Theresa May, Undone by Brexit, To Resign as UK Prime Minister (nytimes.com) 808
Prime Minister Theresa May of Britain surrendered to mounting pressure from her lawmakers on Friday and said she would step aside as leader, after almost three years of trying and failing to lead Britain out of the European Union. From a report: Mrs. May said she would stand aside as leader of the Conservative Party on June 7, but remain as prime minister until a successor was chosen. Though she still has a little more time in Downing Street, the announcement puts an end to one of the most turbulent -- and at times shambolic -- premierships in recent British history. Her departure is likely to set off a vicious contest to succeed her within the governing Conservative Party. In truth, Mrs. May's rivals have been jockeying for position for months as her authority ebbed and lawmakers, and ultimately cabinet ministers, mutinied. Speaking outside 10 Downing Street, Mrs. May acknowledged that she had been unable to persuade lawmakers to support her plan to pull Britain out of the European Union, despite her best efforts. "I believe I was right to persevere, even when the odds against success seemed high," she said. "But it is now clear to me that it is in the best interests of the country for a new prime minister to lead that effort." Her failure to reach a deal, she said, would remain a matter of "deep regret." Voice cracking, she noted at the end that she was "the second female prime minister, but certainly not the last."
Wait for it... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think Theresa May was bad, wait until Boris Johnson takes over.
And sadly, that's a very real possibility.
Like that old joker Winston Churchill said, (Score:5, Insightful)
the best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with a typical voter.
And when he said "a democracy" and "typical voter" he meant Brexitannia and its typical voter.
Re:Like that old joker Winston Churchill said, (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, yes. I recently read an interview with some fisher that voted for Brexit. His argument was that "It will be out waters again!", but he had some real fears that he could not sell his mussels in the EU anymore.
Are these people utterly demented and understand absolutely nothing? Of course, he will not be able to export to the EU anymore. Or if he can, he will have to do so at much, much worse prices. And he will have to respect all restrictions he has now, plus some additional ones. And that is completely obvious. The Brexit is really people voting for their own demise, because they are far too stupid to see it.
Re: Like that old joker Winston Churchill said, (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Like that old joker Winston Churchill said, (Score:5, Insightful)
Because voters would rather be lied to rather than face a hard truth, and there's always a new crop of liars ready to take the place of the previous crop when the voters finally realize that they were lied to.
Re: Like that old joker Winston Churchill said, (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Like that old joker Winston Churchill said, (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I DO understand the misgivings about the EU. We just had a completely gut-feely vote on a EU gun law we were supposed to implement.
Not only does it go against our constitution because that clearly states that a low MUST be effective towards the cause the law wants to tackle and it's use must be in a proper relation to the cost.
Now we have a law that the EU can automatically change according to its whim every five years that is supposed to help fight terrorism, when NONE of the mentioned guns have ever been used in terrorist acts. And it incurs a whole lot of bureaucracy. It basically contains a passage that says every gun part must have like three 14 characters serial numbers. Or was it 24 characters?
Anyway, good luck putting that many characters legibly on a recoil spring.
Basically all the weapons used in gun sports or collections are now banned and while they promised that it would be no issue getting special dispensation, this is all now at the whim of government drones.
And you wouldn't believe the lies the press spread beforehand. Ye gods!
"We" also voted in a package law that combined retirement funds and corporate taxing. Both cost us a billion more a year yet they acted like we get more pension for the minus we incur with the new corporate taxation. And now shortly after the voting is done, not only does the press rub in our faces that the gun ban is rather silly, they also go "Well, you didn't really think that would do enough for your pension, right? Expect to vote on even more taxes to prop up your pension funds in a bout a year".
And people go "Well, that's politicians for you, what're ya gonna do?"
I'm telling you in the span of five years I have gone from pretty liberal to pretty conservative and I tell you one thing: If I actually was made dictator? Yeah, first thing I'd do is opening concentration camps.
I am so done with people.
Re:Like that old joker Winston Churchill said, (Score:5, Interesting)
Even if true (I'm not going to bother checking, it's not important) what is the best course of action here?
