Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

[Cyclops]

Has May handled this incompetently? I agree either option hurts Britain financially, but I don't think she is ruling for the benefit of her people. I think the idea is to sink Brexit for the benefit of the US without costing her own elite too much money.

If Russia is attacking Britain's post Brexit WTO position its to undermine a US ally. Russia can benefit from a US-EU disagreement but thats been happening for some time without external interference. This is not some masterstroke by Putin, he's merely looking on while the big dog mauls another member of the pack: the Yanks are still coming for him.

I think May has shuffled through a poor deal (financially better than no deal) that is a betrayal of both the Brexit vote and the EU. She is trying to satisfy the City (in my view comfortably to most powerful voice in British politics, there hasn't been a Labour government that wasn't actually Liberal or Tory Lite in decades) by keeping their provision of tax havens to corrupt Europeans open, and throw a spanner into the tracks of German's tottering federal empire. "Making Britain Great" is not an option here, its a question of hacking away from the EU symbiote (hoping the operation will kill it and not Britain) or staying slightly connected in the hope of extracting a modicum of power and wealth and pretending "sovreignty has been restored".

From the outside she is showing skill and poise, for example triggering the no confidence challenge and killing it before it was ripe, and getting this abortion of a deal onto the table where people now have to actually deal with it, when it benefits no one in Britain.

If you imagine she's incompetent how has she positioned herself at this point? She has proved far more skilled at politics than say Farage or the straw headed troll Boris. I disagree with Farage's politics, but his message that the EU had eroded British sovereignty was true, preached in good faith and accepted by the majority (in the face of dissaproval by all major parties too). He was so popular he had defectors from all parties jumping into his ship. There is a vague parallel with Trump, in that electorates know when they are being offered and sometimes troll their masters by picking the supposed worse option for and giggles.

The fact this has been betrayed and something other than Brexit is now the best bet to come through Parliament is a clear sign of how weak British democracy is.

Given the ongoing European Spring and its large opposition to EU and globalism, perhaps instead of reviewing Brexit decision, the notion of EU itself should be reviewed? It seems like this is a good time to scrap EU and start again.

Comrade Trump agrees. That's precisely what the current debacle is: a review conducted in Britain about the existence of the EU.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Has May handled this incompetently? I agree either option hurts Britain financially, but I don't think she is ruling for the benefit of her people. I think the idea is to sink Brexit for the benefit of the US without costing her own elite too much money.

If Russia is attacking Britain's post Brexit WTO position its to undermine a US ally. Russia can benefit from a US-EU disagreement but thats been happening for some time without external interference. This is not some masterstroke by Putin, he's merely looking on while the big dog mauls another member of the pack: the Yanks are still coming for him.

I think May has shuffled through a poor deal (financially better than no deal) that is a betrayal of both the Brexit vote and the EU. She is trying to satisfy the City (in my view comfortably to most powerful voice in British politics, there hasn't been a Labour government that wasn't actually Liberal or Tory Lite in decades) by keeping their provision of tax havens to corrupt Europeans open, and throw a spanner into the tracks of German's tottering federal empire. "Making Britain Great" is not an option here, its a question of hacking away from the EU symbiote (hoping the operation will kill it and not Britain) or staying slightly connected in the hope of extracting a modicum of power and wealth and pretending "sovreignty has been restored".

From the outside she is showing skill and poise, for example triggering the no confidence challenge and killing it before it was ripe, and getting this abortion of a deal onto the table where people now have to actually deal with it, when it benefits no one in Britain.

If you imagine she's incompetent how has she positioned herself at this point? She has proved far more skilled at politics than say Farage or the straw headed troll Boris. I disagree with Farage's politics, but his message that the EU had eroded British sovereignty was true, preached in good faith and accepted by the majority (in the face of dissaproval by all major parties too). He was so popular he had defectors from all parties jumping into his ship. There is a vague parallel with Trump, in that electorates know when they are being offered and sometimes troll their masters by picking the supposed worse option for and giggles.

