I'm just happy the Brits, every now and then, are taking the pressure off us Americans for being the biggest shitshow country

Hello, hello. What's going on? What's all this shouting? We'll have no trouble here...

This is a local country for local people!

Unfortunately, the consensus is that we'll be worse off after Brexit, and to make matters worse, this shambles of a government hasn't handled it well at all, what with the Prime Minister gambling on and then losing her majority, the scrapping of Chequers, multiple cabinet resignations (including two Brexit Secretaries), transgressing her own "red lines", and, of course, her withdrawal agreement, in respect of which she felt it necessary to delay a vote of MP's at the last minute earlier today, so as not to face the greater embarrassment of failing to get it through parliament, of which there was no hope from the start, as we've all known for quite some time.

My hope is that we're able to go back and renegotiate a better deal, meaning that we won't be as worse off as we'd be under the current deal, in spite of how many times it has been said that this is the "only deal" and "the best deal possible".

But how do you think you can justify a second people's vote (which is what it would be)? That would undermine the first one that we had back in 2016, and betray all of those 17.4 million people who voted to leave, as well as betray the trust of all of those who were lead to believe that it was a one off, binding vote. I don't think that you can justify it, and I've heard a lot of the arguments in favour of it. Besides, recent polls still suggest that most people would vote the same way that they did the last time, and you can't just keep rerunning the referendum until you get the result that you want.

The 2016 referendum was corrupt in every respect. David Cameron was a long term eurosceptic who sabotaged his credibility on key issues with a pledge to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands, and with a renegotiation - that could not have been renegotiated overnight or unilaterally, and so only served to publicize a long list of complaints about the EU. Coming back from Brussels, when Cameron touched down on British soil - with his inevitable failure swirling about him, he appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain.

Meanwhile, the Leave campaign was farmed out to a shady organization called the Tax Payer's Alliance - a rabid right wing economic policy group. Other, unofficial Leave campaigns sprang up - and used stolen facebook data to design and target false and divisive propaganda.

David Cameron lost on purpose for Remain, in coordination with the main Leave campaign. We can know this because the rhetoric employed by the official Leave campaign, was written by David Cameron in the 2005 and 2010 Conservative Party manifestos. "Take back control of our borders" etc.

The cherry atop this huge shit sundae is that the current Prime Minister was David Cameron's Home Secretary - with responsibility for immigration. She dismantled the border force, allowed 635,000 immigrants into the country in 2015, (five years after Cameron's pledge) then published those figures weeks before the vote. Then, when Cameron lost on purpose for Remain and resigned, she stepped into his shoes - without a vote by anyone.

Brexit is an ongoing criminal conspiracy against the British people by the government; these are the facts - but if you imagine you can interest any MP or media organization in bringing them to light, you'd be wrong. No-one wants to know.

I was kind of with you until that nonsense about David Cameron sabotaging the Remain campaign, of which he played a prominent part in promoting, and about Brexit being an ongoing criminal conspiracy against the British people by the government.

I was kind of with you until that nonsense about David Cameron sabotaging the Remain campaign, of which he played a prominent part in promoting, and about Brexit being an ongoing criminal conspiracy against the British people by the government. — S

You neither, huh?

You neither, huh? — karl stone

Sorry, I'm not a conspiracy nut.

Sorry, I'm not a conspiracy nut. — S

Nor am I. I'm a politics nut. Check my facts. David Cameron was a brexiteer who called the referendum, sabotaged the Remain position he then adopted, and lost on purpose for Remain.

I think there should be a people's vote. — Evil

I don’t. I think Article 50 should just be revoked and Brexit cancelled.

My hope is that we're able to go back and renegotiate a better deal, meaning that we won't be as worse off as we'd be under the current deal, in spite of how many times it has been said that this is the "only deal" and "the best deal possible". — S

Haven’t the EU said that there’s nothing left to negotiate? Unless TM abandons her red lines, e.g an end to freedom of movement, this is the only deal on the table.

Brexit is a heist. It isn't going to benefit the average British people.

But how do you think you can justify a second people's vote (which is what it would be)? — S

There’s been a material change of circumstances: the lies, the overspending, Cambridge Analytica, etc. have been exposed; there’s actual advice on the repercussions of leaving; and now that we know what the Leave deal is we have real information about what we’d be voting for.