A) Brexit, tank the economy, people die from poverty and we are all even more miserable than usual
B) Try to reform the EU from the inside, along with other EU leaders who are keen to do the same
The UK could be a powerhouse in Europe, a leader and major influencer. We have immense soft power, and are completely squandering it. And for what, so we can be force fed chlorine chicken by Donald Trump? Yay freedom?
Re:Like that old joker Winston Churchill said, (Score:5, Insightful)
Also remember that when the UK joined, they were is so bad shape economically that they got special conditions. Apparently, some people what that state of affairs back.
Well, my take is that as soon as the current crop of abysmal "leaders" the UK has is dead, disgraced or otherwise contained, the UK will come crawling back and ask for EU admission. I just hope there will be no special conditions that time, the UK needs to realize were they really stand. Granted, your plan B) would be hugely preferable, but apparently plan A) it is because arrogance, stupidity and disconnectedness-from-reality have reached never before observed levels in the UK ruling class.
Re:Like that old joker Winston Churchill said, (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Do you really want the same bunch of clowns that lead the UK reform the EU?
No thank you. I'll pass. The UK has been altogether a bad influence on the EU, stopping sensible directives.
Re:Like that old joker Winston Churchill said, (Score:4, Insightful)
We are not even a real part of the EU. I'm Swiss! This is only Schengen/Dublin shenanigans!
It's just that this thing on top of other incidents lately, not least the copyright law make a lot of people think the EU is led by a horde of baboons.
I understand the Brits being leery of the EU and as I've noticed most voters are too dumb to be trusted with democracy.
I was a fan of the concept of the EU. The basic idea was splendid but leave it to a bunch of people with opinions and nothing more to bastardize it to the point of idiocy.
Re:Like that old joker Winston Churchill said, (Score:4)
First of all, Trump had nothing to do with this. Time to stop blaming your problems on everyone else but you.
Second, the UK is a power house in Europe, it is a leader and a major influence. It has been for centuries.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The then UK can find its own plan in any way it wants. Freedom from the UE is great like that.
Like any normal advance nation.
Set its own trade deals with the world.
Allow who it wants into the UK.
Find its place in the world again away from the control of the EU.
The economy will be free of EU regulations. Thats a plus for imports and exports.
Re: (Score:3)
The UK voted for its own freedom.
It isn't that the UK voted to take its nation back that has the EU people quaking in their boots. What has them running scared is other nations might follow the same lead.
For instance the French are expressing a desire to leave. A poll in 2016 showed 61% unfavourable view of the EU, with 33% expressing a desire to leave. Other nations have similar or even higher numbers of dissatisfaction with EU membership.
They want the UK to fail to set an example to these nations that leaving the EU would be bad
Re: (Score:3)
And whose fault is that?
This is basically the best case the UK is going to get, they're still going to be affected by EU laws and regulations and have no say in them because they brexited themselves.
Re:Like that old joker Winston Churchill said, (Score:5, Insightful)
The fishing industry is in for a nasty surprise if we brexit.
First the EU will demand they stick to EU quotas or face tariffs designed to limit the amount of fish they catch by reducing sales. It's the only ecologically responsible move.
Then they will find that politicians are happy to barter away "their" fishing rights to save other industries from ruin, because actually there aren't that many fishermen and their are all in poor Labour voting constituencies anyway.
It's funny how the industries that will be devastated by brexit are also the ones where the workers voted for it. Steel, car manufacturing, fishing, farming...
Re:Like that old joker Winston Churchill said, (Score:5, Interesting)
The fishing industry is in for a nasty surprise if we brexit.
First the EU will demand they stick to EU quotas or face tariffs designed to limit the amount of fish they catch by reducing sales. It's the only ecologically responsible move.
It's the same with any export-reliant UK industry: just by proximity the EU is going to be one of their biggest markets. And, since as a bloc they are much larger than the UK, they hold all the cards. If the UK wants to trade with the EU, it will be on the EU's terms. They'll still be playing by the same rules they were before Brexit, but if they leave, they give up their ability to have a say in those rules.
Re: (Score:3)
There were really people that claimed that?
People are still claiming it. They seems to think that if the UK just threw down an ultimatum the EU would cave in because it desperately needs the UK market. I'd say it comes up on Question Time (national TV debate show with members of the public*) about once a month, even now.
* Supposedly, in fact many are politicians and party members pretending to be ordinary people.