The fact this has been betrayed and something other than Brexit is now the best bet to come through Parliament is a clear sign of how weak British democracy is.

Very fair points, i would +rep if i could

Just on the incompetent point though- At least for me, when i call her that, its because she is. Being PM generally is far beyond her pay-grade, i don't know if you've looked much at the domestic side of things, but when you do you'll realize just how much of a mess up she is. Even her own allies admit she is a 'passive player' in Cabinet politics- which is incredibly bad given how the British system works and explains why essentially she has lost control of her own party and the narrative.

Her position is secured by default, due to the fractured nature of both brexiteers and remainers and that no one wants the job currently due to its political toxicity- the fact that May managed to avoid a VONC by promising her own party members she won't lead them into the next GE highlights both that, (and that she's awful at domestic politics again ) but also how much she's messed up. She went into this a few months before widely stating she would be leading them into the next GE, now her career is over essentially post-brexit.

Her deal itself is incompetent because its actually a self-created mess. It was her own red lines and own timetable that has 'forced' her down this route as she alternatively switched from supporting an ERG-lite vision to being a 'soft brexiteer' to alienating now both those potential support bases and leaving her with very few allies (an issue for someone who unlike Cameron didn't have an inbuilt Parliamentary clique). Moreover the EU apparently were prepared to offer revisions last week to it to make it more palatable to Parliament...right up until May spoke...and then apparently she made so little sense they scrapped everything. She's relying on running down the clock to make her's the only 'viable' alternative. Which is desperation as its now vulnerable to a sleuth of amendments from both sides and the ability for her to do a 'no deal' brexit many now be taken away entirely by Parliament.

This isn't even mentioning how she botched an election that has directly again placed the constraints she is under in terms of needing the DUP- who she cannot keep happy, again due to her own red lines (which in the past she's been very willing to U turn...well essentially pressured to/forced after putting up stubborn resistance).

She has perhaps ensured their may potentially be a second vote or indeed a VONC in her government. She's also ensured that a Tory split is now a distinct possibility. So comparisons to other equally 'poor' PM's are appropriate i think.

What i do agree with is the perception that perhaps outsiders may get of her being politically savvy through holding on. However this again is more due to being the 'default' option- the divisions of her rivals and the toxicity of a brexit pmship being great shields to provide wiggle-room. Wiggle room which she ironically has consistently actually failed to make use of, earlier on effectively being a 'pass the parcel' to various factions. In terms of her primary job- to safeguard the UK, she's failed (Not just domestically), but also by absolutely failing to prepare for a 'no deal brexit' until the past two weeks apparently.

Agreed that this is the worst option other than a no-deal. Also about the undue influence of the City (Recent looking into the City of Westminister Corporation are frankly harrowing). However on the British democracy point- this is what happens when you throw up a referendum in a system designed to limit the direct say of the citizenry as much as possible, and then to boot have that referendum result be non-sustainable, with no attempts by the government to bother building a consensus and bridging divides, but instead actively creating them through their rhetoric 'Traitors etc'- which now as was inevitable do not cut it and the lack of a sustainable result looms large in essentially barring some miracle plunging the UK into a cycle of EU membership being the go-to political football for the next decade.

So it is a complete mess indeed, but i would submit that May is indeed handling this incompetently (In terms of domestic politics, managing the party, managing parliament and indeed in negotiation) and is out of her depth- however i concede the point that would anyone else do it any better? Arguably in some areas- A successor might see the way out for what it is, engaging to build a majority consensus for A plan- and again the whole issue with the referendum- beyond its two extreme being essentially non-electorally relevant, Parliament has a lot of lee-way and rightly or wrongly the legitimacy of the British system to do as it wants afterwards- be that interpreting the vote as one for 'Norway vassal' or for Canada or Singapore.

May dithers, makes mistakes and confuses being 'stubborn' for showing leadership.

So agree with parts there mate, but in regards to May- absolutely positive she will be remembered as a stubborn PM indeed, but not through her own making but the contexts and circumstance surrounding her, i suspect she'll be seen more as a hapless prisoner of this, muddling along to a career cliff edge (confirmed by her promise to stay in the job for a few more years tops, before essentially being forced to commit to stepping down prior to any GE).

