EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

Because it was the will of the people.

Because problems in the UK (austerity policies after 2008 recession) were caused by immigrants, not banks/tories?

There are a lot of cunts here.

Quickest summary I can think of-
The poorest/most disadvantaged people still want it because they hope it'll improve their lot.

The richest and most powerful people still want it because it will allow them to do evil things without EU interference, and fund lying to everyone else to convince them it'll be beneficial.

Politicians govt either too scared to go against the 'will of the people' or they look forward to not having to compete with the EU when lawmaking.

Problem it really is still about 50/50 so it's not politically wise to suggest binning the whole thing.

^^ oh yeah and big swathes of cunts* in the middle.

• Anti-immigration/misplaced sense of how 'Great' Britain's importance is to the rest of the world
  

In a nutshell: A tradition of Euroscepticism was amplified by the Euro crisis and the high-handed treatment of Greece, which further undermined trust in the EU's large powers (especially Germany), then 'austerity' happened (a word I don't like to use, as I believe it's a euphemism) and further increased inequality and dissatisfaction, a bad Act of Parliament was passed that set no proper framework for the referendum, and then in the referendum people were manipulated by means of outright lies like the £350m bus, and the 'remain' campaign was run extremely badly ('Project Fear').

Fundamentally, it's a combination of what some conservatives (small c) think about what should be the UK's place in the world, and grievances about the mind-boggling injustices perpetrated since 2010 especially, but also the spineless Blair/Brown governments that did not apply nearly enough corrective powers to undo some of the evils of Thatcher.

The reason why it's not so easy to 'take back' is because people (wrongly) see the referendum as binding and not advisory. This wouldn't necessarily be such a problem if (a) it wasn't also seen as a democratic verdict against the above combination of small-in-the-world Britain and injustice (by the respective groups, although they obviously overlap), making any suggestion to go back to 'business as usual' politically toxic, and (b) the UK hadn't been saddled with a hopelessly incompetent prime minister after the referendum, who obviously didn't exactly replace a shining paragon of competence (who immediately ducked out when he couldn't be bothered with cleaning up the mess he had created), but whose political mistakes like triggering Article 50 carelessly without any significant preparation, calling the 2017 election, etc. didn't help too much.

May I ask a stupid question please. I'm not British, but have lived in the UK in the past and Brexit intrigues me. I follow this thread and read the odd guardian article/analysis so know a tiny bit about what's been going on. Here's my question: wtf? Why? What's the idea? Why can't everyone (someone? anyone?) just shrug this off and say we're sorry, it was a poorly thought out idea, let's chuck it in the bin? Or rather, why doesn't anyone in government (I know lots of people do) seem to think that would work?

They're symbols in a culture war.

Remain is representative of the post-war progressive liberal / social / democratic order.

Brexit is a bit of an unholy alliance, so as I engage with its supporters I tend to find that it's primarily representative of the anti-progressive agenda (so it's against political correctness, immigration, evidence-based-policy, social justice, etc) - that tends to be the well off, south eastern, retired boomer voters.

But in addition to that it's also representative of a protest against the status quo, against austerity (the last ten years of which have utterly decimated the welfare state), etc., and that means the working class in the 'left behind' towns around the UK vote for it. As you'll note, these two groups are totally in opposition to each other.

But somehow it ALSO somehow manages to be a vehicle for disaster capitalists who want to decimate the welfare state entirely - hardcore neo-liberals like the Taxpayers Alliance and the IEA - in favour of a Singapore style low-tax economy which does nothing for those at the bottom of the pile but really provides good returns for those at the top.

It's the fact that these three groups are contradictory that prevents us from having a reasonable conversation about it. And those at the top know about it - 'Brexit means Brexit' and all the rest of the asinine sloganeering around Brexit is a symbol of this contradiction - that as soon as you define it, you lose one of these groups, and the mandate for it evaporates. They managed to get it over the line in 2016 before this was clear. May has been trying to bust out of it ever since.

Johnson and Cummings know this. They obviously know this. The cabinet they've recently formed is not about squaring this circle. It's about barrelling their agenda through - they want to win power; if they do that, they don't need to win the argument.

Effectively Brexit is a moment of temporary madness which has - due to the timidity of our media - allowed the unscrupulous to seize power. Their grip on power relies on hiding its madness. It is the end of the UK as a serious country.

Great explanation, very well put.

due to the timidity of our media

or its complicity in the madness agenda

If Brexit was just about poverty, unionist in NI would have voted with everyone else.

They just about voted Brexit...but are now remain.

Because in NI it's more acceptable to voice it's a bad idea&criticize politicians& there is no defacto two party system baked into the voting mechanism.

Very much so. I was thinking particularly of the BBC when I wrote that, but the non-BBC media is much more click-orientated, which means political spectacle becomes part of their business model.

Very good

Thank you for that, sums it all up very well and is actually understandable. Stealing it to appear savvy at social gatherings ;)

Thanks everyone else as well, interesting.

In a nutshell:

From what I hear from a handful of friends who are long-time members of the Labour Party is that the meetings have changed quite radically in content and tone. Many moderates have left. Unless you’re 100% on message - willing to discuss Palestine but not Brexit ..... you’re labelled a ‘Blairite’ and ignored.

More simply:

People (rich or poor) can be conservative in nature - scared of what is over the hill.

Continued membership of the EU is perceived by enough of these people as a threat.

Which is odd, really - almost total uncertainty is preferred over the status quo, which suggests that people don't believe that things can get worse, which I submit is erroneous.

We'll it shows some people must have it pretty bad

AND believe it can't get worse. Which is the important qualifier for that belief - and that's nuts.

It's definitely challenging to try to understand that people have that little hope.

Or, they want someone else to have it worse than they do.

Perhaps people that won't understand how they've been left behind, yes.

I don't think brexiters are the only ones looking for some kind of 'levelling out' though. There's a whole of people that will never be able to buy a house etc that are mighty pissed off too. A return to the previous status quo isn't gonna happen now.

The result of Brexit, if we actually do Brexit, is going to be to increase inequality, further cut-back the welfare state and embed the big American companies into the provision of health-care.

I suppose paying £30,000 to have a baby will make the pain of not being able to afford a deposit fade away a little.

I don't disagree.
But given a choice between nothing and nothing, at least this feels like trying!

We need someone who's gonna step in though and offer them something else. Remain and reform, not just remain.

Problem is it's remain in the EU and reform the UK, and the UK consistently vote for the party that wishes to do neither of these things.