Re:Like that old joker Winston Churchill said, (Score:5, Interesting)
They seem to think that the EU is being deliberately harsh on the UK to discourage other countries for leaving and maybe make us change our minds. It's a weird bit of doublethink - on the one hand we hold all the cards, easiest negotiation in history, they need us more than we need them... But they are also bullying us and not giving an inch.
There is a highly up-voted comment on the BBC News story about May going stating that Leave supporters have made all the compromises and Remainers have not given an inch. Of course it's the other way around, the 16 million people who voted to remain have been completely ignored and the government is bent on delivering the hardest possible brexit it can.
Re:Like that old joker Winston Churchill said, (Score:5, Insightful)
If the 16 million people who voted to remain have been completely ignored what is delaying Brexit?
The fact that the people who wanted to leave had no plan and promised a large number of mutually incompatible things (e.g. access to the common market, freedom from EU regulation) and any time they are given some of the things they demand they complain that they don't have the others. Among the things that were promised in the referendum campaign:
If we lose regulatory alignment with the EU, then we can't have freedom of movement over the Irish border, so we're in violation of the Good Friday Agreement. Good luck conducting trade deals when you've just violated an international treaty. If we remain in the common market, we have to remain aligned with the EU for regulation and answerable to the ECJ.
The only Brexit that doesn't involve completely killing the economy (losing 44% of exports and 53% of imports) involves remaining closely aligned with the common market. This means losing our seats in the EU Parliament, Commission, and Council, but still having to follow their rules. That's practically the exact opposite of 'take back control'.
There is no set of compromises that will keep the 51% (closer to 46% now) happy because they voted for an impossible set of constraints.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, when it all comes crashing down, I am sure you will forget your brave words and claim it was all completely different. Will you accuse the EU of sabotaging the UK? Will you find a "Dolchstosslegende" were the remainers are at fault for everything? Or will you find some other utterly dishonest and despicable lie to explain why it certainly was not your fault? I am waiting in breathless anticipation.
Re:Like that old joker Winston Churchill said, (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
So, you saying the UK leadership sold out their "values" because of political tactics?
How conscionable of them. Or was it expedient?
Re:Like that old joker Winston Churchill said, (Score:5, Insightful)
The vote was also taken at a time when Merkel was admitting millions of migrants and refugees. There was and is a sense that swallowing refugees could be avoided by a BrExit, along with avoidance of decisions made in Brussels that were "Euro-ish" rather than British.
In other words, squabbling and avoidance of new competition for jobs when labour distribution in the UK is tough, and costs-per-citizen are also high. The push-back was/is also an identity problem as the empire shrinks, and Britain devolves from the UK-- squabbling Scots, Welsh identity, Northern Ireland comfort finally with a ceasefire deal.
It's not "values". It wasn't expedience. It was more like fear and cowardice in the face of a changing world, rather than leadership, statesmanship, diplomacy, decorum, and lots of genuine thought.
Brexit is the result of insecurities, and playing on those and fear of loss of identity and resources.
Re:Like that old joker Winston Churchill said, (Score:5, Informative)
The vote was also taken at a time when Merkel was admitting millions of migrants and refugees. There was and is a sense that swallowing refugees could be avoided by a BrExit, along with avoidance of decisions made in Brussels that were "Euro-ish" rather than British.
In other words, squabbling and avoidance of new competition for jobs when labour distribution in the UK is tough, and costs-per-citizen are also high. The push-back was/is also an identity problem as the empire shrinks, and Britain devolves from the UK-- squabbling Scots, Welsh identity, Northern Ireland comfort finally with a ceasefire deal.
It's not "values". It wasn't expedience. It was more like fear and cowardice in the face of a changing world, rather than leadership, statesmanship, diplomacy, decorum, and lots of genuine thought.
Brexit is the result of insecurities, and playing on those and fear of loss of identity and resources.
