The Brexit aftermath thread

[Kallisto]

"I joined the party believing it to be a quietly racist party with basically racist aims. But it has now changed into a party that's openly racist, which means it might be a bit damaging to my efforts to continue to avoid work by appearing on political talk shows. So I'm leaving to join another party that will keep their racism under the hood, so to speak".

When he first joined with a group of buddies the party was essentially a what if the lib dems were eurosceptic. But he and his too right for the tories buddies made it what we see it as today.

[Pann]

Nope. You haven't. You are still misrepresenting what I said, possibly deliberately. And you are still stating your opinions like they are flat out facts. WHICH THEY AREN'T.

Whether it "respects the democratic result" has literally fuck all to do with which one damages the country, or indeed the Tories. Unless you believe that voters would punish the Tories based on failure to follow democratic votes and nothing else? So if they went and cancelled Brexit and suddenly everyone had a million pounds and their own unicorn, they would still be sitting there saying "damn those Tories for giving us the money and mythical beasts, I'm still not voting for them because they ignored the plebiscite."

It's arguable which one damages the Tories more. I believe that no-deal damages more than no-Brexit. Others can argue that it's the other way around, and I can't really fault them for that because it is very, very hard to make a call either way. There are too many moving parts. I'm edging towards no-deal being worse because I think the impacts of that will be longer lasting.

And I stand by what I said; if we end up staying I do not believe that the Tories thinking will be based on what is best for the country. If they were working on that basis, we wouldn't have had the referendum in the first place, a wildly divisive and damaging action brought about by the Tories to solve their own internal rifts. Their primary concern will be whether their own party can get away with the damage. If they think about what is best for the country at all, it will be a distant second.

No, I am not! I wouldn't dream of taking your job in the thread.

Yeah, when you need to resort such hyperbole it should be a clue that your point is rubbish. Whether you think otherwise or not many voters will not tolerate theirs or other's votes being ignored. Why do you think parliament has ploughed on with Brexit despite pretty much every single MP, aside from a few headbangers, thinking it is a bad idea? And if ignoring the vote was so easy why haven't Lab come out against it?

Of course you, to think otherwise wouldn't fit with your anti-Tory bias.

How does the rise of UKIP who got 12.6% of the vote in 2015 on the back of a single issue - leaving the European Union, fit into this little story? Whether you want to acknowledge it or not anti-EU sentiment was growing in the UK and if the Cons had not offered a referendum on our membership, and don't forget Miliband was offering his own wishy-washy referendum, do you think that UKIP support would have increased or they would have just forgotten all about it?

[Huehuecoyotl]

No, I am not! I wouldn't dream of taking your job in the thread.

Yeah, when you need to resort such hyperbole it should be a clue that your point is rubbish. Whether you think otherwise or not many voters will not tolerate theirs or other's votes being ignored. Why do you think parliament has ploughed on with Brexit despite pretty much every single MP, aside from a few headbangers, thinking it is a bad idea? And if ignoring the vote was so easy why haven't Lab come out against it?

Of course you, to think otherwise wouldn't fit with your anti-Tory bias.

How does the rise of UKIP who got 12.6% of the vote in 2015 on the back of a single issue - leaving the European Union, fit into this little story? Whether you want to acknowledge it or not anti-EU sentiment was growing in the UK and if the Cons had not offered a referendum on our membership, and don't forget Miliband was offering his own wishy-washy referendum, do you think that UKIP support would have increased or they would have just forgotten all about it?

There is rising sentiment about any number of things. The under-investment in the NHS. Rail fares. The school funding crisis. Any one of those could have been put to a nationwide vote, but yet they weren't. Why do you think that was, exactly?

Because none of them were an existential crisis for the Tory party.

Can you remember any other time when the Tories gave us a referendum on anything? Even when the country was facing significant decisions? It doesn't happen, because they are quite happy doing whatever the hell they want. Cameron gave us the vote in this instance because he expected to win handily, and thought that would tamp down on the anti Europeans in his party. That was why he did it. He may well have hoped that it would staunch the flow of voters to UKIP at the same time, but party was his primary concern.

