Why should Brexit be Brexit?

[Hazir]

We're like almost a half year down the line, and it there's one thing as clear as good Bohemian crystal glass it is that the Brexiteers don't have a plan and worse than that, they don't have a clue.

So I am wondering why the 'Remainers' who after all had to put up with 42 odd years of whining of their Europhobic fellow citizens should justs shut up and put up and join their swivel-eyed loons over the cliff. I have no doubt the Brexit buffoons wouldn't have gracefully accepted a 52-48 split and stopped whining about their country being under the German/EUSSR jackboot.

So, my question to those Brits who are in favor of stopping this madness, why don't you stop acting like push overs just because you believe in rules so much?

You just lost a to people who took rugby rules to a soccer match. Isn't it time you toughen up a bit and start fighting back?

Personally I am still a big fan of Brexit by the way; the sooner we get the notification under article 50 the better.

But you lot should grow some, or find your bloody spines.

[RandBlade]

Nice trolling.

[Lewkowski]

Who knows what will happen in the next 10 years but I would find it greatly amusing if one or two other countries exit as well just to see Hazir throw some more fits.

[Hazir]

You seem to have missed the fact that I was in favor of Brexit well before Randy had his coming out. I am quite pleased with the outcome of the referendum in the UK. Besides which it makes for quite a spectacle to see the buffoons dig themselves in a deeper hole day by day.

[Aimless]

Given the immediate and possible long term negative consequences for the entire region I don't know if it makes sense to be happy about brexit. Everyone loses.

[Timbuk2]

So, my question to those Brits who are in favor of stopping this madness, why don't you stop acting like push overs just because you believe in rules so much?

Leaver: It was a vote, you have to accept it!

Remainer: But the referendum was only ever advertised as advisory, it was never legally binding for the government to enact. So it really should be given parliamentary approval in a free vote. Particularly, the terms agreed upon after 2 years of Article 50 negotiations should be ratified through our representative democracy.

Leaver: It was a vote, you have to accept it!

Remainer: But perhaps it’s dangerous to just enact something without proper expert consideration, especially now that multiple Vote Leave promises have been rescinded and it’s become clear that the population may have been (read: definitely were) mislead. The political and economic landscape has changed significantly since June, so you can’t say a decision taken by non-experts in one situation should be, by default and without consideration, applicable to a much different different situation at a later date.

Leaver: It was a vote, you have to accept it!

Remainer: But it was a very small win for Leave. The margin was a few percent, almost on par with a margin of error. Given the number of people expressing regret over their vote – a proportion that polls suggest would be high enough to swing the referendum in a different direction if it were done today – is it wise to plough on without further due consideration? Can we not take into account further opinion polls taken after a reflection on the impacts to the value of our currency, the economic impact, or the fact that many Vote Leave promises turned out to be complete fabrications?

Leaver: It was a vote, you have to accept it!

Remainer: Okay, but we have a constitution based around representative democracy. We elect people to make decisions on our behalf based on the fact they can take the time and do enough research to make an informed decision, whereas the general public can’t afford the time. In line with both the country’s precedent-based constitution, parliament should have a final say in both leaving the EU and accepting post-EU terms. They should take popular opinion under advisement ( as this was advertised as, and as they’ve always done) without accepting the narrow referendum result as a mandate for sweeping, unilateral change.

Leaver: It was a vote, you have to accept it!

Remainer: Thing is, many aspects of democracy require supermajorities to enact rather than 50% +1. Things like amending the US constitution, for example. That’s precisely to stop bad decisions being made on the back of popularism and to ensure broad, representative consensus rather than making sweeping changes when there’s a clear split and the margin is tight. It’s also why arguments about the counterfactual case of ‘Remain’ winning by a small margin don’t hold up – because you don’t need to get a supermajority or a large margin in favour of the status quo to keep with the status quo, because there would still be no strong mandate for change. This is also the essence of basic conservatism, incidentally, as well as part of mainstream political thought about democracy since the term was invented.

Leaver: It was a vote, you have to accept it!

