Europe III: April F-EU-Ls

[Dogg Thang]

Yep, and I think that's exactly it. The result was like: yes, there is enough interest to seriously explore if and how we might leave. Then you make plans and look at options and put those concrete options to a vote later when you actually know the methods, repercussions and so on.

[QualityChimp]

I'm enjoying DT's restaurant analogy.

[Dogg Thang]

I'd just like to point out on the restaurant analogy that I WAY prefer Italian food to Indian food.

Not sure that matters but I felt it important to clarify.

[QualityChimp]

I'd just like to point out on the restaurant analogy that I WAY prefer Italian food to Indian food.

Not sure that matters but I felt it important to clarify.

That's a fake moustache!

[Neon Ignition]

I would label that stupidity on a grand scale, SF. If 51% of people vote to burn the UK to the ground, some common sense needs to come into play at that point.

You say that yet most would probably say that's exactly what we're witnessing

It's getting increasingly difficult to do this in restaurant metaphors but the difficulty of the situation is that you could say the Italian restaurant doesn't deliver what was on the menu so everyone should go back to the Indian but really you have over half your party saying they never asked to be eating at the Indian restaurant in the first place and don't like the food there either. They preferred having fish and chips before the Indian restaurant opened up in the first place but no-one bothered to take that into account when the fancy new restaurant opened so you're left in a quandary as to whether to make everyone go back to the Indian or stick with the new place. After a huge argument in the street you'd end up taking a quick vote to break the stalemate and after all the fuss would probably end up slinking back to the Indian restaurant, the problem with Brexit is everyone still refuses to take the headcount.


Outside the metaphor though, it's a difficult one because the reasoning should have been much better but it was never possible to look at the issue because you can't present realistic options to the public without having those debates and discussions in the first place and that necessitates the Article 50 process happening to trigger that. The original referendum made it clear that a majority wanted to leave, how to leave is certainly an issue but if you had 6 deals and the voting split 10% each way and 40% said Remain it would still mean the majority wanted to leave.

The issue comes from finding the realities involved and the specific situation we're looking at on leaving and whether the public actually prefers it to remaining. It's a very important decision and is different than the original question (and one I fully imagine most would choose Remain for) but that's a second vote argument.

Basically, you give the public a binary choice, majority has to win as the only fair outcome. Then you have a whole separate issue when that result isn't binding (that's on the Tories), if you want the public to vote on proper realised options the process pretty much means this is the only way you can get to that kind of vote because you can't know the options until the negotiations take place. If we're left with another referendum between a make shift deal and remain you can bet your bottom dollar they won't be asking for 60 or 70% to vote in favour of one option or the other as a decider though.

[Dogg Thang]

if you had 6 deals and the voting split 10% each way and 40% said Remain it would still mean the majority wanted to leave.

You would still end up with 90% not wanting the circumstances of the leave, which is a worse outcome than 60% not wanting the circumstances of staying. On something this big, it's just not binary. Not enough people want the upheaval. Not enough people agree on what the upheaval even means. So yeah, I stand by the idea that to proceed in that scenario is flat-out stupidity and a country and history-changing actions should be held to a standard somewhat higher than stupidity.

As for needing to trigger Article 50 to find realistic options, that's not completely the case because a huge number of topics that have come up for discussion were known before the vote. They were just buried in talk of straight bananas and bus promises. Way more impact research, implications and options could have been explored in advance of even talking about this seriously.

[Zaki]

It's all irrelevant anyway because it should never been put to public vote. I really don't understand why people think that it should happen just because the public voted for it, like the public are ever right about anything. Have you ever met the public? They are thick as two short and incredibly thick planks. And on top of being monumentally stupid, they're also bigoted for dayz. It's not a good look. Imagine if gay marriage had been up for referendum. We'd never have got it. Not many countries with gay marriage got it via a referendum.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/17/boaty-mcboatface-wins-poll-to-name-polar-research-vessel

[Neon Ignition]

You would still end up with 90% not wanting the circumstances of the leave, which is a worse outcome than 60% not wanting the circumstances of staying. On something this big, it's just not binary. Not enough people want the upheaval. Not enough people agree on what the upheaval even means. So yeah, I stand by the idea that to proceed in that scenario is flat-out stupidity and a country and history-changing actions should be held to a standard somewhat higher than stupidity.

