can someone explain brexit?

[Webbo]

This weeks vote on whether to oppose the UK leaving Europe without a deal was possibly one of the most crucial of the whole process. Maybe one of the most important votes in living memory? At that vote 11 Government ministers abstained from voting. In my opinion this is the ultimate demonstration of betraying the electorate and putting their careers before their country and voters. "I approve of the Bill enough to not vote against it but am not prepared to vote for it" All of them remain quiet about their decision with some political commentators indeed expressing the view that they displayed a bravery in defying the whip and not voting with the Government, risking their ministerial post. What hogwash, no wonder the general public has become disenfranchised with the political process. Bloody well vote, that is what you are paid to do, either you are for it or against it, no middle ground.  Whatever your political persuasion or your stance on Brexit imagine if your elected representative had been one of the ones who refused to vote? That in anyway this could be excused or justified by the nuances of political strategy shows just how ridiculous things are these days.

1. Solicitor General Robert Buckland
2. Foreign Office minister Alistair Burt
3. Business Secretary Greg Clark
4. Defence minister Tobias Ellwood
5. Justice Secretary David Gauke
6. Business minister Richard Harrington
7. Culture minister Margot James
8. Education minister Anne Milton
9. Scottish Secretary David Mundell
10. Business minister Claire Perry
11. Work and Pensions Secretary Amber Rudd

[Webbo]

For anyone interested in this issue of Brexit and wanting to understand how we have arrived at this state I urge you to watch this video. The MP being interviewed, Liz Truss, is actually the Secretary to the Treasury not a back bench newcomer!!! A career politician who is able to rise to this lofty position without the slightest shred of ability, talent, experience or most importantly intelligence. She is not alone, the house of commons is full of them on all sides of the political spectrum. How can this issue ever be resolved with people of this calibre involved ?  Please watch this right to the very end and then tell me (even with the low bar we have these days) that you are not truly shocked.....breathtaking that people like this have direct influence over the lives of us here in the UK and Europe. Don't miss the last minute.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/eddie-mair/eddie-mair-grills-liz-truss-over-austerity-brexit/

[gweilgi]

On 3/15/2019 at 8:22 PM, Ryan said:

That's maybe a little unfair. The exit deal was negotiated, tortuously, over 18 months and agreed by all sides. The UK government agreed to it. The other 27 EU nations signed it within one day.

Part of that deal, negotiated over 18 months (I'll say it again) was "The Backstop", that both sides (UK and EU) agree there can never be a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic.

The British Parliament, media and most people seem to have forgotten that "The Backstop" was the idea of the UK government, to come into play in the event of the failure to negotiate a sufficient trade deal. Trade deals can only be negotiated after the exit deal has been agreed. That has never been off the table, that was always the case and agreed by both sides, a part of the treaty signed by both sides, no matter what the media say.

Now the UK parliament are trying to give the impression that the EU is "holding the UK over a barrel" due to unwillingness to renegotiate the backstop.

The EU has always (thus far) held fast on this. That there can not be a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic.

The EU has not forgotten the slaughter or the body counts. 

Think of where the EU came from. Its predecessor, the EEC, came from a trade deal between France and Germany, concrete for iron, with the explicit purpose that countries that trade freely are less likely to go to war.

In the first half of the 20th century, wars started in Western Europe that led to the deaths of 100 million people. In the second half of the 20th century, no EEC (followed by the EU) member has ever gone to war with another. Notwithstanding some disgraceful letdowns in non-EU countries in the Balkans in the 1990s, literally the EU has been the most successful peace treaty in history.

The EU has not forgotten the slaughter. In fact one of the reasons I think Brexit happened (won in the referendum) is that old people vote more than young people and in this referendum, for the first time, there were old people voting in the UK, a majority of whom had no recollection of the Second World War.

My apologies -- yes, I did phrase it badly and my comment was a tad one-sided.

That said, I cannot understand why the Backstop was included in the agreement in that open-ended form.  Both sides must have been fully aware that it would never be acceptable to the DUP or the hard-core Brexiteers.  To my mind, then, this presents two possible conclusions.  Firstly, that May and her team did not negotiate as well as they should have.  Secondly, that the EU did not negotiate in good faith because they settled on a deal which included an impossible condition, thereby scuppering the chances of having it accepted by Parliament.  Either or both are possible.

