been invocted.

[Deleted]

When I read Floppa talking about British fishery:




But it's a good metaphor for the Brexit, UK being the dancing guy and the EU the standing guy.

[ranzino]

- - - Updated - - -

What you seem to keep ignoring is that this is not the sole decision of the British people anymore as A50 has been invocted.

Naaaaah, Donald Tusk got the news: "no brexit" is possible and Theresa can do the trick all by herself.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politi...rexit-brussels

anybody tempted to call the big bang ?

[Floopa]

reversing brexit would be the beginning of the end of democracy for Britain and would mark our fall to germany and the eu.

it would be bad.

[Deleted]

reversing brexit would be the beginning of the end of democracy for Britain and would mark our fall to germany and the eu.

it would be bad.

But you will move to France, so why do you care?

[Mayhem]

Naaaaah, Donald Tusk got the news: "no brexit" is possible and Theresa can do the trick all by herself.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politi...rexit-brussels

anybody tempted to call the big bang ?

Woah, ok, i thought it's not possible. Well, let's see then.

[Noradin]

What you seem to keep ignoring is that this is not the sole decision of the British people anymore as A50 has been invocted.

Exactly, I for one wouldn't want them back before they introduce a proper democratic system.

[Daws]

Any call for a new vote could well fall flat on it's face given the potential mayhem kicking off in Spain. If Spain force control over Catalonia and are dumb enough to kill any civilians whilst the EU does nothing to intervene then expect that to play a major part in brexiters strategy to win votes.

[ranzino]

Woah, ok, i thought it's not possible. Well, let's see then.

sort of impossible to pull that stunt; this sweet apple is poisoned. theresa may would save britain a lot of headache, but it would also kill her career.
my guess: if Brexit IS somehow removed nobody will have the balls in britain to call another referendum; the case is closed then.

[cubby]

What you seem to keep ignoring is that this is not the sole decision of the British people anymore as A50 has been invocted.

I'm not sure that I can ignore something that hasn't been brought to my attention yet, however, that is beside the point. Now that A50 has been invoked, can Britain alone withdraw it? I don't know much about that process.

[Mayhem]

Exactly, I for one wouldn't want them back before they introduce a proper democratic system.

As Donald Tusk said it's possible for the UK to stop brexit, however he doesn't say if they would regain all their privileges or not. Will have to read up on this one as i think it's quite stupid to let a member invoke A50 and stop it whenever it's not checking out for them.

[cubby]

Exactly, I for one wouldn't want them back before they introduce a proper democratic system.

What do mean?