Brexit (Sorry): The Perils of Delay & Reversal

I voted Remain but it seems to me that UK simply needs to get on with Brexit now.  The ongoing uncertainty is bad for business, as I've said before there's likely to be a post-Brexit boom as pent-up investment is released, no-matter what kind of Brexit it is - at least the main issue will have been decided.  To not Brexit would alienate a huge number of people who will feel that their vote doesn't count.  The rest of the EU will never trust the UK again if it stays and globally the UK will be viewed with (even more) contempt as the country that, having tried to leave an organisation, found that it couldn't. The great Brexit 'betrayal' (as it would be portrayed) would dominate UK politics for a decade or more, with unknown but certainly bad effects on the UK's civil and political life.

So, as I see it (being safely ensconced in a tax haven), the risks now lie more on the side of staying in the EU than leaving.  Of course, this view is subject to an extent on the adequacy of no-deal preparations, which I am not privy to. 

Thoughts? Comments? Abuse? 

Agree to an extent but I still think a softer Brexit than no deal would be accepted by the public without much fuss.

Politicians on the other hand, won't settle for anything less than their desired unicorn. So we're doomed.

Nope

Brexit is a stupid idea. It must be crushed and those who voted for it must be made to understand how complete and total has been their defeat. I want to hear them gnash and wail. 

Well Laz that approach would do wonders for national unity and a normalisation of UK politics.  

Blue Iguana 04 Sep 19 16:07

Reply | 

Report

I voted Remain but it seems to me that UK simply needs to get on with Brexit now. 

sure u did

heh

the time for “getting on with brexit” was a narrow window immediately after the referendum. that this was impossible highlights the flaws in the referendum, because now that vote is too far out of date

anyone who thinks we just “need to get on with brexit” now has clearly lost touch with reality. if we’re going to brexit from here (whether hard or soft), it’s got to be carefully planned and thought through, with adequate preparations and lining up as much in advance as possible, with a good lead in time and a lot of money spent on supporting all manner of businesses and public services in the changeover to ensure the smoothest transition possible

why would he lie about how he voted on an anonymous chat board?

 

I would derive no real satisfaction or happiness from the normalisation of british politics.

I would be filled with joy at seeing all the red-faced Leavers puffed up with futile rage, waving their mid-spelled placards and marching around dragging their COPD canisters behind them. They’re twats. I want them and their stupid unicorn idea completely defeated.

if we’re going to brexit from here (whether hard or soft), it’s got to be carefully planned and thought through, with adequate preparations and lining up as much in advance as possible, with a good lead in time and a lot of money spent on supporting all manner of businesses and public services in the changeover to ensure the smoothest transition possible

Wasn't that what the Withdrawal Agreement was all about?

I did vote Remain. You can go through my previous posts, not once have I stated I am in favour of Brexit. 

The government would argue that the preparations you mention have been, or will be, made.  How good they are we will only know in the days after Brexit.

You have nothing to say about the downsides of Remaining at this point?

  

why would he lie about how he voted on an anonymous chat board?

Because in the remain echo chamber, everyone who takes a balanced view is a troll, Russian bot etc etc

there aren’t any downsides of remaining

I would support it from a olive perspective, but the best thing would be the sheer schadenfreude.

FAOD I am not saying Brexit is in any sense a good thing. I am saying that we are where we are, and my costs-only analysis of the situation falls more in favour of leaving than remaining at this point.  

you fail to factor in the “cost” of going without a three month long tantric schadenfreude orgasm

Wasn't that what the Withdrawal Agreement was all about?

i think that was the intention, but due to the idiocy of tmpm and the general all round incompetence of our government, it wasn’t done well

The government would argue that the preparations you mention have been, or will be, made.  How good they are we will only know in the days after Brexit

the government would be demonstrably lying then. and that in no way rebuts my point.