As for needing to trigger Article 50 to find realistic options, that's not completely the case because a huge number of topics that have come up for discussion were known before the vote. They were just buried in talk of straight bananas and bus promises. Way more impact research, implications and options could have been explored in advance of even talking about this seriously.

I agree (this thread is moving too quick for me to keep track with all the points lol) but if you're going to table options and explicitly say you're going to act on the outcome that wins then that has to be based on the result that gains the most votes. But that's all I mean about majority outcomes.

I agree that a lot more work on the realities of leaving the EU should have been done before Article 50 was triggered (using the first referendum in its advisory capacity) it's hard to see how that could have happened. The Tories couldn't even be bothered to plan for a no deal Brexit till about 6 weeks ago and were happy to lie about overnight recessions and the fall of mankind in 2016 rather than engage with any facts or research. Leave made up benefits as they went along and Remain ran a fear campaign. But that's why I come round to where I'm at. They ran a referendum, a majority outcome was the end result and having stated they would carry out the result before it was delivered the Tories did exactly that.

However - Two years later we know the realities of the situation we face, we know the utter incompetent idiocy of those in charge and 100% it would be insanity to blindly stick to the original vote ignoring all that information. Honestly, if May turned up next week and said there'd be no second referendum and she was just going to call the whole thing off I'd tip my cap at her. There's a fundamental duty of care to the country MP's are utterly failing to meet at the moment and as she won't do that and no clear option is coming up they should completely go for another referendum which realistically would only have two options once her deal is dead - No deal or Remain. I'd still maintain 50.01% as the deciding tipping point but given the result last time that would be in Remains favour.

[noobish hat]

Hope the Brexit brainlets are looking forward to more 'sovereignty' from the government such as this

[fishbowlhead]

Because up to right now, trust has been high...?

What's worrying is that I agree with that sentiment and then I ask "what's post-politics?" and it's really an open door for dictatorships and right wing mentalities. When you have politics that looks so weak, it creates an opening for someone who comes in pushing strength. Pushing power. At whatever cost. That's a very bad thing.

Some of you have mentioned this in this thread but it feels like you need a change in system to remove the Tory or Labour thing because neither serve you well at the moment.

Politics & our system of electing mp’s needs a complete do over, from bottom to top. It’s broken, plain and simple. If we’re a machine you’d chop it up for scrap, it it were an animal you’d put a bolt between its eyes to stop the squealing.

It’s really that simple.

[fishbowlhead]

Because up to right now, trust has been high...?

Yep, and I think that's exactly it. The result was like: yes, there is enough interest to seriously explore if and how we might leave. Then you make plans and look at options and put those concrete options to a vote later when you actually know the methods, repercussions and so on.

But that would make far to much sense.

[Neon Ignition]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/13/eu-preparing-to-delay-brexit-until-at-least-july

We should finally see some movement again on Brexit this week with tomorrows vote and the EU27 are already said to be preparing for the UK to submit a request to extend Article 50.

[Neon Ignition]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2019/jan/14/brexit-latest-news-theresa-may-speech-liam-fox-claims-no-deal-survivable-as-may-launches-last-minute-bid-to-rescue-her-deal-politics-live

-Theresa May cites the '97 Wales referendum as an example of why to hold the line
-Boris says no matter what Brexit will happen on 29 March
-Liam Fox says the UK could survive No Deal but may never recover from No Brexit

[cutmymilk]

Haven't been following the travel much apart from DON'T BOOK HOLIDAYS TO THE EU.

Anyway, I'm off to Amsterdam in April. Is there going to be an issue?

[Neon Ignition]

I may be wrong but unless we No Deal it everything should be fine due to it either being cancelled, delayed or the transition period. Though I'd assume if we no deal it then it'll be just like going to any non-EU country so not that much different in any case.