And why do I think Parliament have pushed on with Brexit? Because cancelling it at an earlier stage would have damaged the Tory party. Which part of that is too complicated for you to get? They took the least damaging path for their own party, until they ended up with a deal that they hoped would be least damaging for their party; enough of a Brexit to not upset that faction, not so much as to upset the Remain crowd. The trouble is, everybody hates it, and it will STILL be more damaging to the country than staying in. Which leaves us with the next choice; no deal, or no Brexit. You feel free to continue to believe they will be making that call based on what's best for the country. Clearly nothing I can say will sway you from that.

[Teleros]

We are never going to leave on WTO terms.

Still not so sure about that. A lot will depend on the ECJ ruling for starters, but even with that things could just get too chaotic.

Now the information as to how damaging a no-deal is out there

Much of it tainted in the eyes of many people by the trustworthiness of the sources. I don't trust the Treasury or the Bank of England one iota when it comes to this, and the former MPC head at the BoE, Mervyn King, came out strongly against Carney for his Project Fear shenanigans recently.

May will try and fail to get her deal through and now the Cons cannot count on the DUP to back them up they have no majority to get anything through the HoC, so we'll have a couple months of the Cons trying before they have to admit they cannot proceed and need to throw the question back to the people

Will there be time though? Especially with the threat of a General Election, an actual Tory party coup and such...

= = =

75% of the country did not vote for Brexit

We won. Deal with it.
t. Obama

yet we've wasted 2 years and a shit-ton of money trying to figure out how to make it happen.

No. We've wasted 2 years and a shit-ton of money trying to sabotage it.

Hell, not even 20% of the country voted for the party that have been governing us virtually on their own since 2017. You want to talk about democracy?

Well you don't, seeing as you're trying to delegitimise the most recent referendum we've had.

Or take the escape hatch that has just opened up and cancel Brexit altogether. If the choice is no-deal or that, they will cancel Brexit on the basis that it will do them less damage. This is all about what is good for the Tories, after all. None of them really give a shit about how it turns out for the country.

Take it from a lifelong Tory voter: the Tories will be decimated by cancelling Brexit. It'll take them a generation to recover.

but in the medium term voters have the memories of goldfish

You've never been to northern England, have you? Hint: Maggie Thatcher.

= = =

they voted to "enforce their right to instruct the PM on what to do if she loses the meaningful vote next week."

From what I understand, this isn't legally binding. Dangerous to ignore, but not legally binding.

= = =

lol "I have spent nearly two years negotiating this deal"

What the fuck was Davis doing then?

Well quite. Davis resigned over the fact that the DExEU job was a sham from day 1. He repeatedly said he was sidelined and left with nothing to do by Number 10 and the civil service, and now Treasonous May's confirmed as much.

= = =

Um...is this "I'm leaving the Brexit Party to spend more time with my family?" Because that's how it reads to me, but I'm not as well-versed on the subject as I should be.

No, he's just unhappy with UKIP getting chummy with people like Tommy Robinson & being more anti-Islamic. Farage has always been more of a civic nationalist, and this is a big misstep from him. The left doesn't give a damn if he distances himself from UKIP now - he'll still be Mr Evil Racist Sexist Nazi, so all he's done is shoot himself in the foot.

AFAIK he's staying in the UK to continue his media career though.

[Pann]

There is rising sentiment about any number of things. The under-investment in the NHS. Rail fares. The school funding crisis. Any one of those could have been put to a nationwide vote, but yet they weren't. Why do you think that was, exactly?

Because none of them were an existential crisis for the Tory party.

Can you remember any other time when the Tories gave us a referendum on anything? Even when the country was facing significant decisions? It doesn't happen, because they are quite happy doing whatever the hell they want. Cameron gave us the vote in this instance because he expected to win handily, and thought that would tamp down on the anti Europeans in his party. That was why he did it. He may well have hoped that it would staunch the flow of voters to UKIP at the same time, but party was his primary concern.