Because in the remain echo chamber, everyone who takes a balanced view is a troll, Russian bot etc etc

?? echo chamber - this place is infested with brexter trolls m7, several of them claiming to be remainer converted to brexit

i will, however, give my morose lizard m7 the benefit of the doubt as actually i do have a vague recollection, without having checked, of him being sensible

The downsides of remaining are a sense of alienation and betrayal in a very large % of the electorate, resentment by other EU member states at having to put up with a trouble-making UK which they know doesn't really want to be there, and a lack of credibility on the world stage. 

A 2nd ref. would just cause the same divisions as the first one, and the outcome would by no means be as certain as many Remainers seem to think.  

Today of all days seems an extraordinary point for a remain voter to decide we should "get on with it"

The downsides of remaining are a sense of alienation and betrayal in a very large % of the electorate

i think u will find the sense of resentment, betrayal etc, is something firmly rooted in these voters already (in many ways justifiably, but totally unrelated to eu membership)

it will remain there whether brexit happens or not. a large part of the brexit vote wasn’t really about brexit. it was about one in the eye of whom they had come to believe was the establishment

I certainly agree with the sentiment that we need to do something as the ongoing uncertainty and constant kicking the can down the road is doing constant damage to us psychologically and as an economy.  A friend of mine runs a business that imports from the EU and exports back to the EU and other countries and he has no idea whether to spend money on full preparations for no-deal or to hold off and wing it if there is no deal.  Neither scenario is good for the business and he's holding off investment in case he needs the cash to deal with no-deal related matters.

The ongoing uncertainty is bad for business, as I've said before there's likely to be a post-Brexit boom as pent-up investment is released, no-matter what kind of Brexit it is - at least the main issue will have been decided. - There will be a short term surge in investment but over a longer term there will be a decline due to lack of economic growth and continuous uncertainty. Brexit is discarding a generation of our sensible leaders (or elders) and replacing them with ideologues on both sides. 

To not Brexit would alienate a huge number of people who will feel that their vote doesn't count.  - You mean a non-binding referendum? Surely people will not feel hard done by a failure of their elected MP to protect their best interest. 

The rest of the EU will never trust the UK again if it stays and globally the UK will be viewed with (even more) contempt as the country that, having tried to leave an organisation, found that it couldn't. - The damage is already done. The EU will not trust us either way for decades (whether we stay in or leave). Frankly, at this point, I think they cannot wait for us to leave. We are already a global laughing stock and a model for how a stable democracy can be turned into a tinpot eastern european or latin american democracy (with a bit of social engineering by Murdoch Media and Mercers).

The great Brexit 'betrayal' (as it would be portrayed) would dominate UK politics for a decade or more, with unknown but certainly bad effects on the UK's civil and political life. - Neither side will admit defeat or take responsibility. So, yes I suppose I agree with you. Staying in will mean a country divided for generations, leaving will mean a break up of the Britain. 

as I've said before there's likely to be a post-Brexit boom as pent-up investment is released, no-matter what kind of Brexit it is

Heeeeeh lol. 

I think one casualty of remaining would be the destruction of any lingering belief in parliamentary sovereignty. 

It was just about tenable with the argument that we could pass an Act to leave the EU but what we would effectively be saying if we Remain is that we cannot ever leave. We recognise that the EU won't give us the deal we want and we would never leave without a deal because it would be too damaging. 

i will, however, give my morose lizard m7 the benefit of the doubt as actually i do have a vague recollection, without having checked, of him being sensible

I am grateful. 

i think u will find the sense of resentment, betrayal etc, is something firmly rooted in these voters already (in many ways justifiably, but totally unrelated to eu membership)

True

it will remain there whether brexit happens or not. a large part of the brexit vote wasn’t really about brexit. it was about one in the eye of whom they had come to believe was the establishment

Also true but remaining would give a locus to their grievances which will last a very long time. A rallying cry to every demagogue and Faragist for decades to come.   

 

 To not Brexit would alienate a huge number of people who will feel that their vote doesn't count. 

Boo fucking hoo.  What about everyone else, including children and future generations?  To leave the EU based on what some elderly people with their gold-plated pensions hankering after the 1950s and others who wanted to shout about austerity and saw an opportunity to do so "voted for" is an even bigger betrayal.  Not least because it betrays all UK citizens, including those who voted leave, who will suffer when the economy crashes and the price of every day commodities increases.   