Remainer: Part of the democratic process is that you can’t just accept things blindly, even when popular – as you have to have safeguards against a tyranny of the majority, where the rights of minorities can be removed or oppressed just because a majority says so. If some groups will be more negatively affected by a decision than others, then not everyone is equal when it comes to a simple ballot. Something that sounds good to a large number of people but will probably not affect them might be absolutely devastating to a small number of people who will never have their voice heard in a popular vote. This should be taken into account when taking the voting results into consideration as this forms the basis of a representative, egalitarian and equal society – again, the basis of democracy and mainstream political theories of justice.

Leaver: It was a vote, you have to accept it!

Remainer: Democracy doesn’t begin and end at voting. It starts at representation, and ends with beneficial decisions made through consensus – with voting as a means, not an end. It’s an involved process that continues beyond just voting when and where they tell you. There are countless opportunities to petition, or get involved in decision making. It doesn’t stop, it continues. That’s the actual point of democracy if we want it to mean something positive and beneficial rather than just hanging on the idea that it’s a popularity contest and the majority rules. Leaving it at “vote, and the majority rules!” is a really stunted view of democracy, one which really limits its ability to do the most good for the most number of people – particularly so when the question asked of the populace at large is a simple binary but the real-world options and their ramifications are numerous, complex, and nuanced.

Leaver: It was a vote, you have to accept it!

Remainer: Fine, fine… but… how? How are we going to implement this? The vote was a binary choice of in/out. There was no concrete plan suggested at all – especially by the people pushing the ‘Leave’ option. We’ve literally been left alone to figure this out. Sure, we can do it… but there are no details. What are the details? What do you actually want?

Leaver: It was a vote, you have to accept it!

Remainer: Fuck it, I can’t be bothered with this shit anymore.

Leaver: SEE! YOU SILLY LITTLE REMOANERS CAN’T ENGAGE WITH ANYTHING! WHAT STUPID IDIOTS YOU ARE!!! ALL YOU DO IS CALL US RACIST FOR BEING BRITISH!! YOU DON’T HAVE ANY ARGUMENTS, JUST INSULTS!! NOW SHUT UP! IT WAS A VOTE, YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT IT!

[Timbuk2]

In other news, my borough in London have caused an upset in our by-election, ousting the Conservative Zac Goldsmith on a Brexit platform, installing the Lib-Dems instead.

As the new Lib Dem MP for Richmond Park and North Kingston, Ms Olney will be the party's only female MP - joining eight male colleagues.
She said the by-election result was a rejection of the "politics of anger and division".

She added: "The people of Richmond Park and North Kingston have sent a shockwave through this Conservative Brexit government, and our message is clear - we do not want a hard Brexit.
"We do not want to be pulled out of the single market, and we will not let intolerance, division and fear win."

[Hazir]

In other news, my borough in London have caused an upset in our by-election, ousting the Conservative Zac Goldsmith on a Brexit platform, installing the Lib-Dems instead.

As the new Lib Dem MP for Richmond Park and North Kingston, Ms Olney will be the party's only female MP - joining eight male colleagues.
She said the by-election result was a rejection of the "politics of anger and division".

She added: "The people of Richmond Park and North Kingston have sent a shockwave through this Conservative Brexit government, and our message is clear - we do not want a hard Brexit.
"We do not want to be pulled out of the single market, and we will not let intolerance, division and fear win."

You know he was technically an Independent, so it doesn't change the balance of power the House. Though I think she can rightfully say she has a mandate to vote against Brexit. And given that this whole charade appearantly was about the sovereignty of the UK parliament, Brexiteers should be elated by this, if somewhat confused.

[RandBlade]

Richmond had one of the highest Remain supporting percentages in the entire country in the referendum at about 68%

In the by-election Remain supporters got about 53%.

Not exactly the best advert for a swing to Remain

[Hazir]

None of that matters in your electoral system.

[Timbuk2]

Swing to Remain?

There's no more campaigning, the horse bolted on the 23rd June.