As for the slaughter and the terrorism, I do follow this issue quite closely through the media of several countries in several languages -- German and French in addition to British, to be precise.  I honestly cannot remember any German, French, Luxembourgish, Austrian or other EU politician raising this angle at all -- no comments, no reassurances, nothing.  It appears to be a complete non-issue for them.  And when I speak to people privately -- friends, family, work -- I get blank looks: either the problem hadn't even occurred to them, or they think that since the Good Friday Agreement, terrorism in Ireland is dead and buried for good.  Which, alas, it isn't.

 

 

  

[CaptainQuintero]

3 hours ago, gweilgi said:

My apologies -- yes, I did phrase it badly and my comment was a tad one-sided.

That said, I cannot understand why the Backstop was included in the agreement in that open-ended form.  Both sides must have been fully aware that it would never be acceptable to the DUP or the hard-core Brexiteers.  To my mind, then, this presents two possible conclusions.  Firstly, that May and her team did not negotiate as well as they should have.  Secondly, that the EU did not negotiate in good faith because they settled on a deal which included an impossible condition, thereby scuppering the chances of having it accepted by Parliament.  Either or both are possible.

As for the slaughter and the terrorism, I do follow this issue quite closely through the media of several countries in several languages -- German and French in addition to British, to be precise.  I honestly cannot remember any German, French, Luxembourgish, Austrian or other EU politician raising this angle at all -- no comments, no reassurances, nothing.  It appears to be a complete non-issue for them.  And when I speak to people privately -- friends, family, work -- I get blank looks: either the problem hadn't even occurred to them, or they think that since the Good Friday Agreement, terrorism in Ireland is dead and buried for good.  Which, alas, it isn't.

 

 

  

  I think a lot can be explained away by the sheer incompetence of politicians on both sides. To say that our best and brightest are not going into public service is possibly an understatement of such magnitude that saying out loud risks opening a black hole.

  It's ironic that those who are probably some of the main reasons for Brexit (On both sides) are the ones trying to sort out all out. 

  

[JohnS]

I haven't gone through this thread too thoroughly, but something tells me that the current 131 replies up to this point suggests that no...it can't be explained (well at least simply and logically).

[99call]

Teresa has just got up on stage and reeled off a long list of things "the people" don't want.  she, herself failed to feature on this list.         WHO!!!????? has she been speaking to?   the idiot in the mirror?

She is the turd that just wont flush.    Every morning she bobs up, and fills the air with death. If your terrible at your job, staying power is NOT a positive Teresa!

To be even handed,  the burger fart of a man which is Mr Corbyn has refused to sit with an ex-member of his party, as "he's not a proper leader of a party".  Slow handclap Jeremy, what a small man you are. 

What a absolute SOS

[CaptainQuintero]

Silver lining: at least the news is interesting again, in fact I'm thinking of proposing referendum on nationally divisive issues to be held regularly

[Ken Gargett]

4 hours ago, SenorPerfecto said:

Polling indicates REMAIN would trounce Brexit in second referendum.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-second-referendum-deal-opinion-poll-theresa-may-a8831241.html?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1553084067

If the UK’s citizens now want to stay in the EU, why shouldn’t they?

Answer: there is no reason why they shouldn’t. The only people still pushing Brexit are those with a vested financial interest in leaving the EU.

fully understand that and i have no interest or vote as to whether they stay or go. all seems insane to me. 

BUT, and this is more in a general sense than for brexit specifically, you cannot work by polls. you have to have your elections and referendums (apparently not referenda) and then you have to stick with them. if we went back to the polls (as in an election) every time a newspoll, or whatever form they take in respective countries, showed that views had changed, you'd have interminable and endless chaos. you may as well schedule monthly elections. 

as i said, don't care if they stay or go but i would hate to see countries rushing off for another election just because the latest poll suggests views have changed. 

[Ken Gargett]

58 minutes ago, SenorPerfecto said:

I don’t think “we voted for this 3 years ago” counts as “we are all in this suicide pact now, forever and ever.”