I agree with most of what Sailers and Invicvs say, but as for the 2016 ref. being non-binding, at p.20 of the government's leaflet it did say:

"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/517014/EU_referendum_leaflet_large_print.pdf

You can make legalistic constitutional points about the ref. being non-binding but this statement is what the average voter will see. 

Boo fucking hoo. What about everyone else, including children and future generations? To leave the EU based on what some elderly people with their gold-plated pensions hankering after the 1950s and others who wanted to shout about austerity and saw an opportunity to do so "voted for" is an even bigger betrayal. Not least because it betrays all UK citizens, including those who voted leave, who will suffer when the economy crashes and the price of every day commodities increases.  

This. 

if only we could go back in a time machine and agree a soft Brexit before triggering A50

the leavers would still moan but but could tell them 'fuck off, we've left, you got what you wanted so STFU'

the remainers would be pissed off that things are worse than the previous status quo but accept it

we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now

 

@ Blue Iguana - Average Jo does not turn to page 20 of anything (not even the Sun). Even if you consider it binding - the government of the day did try to deliver on the referendum result and failed (multiple times). The scope and nature of the topic of referendum has expanded and changed significantly since. 

Goose Reply

Report

 | DM

I think one casualty of remaining would be the destruction of any lingering belief in parliamentary sovereignty. 

this is a good thing. our massively outdated and unfit “democracy” i’ve always said needs to be scrapped

i won’t pretend to be unhappy with the way it has protected from no deal (and if anything the way it has protected from a minority tyranny does make me think slightly that perhaps i am wrong and the current system has its benefits) 

When you say outdated and unfit democracy - what would you replace it with?

I do not consider it legally binding, but it is morally binding.  The Leave vote is a political artifact and will stay that way.  A 2nd ref. is by no means guaranteed to reverse the result and would be at least as divisive as the 1st.  Even if it does succeed, it simply reinforces the Leavers' narrative that the EU forces repeated referenda until it gets the 'right' result, and you still get a significant minority of the electorate feeling betrayed. Also, you'd have a chastened UK as a resented member of the EU.  

 

The biggest mistake, of many, that May made was to accept Barnier’s request to put the cart before the horse and discuss the Withdrawal Agreement prior to the Future Relationship. 

Art 50 itself says that a Withdrawal Agreement should be negotiated taking into account the Future Relationship. 

Suppose 2016 were reversed. How would that look?  EU unlikely to welcome UK back with open arms, or to forget that a majority of its population once voted to leave.  They will also remember the chaos on TMPM's attempts to negotiate.  Whatever credibility UK had will be long gone.  

That on top of the domestic political issues.  

We could keep the queen as defacto head of state but still go for a republican route, ditch the House of Lords and replace them with people who all have to be 45+ and worked in industry for at least 15 years before they can stand for election.  

That would make for an infinitely more useful upper chamber than the nonsense we have now which includes bishops ffs.

inviting s04 Sep 19 16:49

Reply

Report

 | DM

When you say outdated and unfit democracy - what would you replace it with?

well i would of course want it fairly carefully thought through, but at a basic level and at the very least:

(i) the main legislature should be proportional rep (but with minimum threshold) like virtually every other sensible country, given that currently something extraordinary like 70% of the country have no realistic prospect of their parl vote making any difference

(ii) the hol needs to fuck the fuck off, what an unholy joke having an unelected body - if we need an upper house and people are wedded to fptp, then that could be fptp

(iii) a separate executive

Jellymonster04 Sep 19 16:50

Reply

Report

 | DM

Moggocracy

? i love the moggster

I do not consider it legally binding, but it is morally binding. 

So the vote itself is morally binding but none of the unicorn promises which led to it are? 

Not the point, Lady P.  The point is that people voted in the belief that the government would implement their decision - whatever that was based on.  Re-litigating the pre-referendum arguments gets us nowhere.  If 2016 is reversed - on however a legally and morally justified basis - then a very large % of the electorate will feel that this is a betrayal of their vote. 

