EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

Do we think that this is an accurate prediction?

1 Attachment

I was down looking after my mum all week after she'd been discharged from hospital after a procedure on sunday and she watches the news continually all day long, same channel, same stories on repeat, 90% brexit.

even though I was sitting in the kitchen trying to work on my laptop I could hear every word and my anger levels, blood pressure and overall rage was about 10x higher than usual. it was physically and mentally exhausting.

everyone they put in front of the news cameras now just lies through their teeth about the realities of this countries situation, I didn't hear a single person that represented even 30% of my views. and ultimately my views boil down to "don't be a dick to vulnerable people"

I can't quite see how Remain would go about combatting - let alone overcoming - those tactics...

Have a referendum with 3 choices.

1. Remain, but make sure that, as @mashton mentions,

   talk about reducing inequality, increasing public expenditure and (just because I have to give something) using the EU mechanisms available to us, as a member state, to curb immigration and FoM.

2. Leave, choose a no-deal, and suffer whatever fallout there is with a stiff upper lip and indomitable white cliffs of dover blitz spirit.

3. Leave, hammering out the best deal that we can in the face of EU and UK red lines.

Or whatever two leave options are the front runners / most representative. Or even 3 leave options.

Make clear the outcome is binding and will be translated into the appropriate legislation / instrument, based on the highest vote.

Which echo chamber are we in?

Right, but that's question one of two. The second part is "If leave, no deal or may's WA?". And as @TW says these are unambiguous, achievable (if binding) options. Unlike the "first" referendum.

Even labeling this a "second referendum" as if we're doing a re-run irritates me. It's not the same question.

But MPs also can't revoke brexit because it's against the will of the people (yawn). Inevitably brexit will be delayed and inevitably there will be no consensus in parlaiment on the way forward. That will probably lead to a second referendum. If there is a second referendum, the only way of revoking brexit is having a second referendum with options for deal/no deal/remain. But everyone has already apparently voted to leave and both labour and conservative leadership are scared of upsetting the leavers so I wouldn't be so sure remain will feature on the ballot. And then pending the rise of the far right as a reaction to MPs failing to enact the will of the people, who knows whether Britain won't vote again for leave? People will also become more likely to vote leave if the economy tanks while brexit is delayed (because businesses decide to relocate to Europe), because they are more inclined to see unemployment as related to immigration than the calamity that will be no deal brexit.

On a more positive note, enough old people have died by today's date that the british population should now be in favour of remain.

On a more positive note, enough old people have died by today's date that the british population should now be in favour of remain.

I'm not convinced by this argument. I mean, since two years ago everyone's got two years older, so it kind of balances out, doesn't it? Yes, there are newly-eligible voters who are more likely to be Remainers, but at the margins there will be some middle-aged voters who have got that bit more comfortable and conservative in their outlook, who may be swayed to vote Leave.

And it makes quite a big assumption about the people who didn't vote last time (that they won't again, or that they proportionally reflect those that did).

And if you read the whole article, it may also gain voters. Badly written headline with no clear number crunching.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-deal-vote-theresa-may-second-referendum-vote-election-yvette-cooper-a8736216.html?fbclid=IwAR1l4asSUEipif4lEkZgb9wWQ89wyH6SLT8ARFf6un7Huqfvjp9Q9um4VWE

So...if this amendment passes it offers the option for May's deal BUT as condition that it must be accepted (remember that the EU parliament still have to vote on it? I doubt they vote it down, however...there could be amendments put in on citizen rights) by 7 March there must be an extension for 9 months for article 50.

Perhaps that has a chance to pass...if so, it could kick Brexit in the long grass. I rather see it canned, the whole civil service that deals with reform/complicate laws is wasting time on Brexit where other tasks are IMHO way more vital. But we are where we are now, this could offer a way to a vote on the WA.

Nobody wants a cliff edge Brexit, bar the ones that stand to gain a lot on the stockmarket/by vulture buying companies and capital.

I agree, although given the younger population is growing, the younger population will have increased relative to the older population.

Yes, that's good. Definitely worth a read.

No doubt this has been mentioned before but I haven’t the time to look.