If the people want to change their mind, they ought to be able to. This wasn’t like an election, where people understand who they’re voting for, and that they can replace them in x years.

as i say, don't care whether the UK is in or out but what happens if they stay and then there is a strong push to get out again in 12 months according to the polls. do you keep doing it? in and out? every time they change their mind? 

i've always thought that if you had another vote two days later, stay in would have won. but the voters have no one to blame but themselves. and a bundle of imbecilic politicians. 

[Ryan]

It looks like the UK is investigating foreign interference in the result.

I suppose, no real surprise there.

I think the New Yorker allows some free articles monthly.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/03/25/the-chaotic-triumph-of-arron-banks-the-bad-boy-of-brexit

[RDB]

All the procedural arguments about respecting the vote are just weak proxies for the real underlying issue. The reason the Brexiteers will die in a ditch to prevent another public vote is because they think they would lose it. Not certainly lose it, but probably. The stars aligned for them in 2016: a crap remain campaign, a well-run leave campaign, a low level of understanding about the negative consequences of leaving, and a lot of people who didn't vote because they thought remain would win. The UK is still horribly divided on the issue, but the numbers have fundamentally shifted in favour of remaining in the EU.  

Government by opinion poll is of course barmy. But so is the idea that a single vote must never ever be reconsidered. It's like promising to burn your house down, on the basis that someone (such as a team of unicorns) will build you a lovely new one to replace it. Right now the UK has the matches in hand, but the unicorns are nowhere to be seen, and neither is any kind of a new home.

The really tragic development of the last few days is the feeling that the EU has finally had enough, and wants the UK out so everyone can get on with their lives. Any single EU state can blow the whole thing up beyond repair. It's an amazing act of collective self restraint that they have not done so already.

Meanwhile, our hapless Prime Minister thinks the best way to bring round her rebel MPs is to tell them they are not representing the people. She is just unbelievably politically clumsy.

[CaptainQuintero]

  Russian interference seems to be something only being mentioned in places not the UK.

  I honestly think the vast majority of opinions, on both sides, were solidly formed before any hint that a referendum would be held. This is something where opinions, especially negatives ones, have formed over years and years, well before the was even a hint that there could ever be a possibility of a vote coming. Which is probably one of the causes for such bad feeling.

  I haven't met anyone who was swayed, either way, by anything said in the campaign. It was so badly ran, by both sides.

  Polling showed that most leave voters were from the older portion of society. Supposed Russian interference was centred around social media. I'm not sure how many pensioners are firstly, active on Twitter/Facebook and secondly, would be influenced by Russian bots on the platform

[CaptainQuintero]

  The Guardian is a difficult publication to use in a political debate, it has very prominent opinions on the matter. In the UK the written press is as vitriolic as US televised news. Conversely UK televised news is generally very impartial and similar to US printed news 

  I don't doubt that there was some interference. I doubt that it had any meaningful effect on the result though. Politics in the UK is extremely static and opinions are formed over long periods of time, quite different to say presidential elections in the US. 

  If there was a claim that Russia had involvement in right-leaning UK newspapers for the past 20 years, that would certainly be something that could have serious implications as that is where seeds have been sown. There isn't any such claim, but just making the point where political influence lays here.

  A point worth mentioning is that nearly 13 million eligible voters just didn't bother turning up to vote. 

  

[Ken Gargett]

3 hours ago, SenorPerfecto said:

This is largely true of course. But there was also tremendous Russian influence, and that can't be discounted. Russia is in the business of destabilizing democracies in order to consolidate power, and this result is the most major destabilization of the European region in a long time.

I think people make mistakes, and ought to be allowed to correct them. To posit that if the vote were held every 2 days it would swing back and forth over and over, is a real insult to the intelligence (?) of the voters. Most people who get married, then divorced, do not turn around and remarry their ex again. People can indeed learn what's best for them, and it sure seems like the UK has done so here... and want to stay in the EU.

sure they make mistakes and if the voters of britain want a referendum on this every month, good luck. but in the more general sphere, i think there are huge dangers in the 'we made a mistake because the polls say we have changed our minds' perspective. polls are often wrong - from memory, the polls said the brexiteers would not win the vote. we all know how badly the pollsters and polls got it wrong in recent major elections. what guarantees are there that they are right now? 

there is also the danger that this then becomes a matter of who shouts loudest. if XYZ is making the most noise, they must be right. at the moment, that is those wanting to stay in. 