EDIT:
Just to add some Christmas humour to this and while not 'brexit' is relevant to the competency issue.

The Justice Minister Liz Trust has just stated in Parliament when asked what the government is doing to ensure the current (ongoing) crisis of private drones screwing around with Gatwick airport is resolved...

She replied that the government is looking into various ways that can deter drones etc etc 'Barking dogs can deter drones'...

Wow. This is the same woman though who supports banning internet encryption in the UK...so yeah...figures.

... So maybe May isn't incompetent by this governments standards .

[Heathen Hammer]

Comrade Trump agrees. That's precisely what the current debacle is: a review conducted in Britain about the existence of the EU.

If notion of another referendum is legitimate, then so is notion of scrapping EU altogether. It is only fair. ... If you are not afraid of democracy, then you have nothing to worry about.

[mongrel]

If notion of another referendum is legitimate, then so is notion of scrapping EU altogether. It is only fair. ... If you are not afraid of democracy, then you have nothing to worry about.

Not relevant to the thread or the discussion which is entirely dedicated to Brexit implementation. This is a no unicorn-free zone. You know full well no single country can arrange to scrap the EU, nor is the any desire to . Open a new thread if you want to discuss the EU itself.

Moving on .


I agree with Dante Von Hespburg on the issue of May's incompetence. Her handling of Brexit is not only wasting time, time which could be spent dealing with poverty, crime and a housing crisis, but is also bleeding taxpayer's money.

[Muizer]

Given the ongoing European Spring and its large opposition to EU and globalism, perhaps instead of reviewing Brexit decision, the notion of EU itself should be reviewed? It seems like this is a good time to scrap EU and start again.

Pretty much ever since UK joined the EU, its goal has been to limit the EU's scope to removing barriers for business while giving up as little sovereignty as possible.

Now its people (well, about half) want to leave because it is undemocratic and looks after business interests only.

Perhaps by making Britain leave, its people will have helped to bring about exactly the reforms that would have addressed their concerns.

Sadly for them, they won't benefit from it. On the contrary, by 'taking back controll', they're putting it back in the hands of the political class that helped create the very thing they're trying to run from.

[Cyclops]

Pretty much ever since UK joined the EU, its goal has been to limit the EU's scope to removing barriers for business while giving up as little sovereignty as possible.

Now its people (well, about half) want to leave because it is undemocratic and looks after business interests only.

Perhaps by making Britain leave, its people will have helped to bring about exactly the reforms that would have addressed their concerns.

Sadly for them, they won't benefit from it. On the contrary, by 'taking back controll', they're putting it back in the hands of the political class that helped create the very thing they're trying to run from.

Maybe they prefer their tyrants gammon coloured? That's at least one bit of democracy, to chose your owner.

As mentioned many times it is Britain's "Trump moment". The election of Trump revealed many problems with the US system, and maybe created enough disgust to mobilise people for change. I disagree with Farage but ugly as he is, he was more appealing to the people than the usual party line which has seen Britain slowly melding into the pan-European state. The deliberate betrayal of the deal people voted on (and lets be clear, May's deal is not Brexit, its just a variation in membership) shows that the leaders don';t trust the people, and the result of the referendum shows the people don't trust the leaders.

I think the EU does more good than harm. There has not been a war in the West since Germany and France got married and adopted Italy and the other minor states. This from a cast of characters who have been shedding blood across the globe with colonialism, piracy, mass slavery and internecine warfare for five hundred years or more. I'm sad its being stabbed (not in the back, in the front, but still stabbed) in this way by a member state whose participation meant more than any other's aside from the Big Two.

Its very clear May does not answer to the people. Blair showed that the Labour leadership is pretty much all sold out too, not sure if Corbyn has the clout to redirect Labour back to actually representing workers. May is hurting the EU and defying the electorate at the same time. People voted for Hard Brexit to the extent they voted for anything (I guess that stark choice was part of the "Operation Fear", not that there formally was such I thing, just the usual contempt for voter's intelligence). Voters preferred the arrant lies of Boris and Nigel over the arrant lies of the Remainers, if there is any democracy in the UK they should get what they voted for.