That would undermine the first one that we had back in 2016 — S

Did the 2017 GE undermine the 2015 GE?

as well as betray the trust of all of those who were lead to believe that it was a one off, binding vote. — S

Yes it would. But that’s a price worth paying to avoid the much worse alternative, especially if May’s deal is voted down and we leave without a deal which will break the Good Friday Agreement. The reality is that the practicalities often require going back on promises, which is why manifesto pledges are rarely, if ever, all fulfilled.

There could be an optional preferential referendum, where people list their choices in order. Each of the options would have several paragraphs explaining what they entail. The options would be:

1. Hard Brexit, including hard borders between UK and Europe on movement of all people and goods, including a hard border around Northern Ireland.

2. The deal that was about to be voted on by Parliament.

3. Cancel Brexit and remain in the EU.

After the first round of counting, Ballots for the least popular option would be distributed to whatever option was indicated as 2, and not counted in the second round if no option was numbered 2.

That way people that prefer Hard Brexit but would rather stay in the EU than have the current deal could have their wishes respected, as would people that prefer to cancel Brexit but, if that's not popular enough, prefer Teresa May's deal to a hard border.

So alternative vote?

It's a shame that alternative vote for General Elections was voted down in the other referendum.

Two thumbs up. As a Dutchman I'm simply appalled by the amount of misinformation, lying and downright incompetence of the UK government in respect of the Brexit negotiations. It is to me utterly inconceivable some are still banging on about the "Norway option". Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland do not want a fifth party in that treaty with the power to veto against the adoption of EU laws.

There was no way in hell that the EU would offer benefits in the area of the four pillars (freedom of movement of people, capital, goods and services) that equal the benefits EU-membership has as that would result in a Europe á la carte in the long run. The impossibility to stay in the customs union was a given from day 1 and that every other EU-member state would close rank on this was obvious as well. Why the fuck give the UK access to these benefits when they have to pay for it through EU contributions? It's all so pathetically obvious that UK politics in this respect is just cringeworthy.

I hate the UK is leaving, I think they are part of Europe and the EU and despite the technocracy of the EU still believe it is more a force for good than anything else. The UK especially has always traditionally been very good at avoiding the more ridiculous financial regulations were passed due to their experience and knowledge thanks to its financial centre in London. That wisdom will be sorely missed.

What a funny name for it. We just call it preferential voting, and it seems as natural as breathing. I can't think of a single reason why anybody that understands how it works would not want it.

Preferential voting is like having a two-round election like they have in many countries, such as the French Presidential election. Except by marking the preferences on a single ballot, you avoid all the cost and wasted time of having to conduct a second ballot, without losing any of its nuance and functionality. The elimination of less supported candidates and narrowing down to a final two happens automatically.

There must have been a lot of misinformation about for it to have been rejected in 2011. I suppose the Tories prefer first past the post because Labour and Lib Dem would direct preferences to one another, and thereby be elected much more often than at present.

I would also go for that

Putting all the wrangling to one side we are left with the fact that the majority of voters in the referendum indicated a wish to leave the EU. If a second ref is held will we be able to have a third one after two more years to address further lies by both sides. We are told a second ref will be on a more informed basis, but who will do the informing?

I'm just happy the Brits, every now and then, are taking the pressure off us Americans for being the biggest shitshow country — Maw

:smile: :smile:

But how do you think you can justify a second people's vote (which is what it would be)? — S

No it wouldn't. It would be a third people's vote. The first vote was in 1973, and the result was to remain. But there is always something suspect and downright paradoxical on having the people decide who are the people.

It's all so pathetically obvious that UK politics in this respect is just cringeworthy. — Benkei

Another folly of a referendum is that it asks an isolated question, when policies are interdependent. If you have a separate vote on, say...

1. lower taxes - yes/ no.
2. better services yes/no
3. economic stability yes/no

...You are very likely going to get three yeses. But they constitute a trilemma of which only two can be had.

So if a question is framed in terms of 'them' coming 'here', and no one mentions 'us' going 'there', and the impositions of the trade deal we have, but only the benefits of the ones we don't, the response will be contradictory, and expectations will be hopelessly unrealistic.

I suspect what would be really popular would be to end the Good Friday agreement and give N. Ireland back to the Republic. It would save 'us' a fortune (more than leaving the EU), make Brexit easy, and apart from the pesky loyalists, everyone would be happy. But 'we' don't get to vote on that, any more than the EU gets to vote on Brexit, because - well why not? Because 'they' are not the people who get to vote on who 'we' are, the first paradox of a referendum, already mentioned.