The UK used to import large numbers of skilled workers from the continent. The reason for that is that while eastern European countries were busy building up their education system, the UK was embarking on an experiment in building a future by turning their education system into crap. I recently talked to a German woman who married a British soldier and moved to the UK. She's an elementary school teacher. What she told me is that in large parts of the UK the education kids get is substandard, compared to Germany. In the UK, you often actually have to send your kids to a private run school in order to get the same quality of educations that gets handed out in German government schools for free. This is what successive British governments have made policy, it is what the British public voted for and it is what the British public got and perhaps not very surprisingly, they blame everybody else for their own choices. One watches these TV Brexit documentaries where they talk to Brexiteers and you get some guy complaining that he works at as an (un-trained) mechanic and his job does not allow him to afford a house in the suburbs, two cars and a twice yearly vacation because he's competing with fully accredited and well trained Polish mechanics and that he should be guaranteed a job because he is a native Briton. People hire the most qualified workers, if you want to compete with them stop bitching and get better qualifications, nobody is going to hand you anything for free.
Re:Like that old joker Winston Churchill said, (Score:4, Insightful)
And those workers were Poles, Germans, even Bulgarians, Croats, and they were all Caucasian.
The same problems hit the USA, where Indian, Chinese, and other Asians, not to mention Middle Easterners, even Russians, start to "usurp" jobs as the so-called middle class devolves, and the 1%ers fattens.
Brexit really solves nothing, it just salves wounds caused by a global labor shift towards maximizing profits. Today's turn on the merry-go-round of being-smashed-by-titans is China. Next month, it'll be someone else. The problem is that globalism enriches fewer middle-income individuals, whilst creating competition for labour that never existed before.
Learning to compete for jobs is new to some; they believe it a God-given right to be employed. Challenge that premise, and the fear involved means an easy target for those that would fool them into believing they can stanch the competition for jobs.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
What the UK does after that is something for the UK to work out.
Like any other free nation does everyday.
Re: (Score:3)
Re 'EU flock"?
Whats a nation lost to EU rules and regulations AC?
Not really a nation anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
Now the UK can return to the global market free of the EU.
The UK can again start benefitting from its own trade. Bringing the full results of all such trade back to the UK.
Setting its own import and exports again. Sell to any nation that wants to trade with the UK.
Win, win AC.
Re:Like that old joker Winston Churchill said, (Score:5, Informative)
Voters continue to surprise me. The Dutch referendum on the EU agreement with the Ukraine started as something of a joke* and it's not exactly a topic close to voters' hearts, but as the date neared, it was interesting to see how many people made an effort to inform themselves about this issue. And how many people weren't fooled by the usual propaganda from both sides: "it's only a trade agreement" (it wasn't), "it will give Ukrainians full access to our internal market" (not the case), etc. In fact a lot of people seemed to be better informed than many of the politicians who are supposed to decide on this matter*, like the leader of the Democrats '66 party who, when asked by a reported, glibly answered: "No I do not know the details of this agreement". Of course he has his staff to advise him, but how well informed are they, and what are they telling him?
*) The Dutch advisory referendum could be applied to any bill coming under a vote in parliament, if enough people signed a petition to do so. The referendum appeared to be designed to make it rather hard to collect the necessary physical signatures, ensuring that only traditional civic movements like labour unions or environmental groups would be able to muster the manpower to make this happen. That is, until the somewhat irreverent blog GeenStijl figured out a legal way to allow people to sign the petition for a referendum electronically, lowering the threshold. The referendum on the EU-Ukraine deal was their test case of sorts.
There has been one other poll before referenda were abolished in 2018. Interestingly, the law to abolish referenda was in itself eligible for a referendum. By the express wish of the responsible minister, but against strong advice from pretty much any subject matter expert not associated with the government, a legally somewhat dubious way was found to exempt this law from a referendum.
Re: (Score:3)
The politicians are a product of their environment. They adjust to the level of the voter, not the other way around.
Switzerland begs to differ (Score:4, Informative)
the best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with a typical voter.
Some parts of the world that have practiced direct democracy for long swathes of their history beg to differ.
Yes, somebody is going to say that it actually only work in very small communities like the Athenian assembly, but I don't agree...
And when he said "a democracy" and "typical voter" he meant Brexitannia and its typical voter.
...which brings it closer to the actual problems:
Voters education and tradition.
In countries where voting is traditional like Switzerland, the whole population is used to the thing and is used to participate semi-regularly.