If May succeeds in a pretend Brexit I guess she will be blamed for the consequences which the EU will makes sure hurt. If she fails and there is a hard Brexit the EU will make sure the UK really hurts and it will be a long road back into Europe again.

The US is not offering a better deal. In Australia we know what our allies put in their FTAs, and its ugly. Thankfully the idiot Trump pulled out of the TPP (because of a slogan apparently, set US hegemony in Asia back a decade is the best guess, China are pissing themselves laughing as the US had constructed it as an instrument against Chinese interests) and the locals made a fairer deal among themselves.

[Elmetiacos]

People voted for Hard Brexit to the extent they voted for anything (I guess that stark choice was part of the "Operation Fear", not that there formally was such I thing, just the usual contempt for voter's intelligence). Voters preferred the arrant lies of Boris and Nigel over the arrant lies of the Remainers, if there is any democracy in the UK they should get what they voted for.

Who knows what anyone voted for, that's the problem: the Brexit campaign made so many (sometimes contradictory) promises it's impossible to disentangle it into a single line of thought. I've heard people say that they voted for jobs in heavy industry to return somehow, or that leaving the EU would "get rid of the P***s" or in the belief that Leave meant the North of England would be independent from London. Seriously. With such a narrow majority among the portion of the electorate that actually voted, talking about "the will of the people" (a phrase I hate because historically it's often accompanied by firing squads) is impossible.

[Muizer]

Maybe they prefer their tyrants gammon coloured? That's at least one bit of democracy, to chose your owner. As mentioned many times it is Britain's "Trump moment". The election of Trump revealed many problems with the US system, and maybe created enough disgust to mobilise people for change. I disagree with Farage but ugly as he is, he was more appealing to the people than the usual party line which has seen Britain slowly melding into the pan-European state. The deliberate betrayal of the deal people voted on (and lets be clear, May's deal is not Brexit, its just a variation in membership) shows that the leaders don';t trust the people, and the result of the referendum shows the people don't trust the leaders.

Is that not based on a misconception about what democracy is? The point is to elect people who can represent your interests better than you could ever do. Electing politicians is similar to picking the mechanic that fixes your broken car, your dentist to fix your teeth, your GP to recommend treatment for your illness. You wouldn't go to any of them either saying "this is what's wrong and here's what you're going to do to fix it. That's defeating the point.

So if there's a disconnect betwen what people say is wrong and the policies their politicians enact, then consider they may not be betraying you, but simply doing the best they can. So they should because if a hard brexit goes through and it works out badly, the same people who expressed that whish will be ready to crucify the politicians that made it happen.

So there's the problem with modern day democracy and referenda in particular: the lack of accountability on the part of voters who can gratuitously blame their politicians for the consequences of their votes. It could not be clearer in this instance: The people voted leave and at the next GE they voted to have it implemented by remainers How was that ever going to work. And yet everyone's saying "get on with it already!"

[Daruwind]

@Muizer wrote it very nicely! One more thing. In current situation is not even clear what wants majority of people. Yeah, Brexit was voted and it is bad politics to repeat votes until the right decision, however this argument very much comfirm that even brexiteers are fearing the second referendum might yield different result. So how exactly the vote is will of people? It is snapshot of will of people in that particular time....Plus how does the vote correspond with current problems and possible options? Hard brexit vs Soft Brexit for example...Will of People is 102% support for Putin , that´s something you can use for long term policy.

Question is, if the fault of past politicians and current ones as well can be overcome just with phrase "get on with it already!" That´s probably the best long term plan for state politics in recent history.

Voters are always right and they always blame politicians... You can have people voting one thing and in the next election they could easily be loud about previous thing because it is general knowledge that the politician ed it it right?