To my shame, I didn’t vote. I would have voted remain. If the chance to vote again comes up, I’ll be first in the queue at my polling staton.

I honesty believed that it was never going to be voted for. Big mistake. Same as the Trump election - another shock result.

How many people are in my position? Are there are figures for this?

Nobody wants a cliff edge Brexit, bar the ones that stand to gain a lot on the stockmarket/by vulture buying companies and capital.

Sadly, I don't think that this is true any more. Originally I think the only people who were keen on a hard/WTO brexit were motivated by some or all of: Thatcherite ideology (Hannan), nostalgia for pre-EU Britain (Rees-Mogg), xenophobic politics (Farage), and financial opportunism/disaster capitalism. What I believe happened was that this cabal of "globalising" Brexiteers managed (with the help of the grubbily opportunistic Boris) to convince a large chunk of the population that what Brexit would actually be is essentially a protectionist endeavour that would keep all the economic benefits of EU membership while reducing the (perceived) impact of immigration on wages, the NHS and housing. Of course, this was always completely impossible because freedom of movement will always be a corollary of having full access to the single market and decision-making powers within it. But it was easier to sell that lie than try to pretend that a globalising Brexit could somehow be protectionist at the same time. What was astonishing to me was that this bunch of millionaires somehow managed to convince millions of ordinary working-class people that they had their interests at heart.

Anyway, after the referendum the tactics shifted. It didn't really matter what Brexit was going to be any more. All that mattered was that the will of the people was being obstructed by the "political elite" (which somehow didn't include these people and did include judges) and, more importantly, by Brussels. The former were painted just as remainers, which is probably true, but doesn't explain why Brexiteers like David Davis were unable to find any type of Brexit that actually satisfied everyone. The latter were painted as being intransigent (i.e., consistent in representing the interests of EU members and the integrity of the EU over the interests of a soon-to-be non-member) and not giving the UK what we deserved, because "we won the war for them" and "they need us more than we need them" etc.

The upshot of this misrepresentation is that leave-voters will never have to face the truth that they were sold a pup and instead will blame the non-existence of the unicorn on people who were either unable or simply not responsible for delivering it (the Brexiteers having all fucked off out of the decision making process by this stage). This means that the leave vote is now more entrenched (and possibly bigger because of the EU having portrayed as the enemy) and that there is an increasingly large group of leave voters who actually do want a no-deal Brexit because they can't get what they were promised (i.e., a no-cost, all-benefit Brexit via an easy deal with a forelock-tugging EU) and see no-deal as the only route for nominally achieving what they voted for i.e., the empty gesture of leaving the EU, despite there being no sign that they will receive any of the promised beneficial consequences.

Nice analysis

I'm not sure if 'analysis'is the right word for that.

man of the people tho.

BBC R5 Adrian Chiles standing in for the supine John Pienaar,
was just suggesting that maybe even a majority of those who voted Leave,
wanted a 'No Deal' brexit.
Given the info upthread that even rabid brexitteurs like Hannan
were stating the UK would remain in the Customs Union,
it seems the BBC are upset that Corbyn has drawn a Red Line
of 'Withdraw the No Deal option before talks'.

Corbyn missed an open goal there - he should have agreed to talks, come out afterwards and said “I went to meet the PM with an open mind but none of her red lines have changed and she won’t rule out no deal”.

All the focus would then have been on May, not him.

Good analysis.

But how many of these hardcore brexiters exist?

The people that are somewhat in the middle probably swing the vote.

And the more leave voting NI unionists also have gone more remain now that they realise the DUP is full of it. All polls show a trend towards remain.

Can't disagree with that.
The historic nature of May's defeat has, instantly, slipped into history,
with, seemingly no benefit to either Labour or Remain.

Adrian Chiles is right, the majority of those who voted leave do want a no deal Brexit.

So, buckle up for hard brexit then? I keep hearing parliament "won't allow it", but that is the glide path we're on unless they suck it up and do something besides calling pointless votes of confidence.

The government has been thinking about future trade

https://www.great.gov.uk/

Calling it a glide path always seems a little generous, but I get the point. Right now, the politics seems more like a crash reel from the efforts to land that space rocket on a floating barge. Let's hope they get it right eventually.