There must have been a lot of misinformation about for it to have been rejected in 2011. I suppose the Tories prefer first past the post because Labour and Lib Dem would direct preferences to one another, and thereby be elected much more often than at present. — andrewk

I didn't even realise it happened until much later. I was living in Thailand at the time and wasn't paying any attention to politics.

I don't live in the UK, but I'm in favor of there eventually being world unification/a one-world government, and I'm not in favor of restricting how people can choose to move around the world. I'm okay with screening for wanted criminals, known terrorist associates, etc., but that's it when it comes to immigration screening.

Just to avoid confusion; I wasn't so much referring to the referendum per se - which has its flaws for sure - but how the government has pursued Brexit after that (and some of the behaviour by political parties before that).

The way I see it is: Since WW2 the UK has swung from left wing to right wing. One side is voted in because they appear to have moderate policies and the other side has become too far left, or right, depending which one is in power. Once in power they become gradually more extreme while the side in opposition creeps quietly to the middle, and so it goes, left, right, left, right. Each side occasionally has a bit of a makeover but the left wing right wing basis is still there. Why would either side embark on policies that will result in being voted out of power? It has to deliberate, the Establishment giving media coverage to two parties so that the majority of voters can be influenced not to break out of the pattern, then the left right swing gives an illusion of democracy whilst the Establishment runs the show.

Trouble is the Establishment influence in trying to keep the UK in the EU is starting to become a little bit obvious as a hard Brexit would seriously unbalance their political seesaw system. Will enough people see through it all to change it? I doubt it.

I think there should be a people's vote.
— Evil

I don’t. I think Article 50 should just be revoked and Brexit cancelled. — Michael

The government of the day derives all of its legitimacy (in a political ethics sense, not a constitutional or legal sense) from parliament, and parliament derives all of its legitimacy from the people. So the decisions of government are at two removes from the source of legitimacy, and the decisions of parliament are at one remove, whereas the decision in a referendum is at zero removes from the source, and therefore has a legitimacy that the other two cannot match. It follows that the result of a referendum cannot legitimately (again, in an ethics sense) be overturned by parliament or government. So the only legitimate way for government or parliament to overturn the result of the 2016 referendum and revoke article 50 is to have another referendum.

Personally I would favour another one (I didn't vote in the last one), with everyone being told 'this time it will have to stick'. I know that sounds silly, but when your country is being run by the Keystone cops, as the UK currently is, what's an extra bit of silliness between friends (or enemies)? And if Remain wins, article 50 can be torn up, and if Leave wins again, then we can have another referendum where the choices are TM's deal or no deal, and the result of that will be implemented on 29th March. And whatever happens, the police will have to be paid overtime until the inevitable civil unrest dies down.

One thing's for sure. When the dust finally settles over this whole Brexit shambles, it'll be a long, long time before a government here in the UK lets us have another referendum.

Trouble is the Establishment influence in trying to keep the UK in the EU is starting to become a little bit obvious as a hard Brexit would seriously unbalance their political seesaw system. Will enough people see through it all to change it? I doubt it. — TWI

Trouble is this Establishment v People mythology can be overlaid on the Right v Left mythology, and neither align with the leave v remain split, which is largely a concocted diversion from the real political problems which stem from the loss of power of democratic government of any flavour or territory to global economics. One can argue that the EU represents Global economic interests, or that it is sufficiently large to resist them somewhat - or, as I see it, that it is largely irrelevant either way.

To put it bluntly, the nation is no longer a fundamental unit of politics, and has become a trope of nostalgia. What is replacing national government and international relations are global corporations, and it is there that the democratic deficit need to be addressed; it is there that 'The Establishment' already resides.

I'm interested in hearing @jamalrob's opinion on proceedings.

Hilary Clinton says immigration is the problem.

Is Brexit a rightwing populist thing? Is Clinton right?

To put it bluntly, the nation is no longer a fundamental unit of politics, and has become a trope of nostalgia. What is replacing national government and international relations are global corporations, and it is there that the democratic deficit need to be addressed; it is there that 'The Establishment' already resides. — unenlightened

Are you saying the global capitalist system should be democratised?