captQ's point about 14 mill people not voting is a good one. also i must say i have heard very little as to russian interference in this. is there any evidence (not asking to be difficult, just curious - and i might read the guardian, but i always do keeping in mind that they very often have a particular slant to their opinions and articles), love to see it. 

in the end, although again as captQ says, the campaigns were poorly run, the matter went to the people for a vote. there was plenty of time for people to assess the issues and come to a conclusion. and vote accordingly. they did. they may have got it wrong but who's fault? i suspect that the ones wanting to leave manipulated their campaign marginally better. whatever reason, it got them over the line. go back for another vote and what result is ever to be trusted again? 

if this was here, i'd be horrified that we'd toss in a legit vote, whichever side i was on, because a vocal minority were unhappy and making noise and some polls suggested some people had changed their minds. 

if britain is happy with that, good luck to it, but i hope it is not something that spreads. 

[CaptainQuintero]

Re Russian interference, yes I can't say I've heard anything apart from odd murmurings. I think it was more that it  was attempted but not achieved. I seem to remember something being said in some kind of police/government report that said it was negligible. I think a full report is being released this month or next.

  I think the re-run vote is a contentious one, partly as it isn't a unified voice. Some people say that it would actually be a third vote; the original referendum and then the following general election where there was a major party (Lib Dems) who stated they would re-run the referendum and they only took 12 out 650 seats. The labour and tory party both said they would honour the result of the vote and took a combined 589 seats.

  Some are calling for it because they want to remain, some because the situation has changed since the vote, some because campaign rules were broken.

 Personally I don't think it will happen regardless of merits on either side of the argument, it would be political suicide for the conservatives, and the labour leader has been an ardent eurosceptic for over 40 years. 

  

[El Presidente]

46 minutes ago, CaptainQuintero said:

Re Russian interference, yes I can't say I've heard anything apart from odd murmurings.

  

.......it just suits some agendas 

I can understand the want to leave. I would have voted to stay. 

Then again, Switzerland seems to be doing ok.  It may be way too easy but whatever Switzerland is doing.....do that 

 

[CaptainQuintero]

I knew everything would come back to Toblerone in the end 

[Ken Gargett]

9 minutes ago, El Presidente said:

.......it just suits some agendas 

I can understand the want to leave. I would have voted to stay. 

Then again, Switzerland seems to be doing ok.  It may be way too easy but whatever Switzerland is doing.....do that 

 

sell watches and launder drug money?

[El Presidente]

13 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

sell watches and launder drug money?

Ignoramus. 

they don't seem to be doing too poorly ....not being in the EU. 

• Switzerland has the second highest gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in the world. At the end of 2015 Swiss GDP per capita stood at CHF 77,943 (approx. EUR 73,000 or USD 81,000).
• About 74% of Swiss GDP is generated by the service sector and 25% by industry. The contribution from the agricultural sector is less than 1%.
• The European Union (EU) is Switzerland's main trading partner. Around 78% of Swiss imports are from the EU, while 43% of Swiss exports are destined for EU countries.
• Most Swiss firms (over 99%) are small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). These are defined as companies with fewer than 250 employees.
• The public debt-to-GDP ratio in Switzerland has fallen considerably in recent years, from 54.6% in 1998 to 34.7% in 2014.
• Switzerland has the lowest rate of value-added tax in Europe. 8% is levied on most goods and services, 3.8% on accommodation services, and 2.5% on basic necessities and other everyday items.
• Every year Switzerland spends close to 3% of its GDP, more than CHF 18.5 billion (around EUR 15 billion or USD 20.6 billion), on research and development . Over three-quarters of this funding comes from the private sector.

[CaptainQuintero]

  I'm not too sure our penchant for being beery, overweight eccentrics prone to bursts of violence and unprotected sex (Although not at the same time) lends too well to clean swiss-style living 

 #1 in Europe for binge drinking, obesity, assaults, teenage pregnancy and inventions/discoveries

  That's one hell of a competitive advantage. Not sure for what niche market though..

[Ken Gargett]

16 minutes ago, El Presidente said:

Ignoramus. 

my sincerest apologies. i should, of course, have said launder cigar money. 