Why isn't it the point? Why is it only the people who are apparently bound by one decision made on one day following a campaign in which they were deliberately misinformed by politicians? Why can't those politicians be held to account, and why shouldn't the people have the opportunity to say whether they still want Brexit now we know more about what it looks like? 

Also, the percentage of the electorate who will feel their vote has been betrayed if we don't Brexit is considerably smaller than the percentage of the population who will feel that their entire future has been betrayed if we do. 

The people voted for Brexit to get them unicorns - if the end result was a fantasy, and there are no unicorns at least give them the decades of economic and social disorder! 

Really?? 

I like the elected HoL idea, recall TB thinking of changing it when he was PM. 

 

As for how our relationship with EU will be if things were reversed, yes the damage is done. However, if you were a clever EU bureaucrat, you have two choices:

1) let UK go and all the hassle with it

2) keep UK as vassal state like Switzerland

3) wait out Brexiters and their mini revolution. Once Brexit dies, throw in enough EU perks to win over the British people - thereby keep Britain (without any more of the constant whining) and teach others a lesson using Brexit as a model. 

 

Which obviously I am not, since I have listed three choices. #facepalm

Personally I think an unelected HoL isn't a bad idea if it retains its role as a second look at the work of the HoC. It needs to be wise and free from short term electoral pressure. I don't think it is always helpful to have two houses in conflict that both draw their legitimacy from a democratic mandate.

You just need to look at how members are chosen.

You could cap the number of members at 100, split that number into areas of expertise (science, industry, arts, academia, etc) and then have a committee nominate distinguished persons in each field for a term of, say, 10 years. The nominating committee could be representative of the HoC if you want a link to the electorate.  

Lady P, it does not matter WHY people voted for Brexit, what matters is that they did, and if the decision is reversed many of them will feel alienated and betrayed - no matter how many 'you were lied to' arguments are made, and no matter how true those arguments were.  This is a major part of the risk of remaining. 

 

 

Try telling them that VAR and DRS shows that they were conned, they know by now they’re worse off, and it just so happens that Bobby can come out of the shower and everything is going to be ok, and see what they say.

Of course it matters! Jesus wept. If it doesn't deliver anything they were promised when they voted for it then it obviously makes more sense to cancel it and make 17.4 million people (minus those who have popped their clogs or come to their senses) unhappy than to go through with it and make everyone (minus the likes of Jacob Rees Mogg and Crispin Odey) unhappy. 

Lady P - a great majority of those would rather see  someone else be unhappy or at the least everyone be unhappy. 

Lady P, they were promised that HMG would implement their decision.  They decided to leave.  Everything else is immaterial at this point.  

If the decision is reversed, do you think the average Leaver would just say "oh well, seems like I was lied to and remaining is for the best after all"?  Or do you think there'd be a deep sense of betrayal and alienation among a significant minority of the population?  

We are where we are. There are costs of both leaving and remaining at this point, unfortunately you seem unable to acknowledge the latter.  

 

Lady P - a great majority of those would rather see someone else be unhappy or at the least everyone be unhappy.

Who gives a fuck about people who will be unhappy whatever happens? Let's focus on identifying the outcome which will make the greatest number of people happy, which is cancelling Brexshit and moving on with more important matters. 

We are where we are. There are costs of both leaving and remaining at this point, unfortunately you seem unable to acknowledge the latter.  

The mistake you are making is assuming that if we remain the leave voters will be unhappy and if we leave (particularly with no deal) the remain voters will be unhappy. 

No. 

If we crash out with no deal, everyone will be in the shit and everyone will be fucking angry and unhappy, even the thickos who think that that is what they want. 

We can't make those people happy so let's not waste our energy trying. 

Blue I’m with you, for what it’s worth (which is nothing).  One of the main reasons I voted to stay was the sheer scale of the administrative task Brexit would create and it shows no sign of abating for all there has been a mini-veer back the Remainers’ way this week.  I don’t count myself as a Remainer any more, just a get this divisive, boring shit out of the way as soon as humanly possible kind of guy.  If I hear the word Brexit once more I might just die.

But dont you think those fuckers deserve what they wish for? 