[Cyclops]

Is that not based on a misconception about what democracy is? The point is to elect people who can represent your interests better than you could ever do. Electing politicians is similar to picking the mechanic that fixes your broken car, your dentist to fix your teeth, your GP to recommend treatment for your illness. You wouldn't go to any of them either saying "this is what's wrong and here's what you're going to do to fix it. That's defeating the point.

I think you've misunderstood what referendum is. It is the people being asked a question because the leadership can't answer it. Cameron asked Britain what it really wanted and they told him. His leadership moment was when he decided to put the question.

[Muizer]

I think you've misunderstood what referendum is. It is the people being asked a question because the leadership can't answer it. Cameron asked Britain what it really wanted and they told him. His leadership moment was when he decided to put the question.

That works with simple laws on subjects that are contentious but not complex, like legalising abortion, drugs, gay marriage and such. With Brexit it was clear from the start that implementing it would involve making a lot of decisions that would require the government to make choices based on what they thought would best reflect 'the will of the people'. And as there have been elections since the referendum, the current parliament has a mandate to do just that.

[HannibalExMachina]

i think you silly buggers could really do with a break.



god shave the queen, and happy holidays!

[Cyclops]

That works with simple laws on subjects that are contentious but not complex, like legalising abortion, drugs, gay marriage and such. With Brexit it was clear from the start that implementing it would involve making a lot of decisions that would require the government to make choices based on what they thought would best reflect 'the will of the people'. And as there have been elections since the referendum, the current parliament has a mandate to do just that.

That's not right. The question on the referendum ballot was very simple: "Should the United Kingdom remain in the European Union, or leave the European Union?". Its a question of in, or out. The sides campaigned on that exact question at great length. If you feel the result was "Meh, we'd like a slight retreat" please provide your sources, mine is the act:

http://www.bailii.org/uk/legis/num_a...1536_en_1.html

and the published results:

https://www.electoralcommission.org....nt-information

TLDR, the answer was Leave.

Since the referendum there has been fudging and goalpost moving, most of all by a PM who was against Leave but accepted the results (clearly in bad faith). The result is absolutely clear, and May's offer is a reversal of what was decided.

The referendum was about Leave or Stay. Cameron offered renegotiation of Britain's membership, and that was rejected by Parliament speaking for the people. The Referendum was not about renegotiation (May's deal is literally renegotiated membership, semi-EU membership if you like) it was about Leave.

Its extremely clear what is going on. Britain has a constitutional monarchy, with a parliamentary system that only vaguely represents the will of the people. Now they have been asked a question Parliament is changing the answer.

[Muizer]

May's deal does in fact deliver on the referendum result because the UK will cease to be a member of the EU. I suppose you could argue that the deal (which concerns not the leaving, but what happens after) goes against 'the spirit' of the leave proposition, but hey.....that's only one interpretation.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

May's deal does in fact deliver on the referendum result because the UK will cease to be a member of the EU. I suppose you could argue that the deal (which concerns not the leaving, but what happens after) goes against 'the spirit' of the leave proposition, but hey.....that's only one interpretation.