And why do I think Parliament have pushed on with Brexit? Because cancelling it at an earlier stage would have damaged the Tory party. Which part of that is too complicated for you to get? They took the least damaging path for their own party, until they ended up with a deal that they hoped would be least damaging for their party; enough of a Brexit to not upset that faction, not so much as to upset the Remain crowd. The trouble is, everybody hates it, and it will STILL be more damaging to the country than staying in. Which leaves us with the next choice; no deal, or no Brexit. You feel free to continue to believe they will be making that call based on what's best for the country. Clearly nothing I can say will sway you from that.

Would it possibly be because we vote the government in to take these decisions for us? Or maybe even if the public were given the opportunity to vote on NHS or school funding they would all vote in favour but this wouldn't actually produce the money needed? Did you forget that Labour spent it all?

Yeah, in 2011 they gave us a referendum on alternative voting. If this was solely a Con issue, as you are trying portray, then why was UKIP support increasing? Why didn't people reject the idea of holding a referendum? Why did 33.6m people turn out to vote? Why did 56% of Labour constituencies vote to leave? It seems very much like this was a UK issue to me.

Parliament pushed on with Brexit because they didn't want to damage the Tory party? Really? Is this the same Parliament which contains the Labour party which has no real policies apart from everything the government does is shit? Are you seriously suggesting that Jeremy Corbyn sat his MPs down and said "Listen guys don't do anything that might damage the Conservative Party."?

Of course the deal May is proposing is more damaging than remaining this is the reality of leave winning the referendum, every deal was going to worse than remaining. I mean apart from Corbyn's. Obviously. Whatever that might be today.

- - - Updated - - -

Still not so sure about that. A lot will depend on the ECJ ruling for starters, but even with that things could just get too chaotic.

We will not leave on WTO terms regardless of the ECJ ruling.

Much of it tainted in the eyes of many people by the trustworthiness of the sources. I don't trust the Treasury or the Bank of England one iota when it comes to this, and the former MPC head at the BoE, Mervyn King, came out strongly against Carney for his Project Fear shenanigans recently.

That's as may be. However MPs for ignore the risks would be for them to act against the interests of the country and whilst they can use the referendum result to justify a couple percentage points lower growth they simply cannot ignore the risks of double digit percentage drops or 6-10% increases in food prices.

Will there be time though? Especially with the threat of a General Election, an actual Tory party coup and such...

They will extend the A50 notice period. The EU know that parliament will not allow no deal and that May's deal will not pass, the ball is firmly in their court and all they have to do is wait it out.

- - - Updated - - -

Well quite. Davis resigned over the fact that the DExEU job was a sham from day 1. He repeatedly said he was sidelined and left with nothing to do by Number 10 and the civil service, and now Treasonous May's confirmed as much.

This might seem more credible had Davis not been content to go along with it for the best part of two years.

Face it Davis, like Gove, like Johnson, sold you and your fellow leave voters down the river and when it looked like they might left holding the can they jumped ship.

[Slant]

At the very least she should not have moved until the UK had some sort of plan, and be very public about it. Appoint the Brexiteers into a special commission, ask them to present a detailed plan to the people, then move with the Article.

You mean hold people accountable for their actions? What a novel idea!

To them, anyway. *sigh*

- - - Updated - - -

We will not leave on WTO terms regardless of the ECJ ruling.

They will extend the A50 notice period. The EU know that parliament will not allow no deal and that May's deal will not pass, the ball is firmly in their court and all they have to do is wait it out.

You still don't fathom the utter incompetence, stupidity and selfishness of your average MP, do you?

In summary of today...



What utter lying bastards... the Northern Ireland Secretary going on about how she talked to people in NI and they said they wanted Brexit? Has she only selectively talked to the Unionists? Because NI clearly isn't all that keen on Brexit as she makes it out to be. This is criminal. Heads should roll for this type of blatant lying.

[dribbles]

Has the Withdrawal Act been repealed? Nope didn't think so, all on course for a no deal.

Isn't it a shame the primary legislation required to do that takes such a loooooooooooooong time? Three readings, House of Lords scrutiny and so on and so on.

Tick tock!