Part of me wants to let them have it just not while Bojo is in charge, simply to refuse him his Churchillian moment. 

I don’t count myself as a Remainer any more, just a get this divisive, boring shit out of the way as soon as humanly possible kind of guy.

Lol good luck with that if we leave with no deal. This shit will drag on for DECADES. 

But dont you think those fuckers deserve what they wish for? 

If there was a way to let them have it without inflicting it on the other c.75% of the population then I would agree completely.

But there isn't, so no. 

There should be an online sign up page for all no deal leavers to sign up to. This way, they can all be held accountable for their wishes and actions in 5 years time. 

 

Hold them accountable how? Most of them are completely fucking useless and have no way of compensating the rest of us for their stupidity. 

That massive brain of yours must be such a burden.

I can't deny that being a total fuckwit seems much more fun and relaxing tbh. 

Goose Reply

Report

 | DM

Personally I think an unelected HoL isn't a bad idea if it retains its role as a second look at the work of the HoC. It needs to be wise and free from short term electoral pressure. I don't think it is always helpful to have two houses in conflict that both draw their legitimacy from a democratic mandate.

You just need to look at how members are chosen.

You could cap the number of members at 100, split that number into areas of expertise (science, industry, arts, academia, etc) and then have a committee nominate distinguished persons in each field for a term of, say, 10 years. The nominating committee could be representative of the HoC if you want a link to the electorate.  

feel like u have suggested this before

definitely sounds like an interesting alternative, though no doubt some would howl it would be elitist and unrepresentative 

Hold them accountable how? Most of them are completely fucking useless and have no way of compensating the rest of us for their stupidity. 

 

Shouting "SHAME" every time they step out of their house sounds like a good starting point. 

It won't pay for the damage though, will it? 

And how do we identify them anyway? Making people wear some sort of badge on their clothes is rather frowned upon. 

Not really.  Because they’re are such stars, we should make them wear....

oh wait...

Calling people "Enemies of the People" comes to mind. Who was it that did it two years ago?

It’s a bit much to say Remaining would mean the end of parliamentary sovereignty given that, if we don’t leave - and I still believe we will in some form, though I’ll be delighted if not - it will only be because Parliament intervened.

And who cares about parliamentary sovereignty anyway tbh. The EU is a wise and strong institution. We are better off inside it even if that means our petty little westminster talking-shop taking a back seatZ

Pretty much everything Blue Iguana said. 

I don't want to leave the EU and I voted Remain, but the damage to our country from this faultline - especially if the ref's democratic mandate isn't respected - will be greater than the damage from Brexit. 

Who cares? I’d rather be a citizen of the EU through my citizenship of a damaged UK than not be a citizen of the EU.

Ffs...what laz said.

This is just the start...even if we fix the withdrawal agreement we still gave the trade deals.

Another referendum seems the only way. We know what a shitstorm it is. We know we'll be poorer and worse off and we know we might not have a withdrawal agreement...let them vote on it. If they still want it.....

A GE isnt right. You can't have a single issue GE. and we need a decision based on numbers not seats.

 

I don't want to leave the EU and I voted Remain, but the damage to our country from this faultline - especially if the ref's democratic mandate isn't respected - will be greater than the damage from Brexit. 

I find this argument very naive. 

Do you really not think that if we do leave and it is a disaster (and right now it appears to be a choice between no deal, which will be a disaster, a deal which pleases no one, or no Brexit) we won't have all the same problems and worse? Do you honestly think that people will go, "OK well I've lost my job and food is more expensive now and basically the country is in a total mess now but we left the EU with no deal which is totally not what was promised, but my faith in democracy is restored?" 

 

BIs argument is extraordinary- the only brexit on the cards is a no deal brexit.  If that happens do you honestly think I the faultlines in this country will be fixed?  Well actually they might but only in the entire country(save for a handful of disaster capitalists) uniting in regret and anger.  It is easy to say “just get on with it”  but when food and medicine shortages strike, the civil war in Northern Ireland re-ignites,  fuel and food prices go through the roof and job losses and border delays bite, there will be riots - the lies of the Johnson administration will become the great betrayal.  