[Fuzz]

26 minutes ago, CaptainQuintero said:

  I'm not too sure our penchant for being beery, overweight eccentrics prone to bursts of violence and unprotected sex (Although not at the same time) lends too well to clean swiss-style living 

 #1 in Europe for binge drinking, obesity, assaults, teenage pregnancy and inventions/discoveries

  That's one hell of a competitive advantage. Not sure for what niche market though..

Invent an all in one pregnancy/cholesterol/liver test kit that doubles as a protective shield from assaults (automatically calls for the police too), and is marketed in My Little Pony or Action Man print?

[Homer]

When will this brexit circus end? Everybody in the Europe are tired of this bullshit.

[Akela3rd]

Ignoramus. 
they don't seem to be doing too poorly ....not being in the EU. 

• Switzerland has the second highest gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in the world. At the end of 2015 Swiss GDP per capita stood at CHF 77,943 (approx. EUR 73,000 or USD 81,000).
• About 74% of Swiss GDP is generated by the service sector and 25% by industry. The contribution from the agricultural sector is less than 1%.
• The European Union (EU) is Switzerland's main trading partner. Around 78% of Swiss imports are from the EU, while 43% of Swiss exports are destined for EU countries.
• Most Swiss firms (over 99%) are small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). These are defined as companies with fewer than 250 employees.
• The public debt-to-GDP ratio in Switzerland has fallen considerably in recent years, from 54.6% in 1998 to 34.7% in 2014.
• Switzerland has the lowest rate of value-added tax in Europe. 8% is levied on most goods and services, 3.8% on accommodation services, and 2.5% on basic necessities and other everyday items.
• Every year Switzerland spends close to 3% of its GDP, more than CHF 18.5 billion (around EUR 15 billion or USD 20.6 billion), on research and development . Over three-quarters of this funding comes from the private sector.

Fine. But can you name any Swiss rock bands/punk bands/rappers?

Sent from my ActionMan walkie-talkie

[Ryan]

12 hours ago, El Presidente said:

Ignoramus. 

they don't seem to be doing too poorly ....not being in the EU. 

• Switzerland has the second highest gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in the world. At the end of 2015 Swiss GDP per capita stood at CHF 77,943 (approx. EUR 73,000 or USD 81,000).
• About 74% of Swiss GDP is generated by the service sector and 25% by industry. The contribution from the agricultural sector is less than 1%.
• The European Union (EU) is Switzerland's main trading partner. Around 78% of Swiss imports are from the EU, while 43% of Swiss exports are destined for EU countries.
• Most Swiss firms (over 99%) are small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). These are defined as companies with fewer than 250 employees.
• The public debt-to-GDP ratio in Switzerland has fallen considerably in recent years, from 54.6% in 1998 to 34.7% in 2014.
• Switzerland has the lowest rate of value-added tax in Europe. 8% is levied on most goods and services, 3.8% on accommodation services, and 2.5% on basic necessities and other everyday items.
• Every year Switzerland spends close to 3% of its GDP, more than CHF 18.5 billion (around EUR 15 billion or USD 20.6 billion), on research and development . Over three-quarters of this funding comes from the private sector.

Absolutely.

But in order to get those trade terms with the EU, Switzerland has signed up to freedom of movement and work for EU citizens (there are some (time-limited) restrictions for newer EU members)

https://www.expatica.com/ch/moving/visas/guide-for-eu-efta-citizens-and-relatives-moving-to-switzerland-443220/#Freedom

An end to freedom of movement for EU citizens was one of the main reasons people voted for Brexit. So pro-Brexit voters explicitly do not want the same deal that Switzerland has.

One of the founding principles of the EU, set out in the Treaty of Rome in 1957, and reinforced since, is the notion of "The Four Freedoms"

Freedom of movement of goods, capital, services and people.

http://en.euabc.com/word/506

Each of these, from the standpoint of a member country, can be seen as two things: goods in and out, services in and out, capital in and out and people in and out.

One of the main reasons Brexit has happened, is that voters wanted to restrict EU citizens moving to Britain. I think most voters were happy with the notion of British citizens having the right to live and work in Ireland, France and Spain etc. (and availing of public schools, health and social services in those countries)

So of the 8 freedoms, many Brexit voters voted that way to restrict one of them.

As an outsider, it does look a little like a case of "having one's cake and eating it too". 

 

And then there's this. 

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/eu-negotiations_would-the-swiss-model-suit-a-post-brexit-britain/42128110