All that's left is how to pick up the resulting mess.

[Hazir]

And given the fact that all you need is 50+% to claim you can throw the country off the cliff what is there to stop you from doing something sensible once you have the majority (any majority) back. Good to see the new MP is facing down the crazies.

[RandBlade]

Swing to Remain?

There's no more campaigning, the horse bolted on the 23rd June.

All that's left is how to pick up the resulting mess.

By continuing to outperform with the economy demonstrating every lie that the Remain campaign told.

[Timbuk2]

By continuing to outperform with the economy demonstrating every lie that the Remain campaign told.

Well, nothing has changed yet, the UK is still in the EU, so yes the economy is still performing well enough.

Results will only start to tell 5 to 10 years after whatever messy exit agreements have been put into effect.

[RandBlade]

The claim was that there would be an immediate crash after the vote. Instead our performance this year has been revised upwards and projections of a collapse have been kicked down the road.

[Hazir]

By continuing to outperform with the economy demonstrating every lie that the Remain campaign told.

Which lies? The claim that we're not going to make things easy for you so far is holding up pretty well. Funny thing how you lot thought that we'd change our minds about that once you told us that you were going to leave.

When you simply ditch the whole Brexit idiocy I'm afraid that EU leaders may choose to work with that.

[Hazir]

The claim was that there would be an immediate crash after the vote. Instead our performance this year has been revised upwards and projections of a collapse have been kicked down the road.

Your own party leader promised to notify immediately after the vote. If something doesn't happen because a necessary condition is lacking through no fault of the person who predicted it you don't earn the right to call him a liar.
Telling people you are going to have 350m a month extra for the NHS where you know that even the most optimistic way of reading the numbers won't add up to half of that though is a gold-plated lie.

[RandBlade]

Never said you'd make it easy, I said a deal would be reached. Probably at the last possible minute given that's how these things normally work with your sclerotic union. Why do today that which will only be a crisis tomorrow?

Lies like economic forecasts. Like the £4300 per family that everyone would be worse off which was purely dishonest chicanery unsupported by its own claims and assumptions. Without getting into the ludicrous forecasts that the growth this year would be 2.0% if we voted Remain, versus an immediate recession if we voted Leave. Now revised down to 2.1% growth this year (yes the BBC really wrote that!)

Oh and before you say that Article 50 hasn't been invoked yet, lets not forget that it was the Remain campaign that said it would be invoked immediately while Leave campaign said that it would be sensible to delay it at first.

[Aimless]

Never said you'd make it easy, I said a deal would be reached. Probably at the last possible minute given that's how these things normally work with your sclerotic union. Why do today that which will only be a crisis tomorrow?

Lies like economic forecasts. Like the £4300 per family that everyone would be worse off which was purely dishonest chicanery unsupported by its own claims and assumptions. Without getting into the ludicrous forecasts that the growth this year would be 2.0% if we voted Remain, versus an immediate recession if we voted Leave. Now revised down to 2.1% growth this year (yes the BBC really wrote that!)

Oh and before you say that Article 50 hasn't been invoked yet, lets not forget that it was the Remain campaign that said it would be invoked immediately while Leave campaign said that it would be sensible to delay it at first.

Do you believe that, by delaying art 50, you've somehow neutralised a future recession? You're unlikely to have even a plausible framework for future UK-EU relations by the time you invoke art 50 so the same factors that would have made a recession likely if art 50 had been invoked this year should make a recession likely after it's invoked next year. At best you can hope for a less severe recession by invoking it later because markets will have had some time to adjust and businesses and investors will have had time to develop contingency plans. And I guess the UK might be more appealing at that time since the rest of the world seems to be going to hell.

[Hazir]

Never said you'd make it easy, I said a deal would be reached. Probably at the last possible minute given that's how these things normally work with your sclerotic union. Why do today that which will only be a crisis tomorrow?