I don't think Brexit will be a disaster in the "planes not flying, no medicines, people dying, Mad Max" kind of way. There will certainly be plenty of initial problems and chaos but the main consequence over time is that the country just becomes more shit - poorer, more inward looking, less relevant globally etc. 

Do I want that to happen? Of course not. 

But I think it is preferable to creating the kind of divide that leads to civil war. 

I think a better leader after the referendum could have pulled off the tightrope walk - some kind of EEA based bespoke deal that kept most of the benefits of membership AND fulfilled the referendum mandate and "left the EU". But positions have polarized and hardened since then and any Brexit is going to be much harder (if it happens at all) - Remainers now want a full Ref2 and staying in the EU, Brexiters who would have happily accepted much less a few years ago now want full hard Brexit. 

Anna, on this:

"Do you honestly think that people will go, "OK well I've lost my job and food is more expensive now and basically the country is in a total mess now but we left the EU with no deal which is totally not what was promised, but my faith in democracy is restored?" "

Actually, yes. That's an exaggeration of course, but something like that (plus I think the long term gradually getting shitter won't be so obviously connected to Brexiting - living standards have been declining for decades anyway). We would have maintained our democratic legitimacy as a society and a nation, and turned away from the path that leads to civil war and a much worse fracturing of the country. People who believe (accurately!) that their vote doesn't count and their needs are not being met, who find that they cannot effect change democratically will turn to non-democratic means. At a minimum they will turn to ever more fringe ever more populist politicians who are far nastier than the current lot who are greedy and incompetent but not actually evil. 

 

As for another referendum, not only will we (ie, the Remain side), lose, and lose badly, it will make things *worse* because of the "you got it wrong, now go back and do it again" message it sends to the voters. 

 

"Do you honestly think that people will go, "OK well I've lost my job and food is more expensive now and basically the country is in a total mess now but we left the EU with no deal which is totally not what was promised, but my faith in democracy is restored?" "

When people lose their jobs or at best things do not improve but slowly decline post Brexit they go looking for someone to blame. I suspect that will be the forrins. They will not give two hoots about faith in democracy. They want the unicorns promised them.

The growing post-referendum demand for ideological purity on both sides of the remain/leave debate has led us to where we are today.  The chances for pragmatic compromises have been squandered.  So, we are now in a winner takes all situation - we will either remain or we will leave on a no (or hardly any) deal basis.  If the former, it will ferment resentment and cynicism re the democratic process.  If the latter, it will be one of three things: (i) a catastrophe; (ii) a non-event (perhaps with a gradual shift in direction to option i or iii); or (iii) as marvelous as various Brexiteers have promised over the years.  People will be proven right or wrong.   If the Brexiteers are proven wrong they will reap the whirlwind.  If the Remainers are proven wrong, we can all quietly get on with our lives and enjoy the post Brexit idyll we have been promised.

 

I think what I am saying is, however worthless it may be, I also agree with Blue Iguana.  

The problem with BI and Tommy's analysis is that it's far too sensible and can't be distilled into a shrieking soundbite to be spread across Twitter in an orgy of hashtags.

The coming election will be a national disgrace.

When people lose their jobs or at best things do not improve but slowly decline post Brexit they go looking for someone to blame. I suspect that will be the forrins. They will not give two hoots about faith in democracy. They want the unicorns promised them.

Whoever they choose to blame, it won't change the fact that they will still be unhappy after Brexit, and probably more so than they were before. 

OP is right, you need to leave, we don’t trust you anymore 

sign deal pls and leave

Lady Penelope04 Sep 19 18:08

Reply | Report Reply | Report

Hold them accountable how? Most of them are completely fucking useless and have no way of compensating the rest of us for their stupidity. 

 

My vote would be to use them as the new border wall between Scotland and England, 300-style.

Great work from BI here. Not posting hysterically or trying to wind anyone up - just calmly and logically pointing out the facts of the situation. 

Shame there are not more posters like him on rof.