(Votations are on multiple dates each year. Except that only a part of the population bothers to show up and cast votes. But still, beside the people that don't care enough to vote and should complain if they don't like the result, there are people who vote regularly)
If you're used to give you opinion every couple of months, you get used to gather information (both the official leaflet explaining the question semi-neutrally that are distributed along with the ballot, but also from press, political debates, etc.)
You get also used to actually express *your opinion on the actual question*.
Compare the situation with Brexit: people are only asked to vote every once in a blue moon. :-P ).
They aren't used to gather information, they'll fall for whatever sound bite gets popular on the twitter echo-chamber, and usually negative emotions (such as hate) are much easy to spread than rational conversations (due to peculiarities in human psyche).
Also they aren't used to express their opinion *on the question themselves*. Instead they take the rare opportunity of being asked a question to express their general discontent with the government and reject whatever.
( ^- this seems even more visible on the few rare occasion when France was voting on something. People were using the occasion to express their anger. Kind of natural in a country where "public demonstrations" seem to be the national sport
It's not that the average voter - i.e.: the general population - is too stupid to be allowed to vote. It's the other way around, in order for the vote to be meaningful, you need to educate the people about how to make the most out of direct democracy.
Saying "people are stupid, so don't let them vote" is stupid in itself. You should be saying "people are stupid, so educate them so they can vote".
Also, most government tend to be top-down: lawmakers make law.
Some democracies try to also provide bottom-up approaches. To cite again Switzerland, Popular Initiative are a thing. As in if the general population has an idea of a law proposal, they can try to gather signatures and if enough are collected (to show that there is indeed a general intrest in that idea), the proposal WILL BE submitted to vote.
Another poster within the conversation thread mentioned a similar system in the Netherland.
If people feel that they can influence the politics (given enough interests), they feel a lot less powerless, they thus find themselves much more interested in actively taking part and informing themselves, and a lot less likely to just reject random thing to show protest.
Not that much the case in countries were the only way to influence politics is to vote for a different politician the next time.
---
And to go back to the "only in small communities like Athens" meme that regularly pop-up whenever somebody brings up the difference between "direct democracy" (true democracy) and what some call "representative democracy" (some weird type of oligarchy):
It's not as much a problem of size of community, as a problem of means of communication.
The popular needs efficient ways to gather information, the government needs an efficient way to collect the voters decision.
(That's the reason why the US went for a "representative democracy
Re: (Score:3)
The worst thing in the UK is that people have been convinced that they are informed, when they know literally less than nothing.
The EU is the worst affected. Decades of lies in the right-wing press and from politicians blaming it for their own failings, and taking credit for its successes. People think they know what the EU is and what it does, but everything they know is a lie.
The recent EU elections are a perfect example. Even days before people were parroting the lines about how the EU is an undemocratic
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The worst thing in the UK is that people have been convinced that they are informed, when they know literally less than nothing.
But let me guess, you're the exception? You're one of the few enlightened individuals?
The reason brexit passed was because people such as yourself have no idea what's going on in the country outside of the cities. I'm in the US, but I travel to the UK moderately often. And if you talk to the more rural parts, the EU has not been good to them. They're desperate, and the people in London ignore their issues. Brexit is a result of those in the ivory towers ignoring the reality that surrounds them. Seriou
Re: (Score:3)
I like in Scotland, and in the countryside. All areas of Scotland vote to remain. Most people I talk to are either clueless and/or delusional about the EU and voted leave, or informed and voted remain.
Re:Switzerland begs to differ (Score:5, Informative)
"voting is traditional like Switzerland"
Unless you are a woman. Women did not gain the vote in federal elections until 1971, and local elections in the last canton did not allow women to vote until 1990... when it was imposed by a federal court decision.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope.
You have made a key mistake, assuming Democracy is supposed to give a good leader.
Democracy's primary purpose is to make sure that no bad leader stays in power for very long. It allows for an easy bloodless coup. That's it's main advantage, most other forms of government require violence to remove bad leaders.
This is why I love parliaments (Score:5, Insightful)
It is so refreshing to see politicians that resign when they can't lead on their agendas. It doesn't mean they are failures. It means they didn't succeed this time. It's a lot like the trait we tend to admire in silicon valley where people lead startups aggressively and often fail. But something got tried, things were explored. Maybe they don't work out but things go on. The frustration in US politics is that failure is death. SO people entrench themselves in unassailable fortresses. You get people like Trent Lott, and Nancy pelosi, and Mr Turtle who accountably stick around like a fart in a phone box just because they have power not because they lead with it.