Lies like economic forecasts. Like the £4300 per family that everyone would be worse off which was purely dishonest chicanery unsupported by its own claims and assumptions. Without getting into the ludicrous forecasts that the growth this year would be 2.0% if we voted Remain, versus an immediate recession if we voted Leave. Now revised down to 2.1% growth this year (yes the BBC really wrote that!)

Oh and before you say that Article 50 hasn't been invoked yet, lets not forget that it was the Remain campaign that said it would be invoked immediately while Leave campaign said that it would be sensible to delay it at first.

Leave claim; leaving will throw our economy off the cliff.

Randblade; you big fat liars, we haven't stepped off the cliff, and yet our economy is buzzing along like nothing happened.

[Hazir]

Do you believe that, by delaying art 50, you've somehow neutralised a future recession? You're unlikely to have even a plausible framework for future UK-EU relations by the time you invoke art 50 so the same factors that would have made a recession likely if art 50 had been invoked this year should make a recession likely after it's invoked next year. At best you can hope for a less severe recession by invoking it later because markets will have had some time to adjust and businesses and investors will have had time to develop contingency plans. And I guess the UK might be more appealing at that time since the rest of the world seems to be going to hell.

What he also doesn't understand is that a 'hard Brexit' will probably mean hasher conditions under article 50.

[Timbuk2]

Never said you'd make it easy, I said a deal would be reached. Probably at the last possible minute given that's how these things normally work with your sclerotic union. Why do today that which will only be a crisis tomorrow?

Lies like economic forecasts. Like the £4300 per family that everyone would be worse off which was purely dishonest chicanery unsupported by its own claims and assumptions. Without getting into the ludicrous forecasts that the growth this year would be 2.0% if we voted Remain, versus an immediate recession if we voted Leave. Now revised down to 2.1% growth this year (yes the BBC really wrote that!)

Oh and before you say that Article 50 hasn't been invoked yet, lets not forget that it was the Remain campaign that said it would be invoked immediately while Leave campaign said that it would be sensible to delay it at first.

Well yes, an awful lot of hyperbole was thrown around by all sides both pre and post referendum.

Figures from leavers about how much better off Brits will be and figures from remainers about how much worse off Brits will be are all rather silly at this point.

Will take many years to tell, whichever deals are reached.

[RandBlade]

Do you believe that, by delaying art 50, you've somehow neutralised a future recession?

No I do not. I don't believe delaying Article 50 has affected the economy one meaningful bit. It's simply bought time to decide what we want and get things organised (did you know for instance that we had no trade negotiators employed as trade was an EU competence). However the logic of suggesting there would be a crash after the result was that it would devastate confidence, not that Article 50 would be invoked. That should still have happened if it was going to regardless of invocation or not as the decisions been made.

You're unlikely to have even a plausible framework for future UK-EU relations by the time you invoke art 50 so the same factors that would have made a recession likely if art 50 had been invoked this year should make a recession likely after it's invoked next year. At best you can hope for a less severe recession by invoking it later because markets will have had some time to adjust and businesses and investors will have had time to develop contingency plans. And I guess the UK might be more appealing at that time since the rest of the world seems to be going to hell.

I don't think Article 50 will make any difference at all. It's just a legal technicality starting negotiations, the decision to leave has been made already and the decision of what relationship we have post-leaving won't be determined until AFTER Article 50 is invoked. Probably about 18-21 months after (leaving three to six months to ratify the new deal).

Well yes, an awful lot of hyperbole was thrown around by all sides both pre and post referendum.

Figures from leavers about how much better off Brits will be and figures from remainers about how much worse off Brits will be are all rather silly at this point.

Will take many years to tell, whichever deals are reached.

Of course. Whichever side accuses the other of lying reminds me of the parable of the mote and the beam.

[Khendraja'aro]

Your 18-21 months figure is wildly optimistic, given that your government is still scrambling to fill the positions needed due to leaving the EU. Ten thousand new governmental workers don't appear overnight. Same goes for the frameworks governing their work.

[Hazir]

There are going to be no deals. Not with us and not with others. If Brexit happens it won't be soft or hard or clean; it will be ugly all the way.