Thanks for the support, LA, Stru, Tommy. Gosh I'm blushing nowblush

To a large extent Brexit has developed into a culture war, in which the UK's relationship with the EU has become somewhat incidental.  

 

 

A culture war in which Brexiters believe they are the sole gatekeepers of British culture and remainers believe Brexiters wouldn't know culture if it slapped them round the chops with a dead fish? 

Something like that, yes. 

Remainers, like US Democrats, should bear in mind that constantly insulting people is unlikely to persuade them to vote for your side.  

"Or do you think there'd be a deep sense of betrayal and alienation among a significant minority of the population?"

 

This is now already inevitable regardless of the outcome.

Some leavers will feel that way if we leave with a deal they don't like.

Some leavers will feel that way if we leave with no deal.

Some remainers will feel that way if we leave at all.

Some remainers will leave that way if we leave with a deal they don't like.

More than that, though.  There SHOULD be a deep sense of betrayal, not just amongst a significant minority of the population, but amongst ALL of the population, save perhaps for the .001%.  

The Rees-moggs, the Odeys, the Camerons, the Corbyns, the Skinners, the Hoeys.  The Barclays.

For generations the political and social elite have sought to use Europe as a scapegoat for their own incompetence, or to distract from their own excesses, or as a plaything for their own profits.

Fvck them and their vanity projects.

The EU is not perfect.  But it is a good idea and it is a net positive.  It fosters unity and it is a bulwark against the avarice, incompetence and venality of domestic politicians.  

I have heard it said that the best trick the devil ever pulled was convincing us he doesnt exist.

Same is true here.  The best trick the money behind Vote Leave ever pulled was convincing us that the EU is the problem.

Leaving doesnt solve the problem, it exacerbates it.  It just gets papered over and festers until eventually it splits wide open and then we're all fvcked.

I'm annoyed.

There is truth in what you say, Fool. UK pollies have for years used the EU as an excuse for unpopular policies of their own.  However, there is an argument that, by removing significant powers from national parliaments, the EU has led to a lowering of the quality of national parliamentarians, which is in part why we end up with the dross we have.  

Another issue is the atrophy of expertise in national governments in areas such as trade law. As we're very painfully aware now, few UK pollies or beaurocrats have any knowledge or experience of negotiating trade deals.

 

 

I don't think there is, because the EU hasn't removed significant powers from our national parliament.

Name some?  I can't think of any?  Maybe customs legislation, that has direct application, and I know there are loads of directly applicable EU regs, but they're on stuff that would have been devolved legislation or tertiary legislation at best anyhow.

And the UK has access to some really very good trade negotiators.

But it's chosen to use or rely on the ones who tell the ERG what the ERG wants to hear.

Isn't this line of argument akin to saying we should close all hospitals because people have deskilled themselves out of being able to remove their own appendixes?

Well  it has removed power over trade policy and any number of regulations affecting the single market.  

And you say that's what was attracting all the good people into parliament?

Presumably they have all now gone to the European Parliament?

If not, then perhaps that was not the attraction?

Not following your last argument, LF. All I am pointing out is that there is an argument that being in the EU has led to a reduction in the quality of domestic parliamentarians.  FWIW in general terms I agree many things are best legislated at EU level. 

I'm struggling to see what you say is the causative link.

I agree with the facts:

1. We are in the EU

2. We have a load of v sh1t politicians.

But I don't see how 1 causes 2.  You seem to say it is because we have apssed certain competencies from the UK to the EU.  If that is the causative link, then those competencies being in the UK had to either attract or create the historically good politicians.

Aren't you kinda just blaming the EU for something that is really a national problem?

Interestingly, Douglass Carswell and Daniel Hannan have argued that the reason we have crap politicians is that the breeding ground for parliamentarians is local government, which has been effectively neutered.

The problem with that is that it suggests that "politician" is an acceptable career.

It isn't.  It should be a short term public service.

Well I agree that correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but it does nod and wink suggestively towards it. 

I do think that Carswell/Hannan have a point.  Parties do struggle to find candidates for council seats in a lot of areas.  

Apparently, the Scottish political class has improved now that they have Holyrood..