[Mormolyce]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing however May had little choice in the matter when it came to enacting A50. Cameron had promised that the government would carry out the referendum result meaning that as the leader of the government May was tasked with taking the UK out of the EU. Cameron also promised that he would invoke A50 notice straight after the referendum in the event of leave winning which of course did not happen as he resigned. By the time May, a remainer, was named Con leader Brexiteers were already getting restless and were worried that someone who was not cut from the Brexiteer cloth would not fulfil the referendum result.

The pressure that May was under at home, from Brexiteer MPs and voters, as well as the fact EU laws state that no discussions regarding leaving the Union can take place until A50 notice has been received meant that she had no choice but to trigger A50.

Realistically, she enacted A50 for political reasons, same reason Cameron staged the referendum in the first place. May was afraid of a leadership spill, Cameron was afraid of UKIP splitting the conservative vote. None of these decisions were made with the best interests of Britain or its ability to negotiate a better position for itself in mind, but rather sheer partisan short term gain and political cowardice.

- - - Updated - - -

pretty much everything in Politics is based on lies to get the Votes

Oh good point, lies are fine then and we should believe them and make decisions on their basis.

[Mayhem]

At the very least she should not have moved until the UK had some sort of plan, and be very public about it. Appoint the Brexiteers into a special commission, ask them to present a detailed plan to the people, then move with the Article.

That would've been really really smart, or well obvious to anyone who ever ran something.

[Pann]

Has the Withdrawal Act been repealed? Nope didn't think so, all on course for a no deal.

Isn't it a shame the primary legislation required to do that takes such a loooooooooooooong time? Three readings, House of Lords scrutiny and so on and so on.

Tick tock!

What makes you think they would need to repeal the Withdrawal Act rather than amending the date on which we leave? I'd guess that it could be amended in an afternoon or two.

- - - Updated - - -

Realistically, she enacted A50 for political reasons, same reason Cameron staged the referendum in the first place. May was afraid of a leadership spill, Cameron was afraid of UKIP splitting the conservative vote. None of these decisions were made with the best interests of Britain or its ability to negotiate a better position for itself in mind, but rather sheer partisan short term gain and political cowardice.

Well, yes, those political reasons were the 17.4million who voted to leave the EU. Once the result to leave was announced the government had no other option than to serve A50 notice.

[Mayhem]

The problem is, not only was she weak internally when elected, she tried to claim a better mandate with a GE that put her in bed with the DUP. Grossly mishandled.

Her whole 2+ years in office are a great example of how not to do things.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, yes, those political reasons were the 17.4million who voted to leave the EU. Once the result to leave was announced the government had no other option than to serve A50 notice.

Of course they had other options. One of them was to serve A50 9 months after the result was announced and not immediately as was promised.

[Mayhem]

The issue is entirely on the Brexit side imo. She gave them the critical position in Davis and he just completely wasted everyone's time. None of the Brexiteers seem to have any idea what they are doing. I would have loved to see what would happen if Gove had not backstabbed BoJo and he became PM. I would assume a far more incendiary approach with constant blaming the EU for being "mean" and nothing of value negotiated, heading straight to no deal from the first day.

I figure that as PM you could expect the ones in critical positions to actually do what they're supposed to be doing, and if they for some reason don't blame them for not doing their job, but apparently May is neither doing her job nor expecting others to do theirs. So at least she is consistent.

[Teleros]

The problem is, not only was she weak internally when elected, she tried to claim a better mandate with a GE that put her in bed with the DUP. Grossly mishandled.

Honestly, if it came out that she'd planned to sabotage Brexit by losing that GE I wouldn't be surprised at this point.

I would have loved to see what would happen if Gove had not backstabbed BoJo and he became PM. I would assume a far more incendiary approach with constant blaming the EU for being "mean" and nothing of value negotiated, heading straight to no deal from the first day.