Yeah for May. And especially Yeah for having the sense to resign and let someone else have a crack. If Boris sucks it won't be for long. Not much harm in trying.
Re:This is why I love parliaments (Score:5, Informative)
That's not what happened here.
May failed back in 2017. She called an election and lost her party's majority, meaning she had to bribe the DUP with £1,000,000,000 to support her. And of course that meant that he DUP had a veto over any deal she did, and sure enough they rejected the one she eventually brought home.
Her plan for brexit was thwarted when Gina Miller won her court case forcing the government to offer a "meaningful vote" on the deal. Until then May had a chance to ram it through, but from then on it was doomed. I don't think May fully realized the ramifications when it happened, only a year later.
She failed to get her deal passed in Parliament. She failed to get it passed in Parliament a second time. Then she tried yet again, and failed for the third time. She was ready to try a fourth time before being forced to resign.
And she was forced. No admission of failure, in fact in her resignation speech she tried to claim she had done a good job on things she badly failed at, like the response to Grenfell. Her own party had to dislodge her in the end.
Whoever takes over won't "have a crack". They are screwed. There is no time left, the EU won't re-negotiate anything, and if it looks like they are obstructing EU business they won't get any further extensions either. Their choices are either another vote (general election or referendum) or crash out with no deal and face economic ruin, losing the next election and the Tory Party breaking up.
Re:This is why I love parliaments (Score:5, Interesting)
Brexit was doomed from the start. The issue is that the sort of Brexit that those who have agitated for Brexit want is fundamentally incompatible with the Good Friday Agreement. In fact they still can't comprehend that.
The deal that is sometime incorrectly called May's deal is as far away as we can get from the EU while respecting the Good Friday Agreement, but it's not far enough for the Brexiteers and it's too far everyone else.
Even if we crash out with no deal, the EU have made it clear that future trade agreements will require us to respect the Good Friday Agreement, which basically means regulatory alignment and customs union.
Heck the Nacy Pelosi have made it clear that a trade deal with the USA won't pass in the House unless the UK is respecting the Good Friday Agreement, which means we back with something that is basically regulatory alignment and customs union and that is the USA talking not the EU.(because a trade deal is not just down to Trump, it has to pass in the House and Senate too).
Turns out it is harder to break international treaties that are registered with the UN (aka the Good Friday Agreement) than the Brexiteers imagined, though they didn't consider Northern Ireland till after the referendum and still don't get it.
Re:Wait for it... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think Theresa May was bad, wait until Boris Johnson takes over.
And sadly, that's a very real possibility.
Johnson is the one who many of us in the US are pulling for.
A lot of people in the US are also pulling for the UK to get it's collective head out of it's ass, realize that the 2 most likely outcomes are a hard Brexit or no Brexit, and go ahead and get on with a second referendum and put this whole idiocy behind it.
Re: (Score:3)
He's a lying sack of shit. We already know how that turns out.
Re:Wait for it... (Score:4, Insightful)
There were problems on both sides, but they are in no way equivalent.
The Leave campaign outright lied. A lot. Not just disagreement over terms, simple untruths repeated over and over even after they had been widely debunked.
The Leave campaign broke finance laws. People should be in jail for that, although so far it's only resulted in fines.
The Leave campaign abused Facebook, via Cambridge Analytica.
And most irresponsibly at all, the Leave campaign had no plan. When they won they didn't know what to do. It was undeliverable and they didn't even know what they were asking for. They had told some people our place in the single market and customs union was safe, others that we would come out the day after the result.
Re: (Score:3)
That was obvious to everybody long before the referendum.
Wait, so you quoted it and claimed that the ONS backed you up, knowing that it was a lie?
And now have switched your argument to "only an idiot would believe that", having just believed it yourself?
Who wants her job? (Score:5, Insightful)
Prime Minister Theresa May of Britain surrendered to mounting pressure from her lawmakers on Friday and said she would step aside as leader, after almost three years of trying and failing to lead Britain out of the European Union.