Its exactly this. Which is of course as i think we all have discovered part of the issue. The Brexit Referendum was specifically on leaving the EU- the future relationship, shape of the UK et al are all still in the prerogative of Parliament. May's deal can technically indeed be counted as 'leaving' (as is a Norway style deal, a Canada style deal etc). The issue being that brexiteers and remainers have many different groups inside these two overarching camps that all have competiting conceptions of what the future relationship will look like, both among parliament and the general public. Its why A) Brexit is toxic politically- there is no 'winning' particularly as there is no 'dominant' faction inside these groups- for instance my parents are brexiteers who despise the idea of a 'no-deal' and also hate May's deal for varying reasons. B) A lot of people (quite fairly) misunderstand the British parliamentary system and the role of referendums within it (i.e. they're horrid for it ). Once you've given your 'basic' marching orders (Leave) its entirely up to your MP's, the government and parliamentary parties how they do this. Providing the UK essentially is not listed as being 'part of the EU' everything was up for grabs the minute the referendum result was announced. Naturally many will feel betrayed or that this is unfair- they are right, but the UK does not have the mechanisms for the greater influence of direct democracy on policy beyond blunt (and kinda crap as we've seen) simple questions. What's worse is of course as the result is essentially stunted for purposes beyond the 'yes/no' for membership- and it was so close, anyone and everyone in parliament can use it- soft brexiteers, and even reamainers can and have been using it to legitimize their position, ERG style brexiteers, use it for their purposes, anyone can adopt the result as part of their platform and spin it. The referendum beyond providing a possible overall angle, is essentially useless (and indeed if somehow the Lib-dems got it, their quite clear they would overturn the whole thing- and arguably that's a legitimate position as they can point to the whole 'change mind/too hard' argument- whatever you think of that or not, the UK system allows them to do that, and again given the result with little to no parliamentary consequences of any meaningful scope as any support they'd garner to get into office, would be from remainers- thus in a GE platform they would be justified in doing so as fulfilling a manifesto promise). Again as i ranted before- the next GE can potentially see brexit overturned if a party who wins (or even gets into coalition with someone) promises in their manifesto to scrap brexit/rejoin (if its the GE shortly after).

We could be in the absolutely ridiculous situation given the perfect storm of non-sustainable result, no effort put in to 'win' the war and create a sustainable consensus post-referendum, the UK's parliamentary system and how how GE's spread the focus of issues to a broader level- where literally a year after we've left the EU, we join them again...

So i'd echo this- Anything that 'leaves' the EU as an official member fulfills the referendum. If people expected more, then we needed a reformed parliamentary system with a greater emphasis on direct democracy and not a model that actively tries to limit public opinion. The other constraints being brexit is very much 'party politics' and that again Parliamentary arithmetic favours remainers, and its highly unlikely this will change at the next GE given how constituencies work and also how the focus will probably once again (like 2017) be on the domestic front as Corbyn again shifts to the Conservatives failings here as politically its fertile ground- everyone knows they've ed up, and it hides Labour divisions on brexit and awkward questions.

[Aurelius Silvanus Tacitus]

I will just say that Brexit has been a mess and it is all the fault of te Conservative party and David Cameron in particular who called it.
Corbyn, Labour or any other opposition party is not responsible.

Furthermore, I fully support Brexit for several reasons:
1: It got voted on: It was a referendum with a clear majority
2: I found no good arguments for the EU:
Corbyn and Varoufakis aside, there is no concrete proposal to democratise the EU and turn it from a banker's and bussiness club, to a democratic institution. The revolving doors in Brussels, between firms and comissions is plainly disgusting.
Furthermore, austerity bites, it bit me, my friends, my family. If this weakens the current EU, than so be it. And yes, I know there are a lot of treaties and I am not anti-democracy for not liking the EU, I just think it does
3: The UK actually kept pushing for more members to come in precisely so the EU would not stabilise:
more member states makes it more difficult to administer the EU. Same with the US and any federal or confederal based system. Now, I am not advocating for countries to be disbanded, or kicked up, but. The EU needs to stop expanding, now. And it needs to start tinking of what it wants to be: democracy or oligarchy, a state or an organisation, made for money or to prevent war(IMO it is doing a very, very bad job considering its tollerance towards the far-right and fascism(Jobbik, Orban, LePen, AfD, Salvini...etc)).
The EU is currently a mess worthy of the Holy Roman Empire, dominated by Germany(Merkel) and its pro-market puppets(Macron, Rutte...etc). It currently is shizophrenic with its external policy(condemning the Saudis whilst condeming them, selling weapons to Erdogan whilst officially criticising him, being against Putin whilst takin his gas, u-turn after u-turns on the assylum seekers...etc). The EU is only able to say "more NATO" even since the Lisbon treaty and "more austerity" ever since 2010. The union needs urgent reforms to make it more accountable, democratic and intollerant not towards budget deficits, but the far-right and nationalism in general.