Hmm. I think the government would've made a lot more preparations for WTO rules, and you're right there would've been a lot more strident anti-EU noise and such, but I'm not sure we'd have just not done much negotiating. BoJo, the Mogg etc all want good access to the EU's markets, but they'd have been negotiating for a free trade deal, not a customs union & all the loss of sovereignty in Treasonous May's deal. How successful that would've been I'm sure we can all argue about until the cows come home, but at least I think we'd have made it to this point without this kind of chaos. A BoJo/ERG deal probably wouldn't be dead in the water with 4 months to go, and we simply wouldn't care what the ECJ was about to rule WRT halting A50.

[Mayhem]

Honestly, if it came out that she'd planned to sabotage Brexit by losing that GE I wouldn't be surprised at this point.

Sabotage Brexit? How?

[dribbles]

What makes you think they would need to repeal the Withdrawal Act rather than amending the date on which we leave? I'd guess that it could be amended in an afternoon or two.

What amendment? Every MP has their own version of what they want from brexit, there is no majority for any single one.

The withrawal act is now the law having receieved royal assent, we leave March 2019 with or without a deal. That is binding, any amendment is not, the government can ignore it.

Primary legislation is required to change that, which only the government can introduce. And they won't.

It is Maybots deal, and we know where that is headed on Tuesday, or no deal.

Tick tock.

[Mormolyce]

Well, yes, those political reasons were the 17.4million who voted to leave the EU. Once the result to leave was announced the government had no other option than to serve A50 notice.

In May's case, the reason was she was covering her ass so she wouldn't get ousted, and in Cameron's it was fear of UKIP eroding the Tory vote. Cameron thought he could have his cake and eat it too - he'd propose a referendum, thereby stealing the majority of UKIP's platform, but nobody would be stupid enough to vote Leave so there'd be no consequences. He resigned in disgrace when that blew up in his face spectacularly.

And there's always been another option. The referendum isn't binding. Call off Brexit and take the hit to your popularity and career, clearly it's the right thing for the UK. But of course none of them would do that.

Or in Cameron's case, continue to allow the UKIP to split the conservative vote and accept a loss. UKIP would never have the numbers to push a referendum if both main parties refused to make it a policy.

[dribbles]

In May's case, the reason was she was covering her ass so she wouldn't get ousted, and in Cameron's it was fear of UKIP eroding the Tory vote. Cameron thought he could have his cake and eat it too - he'd propose a referendum, thereby stealing the majority of UKIP's platform, but nobody would be stupid enough to vote Leave so there'd be no consequences. He resigned in disgrace when that blew up in his face spectacularly.

And there's always been another option. The referendum isn't binding. Call off Brexit and take the hit to your popularity and career, clearly it's the right thing for the UK. But of course none of them would do that.

Or in Cameron's case, continue to allow the UKIP to split the conservative vote and accept a loss. UKIP would never have the numbers to push a referendum if both main parties refused to make it a policy.

Yes it is, hard for foreigners to understand I know, but this makes it binding.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...tion/1/enacted

[Mormolyce]

Yes it is, hard for foreigners to understand I know, but this makes it binding.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...tion/1/enacted

That's not what those words mean lol.

[Deleted]

What amendment? Every MP has their own version of what they want from brexit, there is no majority for any single one.

The withrawal act is now the law having receieved royal assent, we leave March 2019 with or without a deal. That is binding, any amendment is not, the government can ignore it.

Primary legislation is required to change that, which only the government can introduce. And they won't.

It is Maybots deal, and we know where that is headed on Tuesday, or no deal.

Tick tock.

FYI chapter 9 subsection 1 of the act gives ministers powers to add, modify, repeal articles of the act in order to aid a withdrawal upto the changes which would otherwise require an act of parliament providing it doesnt contravene EU law.

Extending the exit period is actually comparitively easy to do as there is provision for modification in the act itself.

[Noradin]

Um...is this "I'm leaving the Brexit Party to spend more time with my family?" Because that's how it reads to me, but I'm not as well-versed on the subject as I should be.

Shouldn't that be "I'm leaving the Brexit Party to spend more time with my family in Germany"?

- - - Updated - - -

The EU would still be bound by the RoI's red line. That would just not change.

You didn't take into account the pink unicorns!