It will be fun watching all the arch-brexiteers run for the hills to avoid being offered her job. Taking the job of being the PM of the UK today is a guaranteed political career-ender unless there is a general election and the winner commands enough of a super-majority to enforce some sort of resolution. I don't envy May of having had that job, herding feral cats look good by comparisons. There is no realistic way out of the impasse the UK is in other than to either hold a 2nd-referendum and then either hard-brexit or go tail-between-legs to Brussels to ask if the UK can stay after all depending on what the great British public decide in their infinite wisdom. The third alternative is basically just to voluntarily do a hard Brexit which is effectively identical to the second option. Barring any EU concession on that Ireland backstop issue that the Tories can waive around to save face, I don't see how else this can end. The one benefit of Brexit is that it has allowed us to see EU sceptics at their best and the competence level these people are capable of which does not set a very high bar.
Re:Who wants her job? (Score:5, Informative)
The UK doesn't have to go to Brussels asking to remain in the EU, there's already been a legal judgement that article 50 notice can be revoked unilaterally - the UK can just do it.
Re:Who wants her job? (Score:4, Insightful)
The UK doesn't have to go to Brussels asking to remain in the EU, there's already been a legal judgement that article 50 notice can be revoked unilaterally - the UK can just do it.
They will still have to undergo the ritual humiliation of going to Brussels, interact with all the people they've spent decades insulting and demonising, after utterly failing to reach the sunny uplands of Brexit where there are birds and bees in the lollipop trees at the foot of the chocolate cliffs next to the lemonade fountain. Even if nobody says a thing, they'll still have to go there and eat crow after all the big talk about Brexit/WTO paradise.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
-Boris Johnson The Telegraph May 15 2016
What happened to the confidence and ideals of the European dream? The EU was set up to protect freedom. It was the Soviet Union that stopped people leaving. The lesson from history is clear: if you turn the EU club into a prison, the desire to get out won't diminish it will grow — and we won't be the only prisoner that will want to es
Re:Who wants her job? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even they don't want a Brexit, knowing that leaving the EU isn't a panacea but actually the last nail in the coffin. They know it's good propaganda material to play the nationalist tunes because it resonates with the less politically savvy who will gladly peg everything on the evil EU, but they also know that the very last thing the UK could possibly need is to separate from a market this huge and having to deal with it as an outsider instead of as a member.
Re:Who wants her job? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not sharing the EU line or not believing in the EU as an idea doesnt make someone stupid.
Do you really think the UK is somehow unique with bankers 'looking down on the small people'? Every country in the world, including the most communist and most democratic have this same problem. Its been like this since the pharaohs of Egypt ruled the deserts, and probably since before then.
No, what makes people stupid is thinking that the ideas sold to them by the brexiteers are correct.
There's plenty wrong with the EU - trust me, inside the EC you see it every day and I'm not even talking about EU wide policy but in the way we do business with ourselves!!.
But we live in a globaslised world, with constant competition and 'rich getting richer' and 'fuck the poor' happening everywhere around you.
The EU is not perfect but if the UK gets their brexit, they'll see that yes, they still get their pasties and beer, but the costs have gone up because those on top are now paying a lot more for their wine and cheese and BMWs. Good luck with NHS when you can't import cheap doctors from eastern europe.
That's the reality of the 21st century. Brexit doesn't somehow stop globalisation, and it doesn't make the UK some world power again, nor does the ability to negotiate trade deals without the EC somehow 'make England Rich Again'. In fact, watch as taxes go up, wages go down, and the rich get richer from the brexit.
Life will stabalise and go on, sure thing, but it won't be any easier and in some ways will be much harder. You see, the common man (farmer joe) doesn't ever deal with international issues! Most never leave the heath. Its just manipulation, plain and simple.
You're in banking? Good luck, you're going to need it.
Re: (Score:3)
It's always a wise idea to go with the majority, however slim, when you're going to fundamentally change how almost everything worked the last half century...
Re: (Score:3)
Classic EU "We lost the referendum so you must hold a second one" approach.
In this case, I think it would be a valid thing to do. People are better informed and motivated now.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh wow, you're right. Ok, lets hold a national vote in which people can indicate their support or distaste for the EU.
Hang on, we just did. Yesterday.