4: The UK was so pro-US it acted as an american open doorway to the EU:
Now, I wish to argued the US has lacked a good coherent foreign politics that live up to their self-perpetuated image as defenders of democracy. On the contrary, if we look at its records, especially in supporting dictators. In fact, under Trump, I argue it is time for Europe to part ways with its US overlords and cathegorically, once and for all reject the US's claim at being a democracy.
I argue that without the UK, the EU and US will naturally drift apart, due to massive ideological differences(The Clinton Democrats are the equilavent of the EU's right, not left-wing as Fox and others say), foreign policy mismatch(climate change, Iran, Israel) etc.
I think that this is an actual good thing. Capitalism of the neoliberal kind, started in the US(with Crooked Nixon), spread to Europe via the UK(Thatcher). Currently the far-right is also being strenghted from the US: Koch Brothers, Bannon, a wave of misinformation videos such as PragerU and the death of internet neutrality to make it happen. Trump himself, as well as the entire Republican party, is guilty of displaying either tollerance or even having candidates from fascist organisations running for office. The Democrats and US liberals on the other hand are guilty of legitimising such platforms, even by calling them "alt-right" instead of "far-right". I would argue that it is time for Europe, to reject US cultural and political influences, which has been dragging the world to the right, with disastrous consequences(half the world wealth now is in the hands of a few, suicide rates and inequality skyrocketing...in the so called first world...etc).
If the UK leaves, I think this will also be the slow death of neoliberalism in Europe, especially if the US stops pushing it so hard. I would however, hope that the new independent EU, choose to stand by its original purpose: make sure fascism never, ever, rises again.
5: No one actually approached Brexit: the UK and EU medias use it as a political tool to hurt their opponents, or at times demonise th entire concept. Misinformation has been rampant on the negaociations, which were kept secret. No one negociated except the Tory government, whose leader accepted the result in bad faith, is consistently dodging questions and bribed in public the most hard-right party. What we heard of Brexit was just the equivalent of angry screaming from both sides, without any plan or scenarios beyond scaremongering. Any journal that says Brexit will make the UK better or worse has consistently not properly argued their position. This has been ongoing for 2 years, so if the UK does go down due to a no deal, then it will be entirely the fault of its elites, which never truly accepted the result, or masked the negociations in order to not be accountable to Parliament and the people.

6: The UK is not a democratic country: a monarchy(with a privy council no less), with first-past-the-post, a second chamber where you buy your position...for life. I can go on to how it does not even have a propper constitution.
Now, I know this very minor, but this does not quite fit with the those "EU is democratic and supporting democracy", when member states deny democracy to their own citizens. Furthermore, I do have a problem with the UK, in its historical opposition to democracy ever since the French Revolution, with a bref pause between Atlee and Thatcher(who supported Soutch Africa no less). I know it is petty.

7: The UK's economy is too dependant on London-based speculation.
I do think the UK needs to re-indutrialise, fast. In the EU, this is quite hard to do for the state, due to budget contraints and bans on forms of direct economic intervention. If the UK has a left-wing government after Brexit, IMO it will be able to break with the overarching capitalist word order. Brexit does not mean an end to trade, does not mean the UK just sinks in the ocean(as much as some might wish). The shocks after Brexit would probably destroy the London stocks, one of the older ones. Good riddance I say, stocks produce black caviar, not bread. This would force the UK to reply on its workers more, not whims and wishes or spoiled greedy investors, who flee countries that have minimin wages and other basic rights.

In conclusion, I am sick of Brexit(as in, the obsession and alarmism that an elite who either did not want it, or thought the EU would just bow down), but see it as an opportunity to get rid of a nasty geopolitical system, where the US contantly tells Europe to go to the right. It will give the EU more breathing space and time to figure itself out and it will force the UK to look inwards. By looking inwards I do not mean the immature name-calling, smearing, lying and fearmongering. I mean actual self-reflection and criticism of the UK's very outdated and stratified social system(the monarchy and lack of a propper constituion for example). It will get a country, which in recent decades has acted like a spoiled kid, out of a position of power and shatter the remnant illusions of a British Empire. It will also force any British government to confront the British colonial past, as the country would no longer be in a position of power compared to some former colonies(India, Australia...etc.). All in all, it might have nice consequences, and am hoping for it. Opposing and screaming on it, 2 years after, literally on the 11th hour is futile IMO unless there is a general election where the Tories lose more than 70% of their seats.

[caratacus]

But three days ago the London Metropolitan police Police chief decided to contribute towards the negative fears of Brexit, when most people had put thoughts of such issues aside for Christmas.

Met Police chief raises concerns about Brexit impact on security measures
Cressida Dick said she hopes forces will have ‘as much as possible of the instruments’ they currently have after Brexit
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...-37660866.html
Britain’s most senior police officer has suggested Brexit could put the public at risk if security cooperation with the EU is weakened.
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick said she hopes police will have “as much as possible of the instruments” they currently have, such as database access, or something very similar as quickly as possible after Brexit.
She added there would be cost and public safety consequences of having to replace such systems.

Since then we have had the daily arrival of boats filled with migrants on the south coast and an emergency response called for.

Channel migrants: Sajid Javid returns to UK to deal with situation
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46714553
Home Secretary Sajid Javid is under increasing pressure to deal with the rising number of migrants crossing the Channel as he returns to the UK.
He has cut short his family Christmas break, but insisted there was "no one easy answer" as what he called a "major incident" unfolds off the south coast.
Labour said the government had "failed to get a grip" and one Tory MP said there had been a "lack of leadership".

More than 220 people have attempted the crossing in small boats since November.

Seemingly the authorities were completely unaware that this was happening despite criminal gangs have for some time been openly touting illegal transportation across the Channel in French ports.

Where is this supposed EU cross border cooperation on security Crssida Dick was referring to I wonder? If this was simply a case of a couple of hundred migrants being sold passage to the UK by some dodgy men, that would be bad enough. But evidence points to a huge deficiency in public security not just in Channel ports but across Europe.

A year ago Serbia, a country not known for a love of migrants especially Muslims, provided visas to thousands of Iranians in order to "boost the tourist economy". Quite why Iranians would be so keen to see the tourist spots of this small East European country isn't something that anybody asked. Nor it seems great surprise, when 10,000 of them went missing!! It is very unlikely these people remained in Serbia and would have almost certainly attempted to cross into the EU.

But despite all this, the very first the authorities were made aware of all this was when a small number of this large number began washing up on British beaches, having travelled the length of the European continent.

I think the Metropolitan police Police chief should have refrained from attempting to give the British public indigestion from their Christmas dinner over Brexit fears, that were entirely politically focused. Or confine her attention to her under resourced colleagues coping with a huge growth in violent crime, resulting in the death of youngsters on a weekly basis in the nation's capital. Public figures like the Metropolitan Police chief, Chairman of the Bank of England, Archbishop of Canterbury have shown absolutely no discretion in pushing a negative political agenda on Brexit instead of confining their attention to their roles.

As to the issue of the Iranian migrants, it shows again how the EU's policy on security and migration is simply not working when tens of thousands of undocumented people can enter and travel across the continent.

[Heathen Hammer]

Pretty much ever since UK joined the EU, its goal has been to limit the EU's scope to removing barriers for business while giving up as little sovereignty as possible.

Now its people (well, about half) want to leave because it is undemocratic and looks after business interests only.

Perhaps by making Britain leave, its people will have helped to bring about exactly the reforms that would have addressed their concerns.

Sadly for them, they won't benefit from it. On the contrary, by 'taking back controll', they're putting it back in the hands of the political class that helped create the very thing they're trying to run from.

You can't fix something that has always been broken. Perhaps it is just time to call it done and end EU before it leads to even more instability then it already caused now.

[mongrel]

You can't fix something that has always been broken. Perhaps it is just time to call it done and end EU before it leads to even more instability then it already caused now.

This thread is not about ending the EU,its about the handling of the Brexit process. I thought that was made quite plain.

[Elmetiacos]

i think you silly buggers could really do with a break.

god shave the queen, and happy holidays!

That video is very weird. Only Americans say, "Happy holidays".