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of people in the EU don't want the British back. Their euroskeptic MEPs will do a lot of damage; the UK got special privileges to be admitted and they wish to humiliate them for this; and the British people will whine incessantly that they were robbed and a democratic result overruled by the powerful, leading to decades of unrest and discontent. Better the UK go and serve as a warning to the others not to leave. Euroskepticism is growing rapidly and the powerful desperately want to put a stop to it.
Right, given the glorious mess the UK has turned Brexit into the best outcome of all for the EU, would be Gove, Mogg or Johnson for PM and either some rehash of the May agreement or a hard Brexit. Given the circus of the last two years the EU would be better off in every way without the UK. That sucks for anybody the UK whose employer derives significant revenue from exports to the EU, or really, to anywhere outside of the UK because it means potential unemployment, but it would be better for the EU to be r
Re: (Score:3)
[The] withdrawal agreement cannot be reopened, cannot be renegotiated,
So if someone like Boris Johnson, who has no qualms about a hard Brexit, takes over, then a hard Brexit is certainly a possible scenario. Never mind that leaked government papers suggest that trading according to WTO rules will cost between 5.4% and 9.5% of
Re: (Score:3)
The one benefit of Brexit is that it has allowed us to see EU sceptics at their best and the competence level these people are capable of
It has shown the true colors of the EU when push comes to shove. They've done everything they can to prevent brexit, and acted like an abusive spouse when the victim wants to leave by attempting to punish and threaten at every turn. The media was overrun with ridiculous fear mongering for months in order to get people to vote "correctly", and later to have a change of heart and push for a second referendum. Second referendums are something the EU does alot when people voted "incorrectly" btw, its far from the first time.
We should be happy that the EU doesnt have its own army yet (though it is working on it). The UK might have been put under EU military control to prevent the brexit.
Abusive spouse? The EU is playing it's cards for its own best interests, the EU does not give a shit about anything except what is best for the EU, just like the UK does not give a shit about anything but what is best for the UK, everything else is secondary. This is how negotiations work. Did you really think they'd go: "Wow!! ... you want to leave the club, continue enjoying membership benefits but not pay the membership dues?!?! What a wonderful idea!! Here, let us help you by caving in to all of your de
Re: (Score:3)
This was a classic populist move that backfired badly. He himself didn't think that it could pass, but you can agitate really well with the demand to "take our own country back".
Careful what you wish for, you might get it.
Nobody was afraid Brexit would fail (Score:3, Interesting)
Nobody was afraid Brexit would fail. They were worried it would succeed. As far as I can tell, May saw her job as to wreck things beyond repair, so that Brexit wouldn't happen and to make an example of the UK to intimidate other EU countries. Just think of all the people whose heart's desire is to see the UK humiliated and to come crawling back under worse terms for daring to defy the EU.
Why would anyone want out of the EU? Here's an answer from a true believer who had his eyes opened by Article 13. How the copyright directive changed my view of the EU: Confessions of a hurtâSââSbut not defeatedâSââSEuropeanist. [medium.com] It's a long read, but here's the short version:
The events that led to the approval of the copyright directive highlight some big issues in how the EU currently works.
* Credibility. The European Commission commissioned a report and kept it secret because it concluded that "the results do not show robust statistical evidence of displacement of sales by online copyright infringements".
* Evidence-based policy. The Commission ignored another report commissioned by the Parliament that found "nearly universal criticism" by European academics against the introduction of extra copyright for news sites.
* Technical expertise. The rapporteur of the directive for the European Parliament said that "a Google image search for "memes" displays a bunch of memes, so [parody] can be recognized [by AI-based upload filters]".
* No consideration for experts and activists. Criticism and massive protests were dismissed as manipulated by tech giants such as Google and Facebook. This attitude was not limited to representatives in EU institutions, but also journalists.
* France and Germany misused their influence to push for an ideological, non evidence-based, freedom-threatening reform.
* Conclusion. As a convinced Europeanist, the writer felt betrayed. In his opinion, this means we need to vote for radical pan-European parties that want to change Europe with radical and ambitious proposals based both on the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and on scientific evidence.
Re:Nobody was afraid Brexit would fail (Score:5, Insightful)
But here's the thing - how would that be any different in a 'brexited' Britain? Not only has the government in Westminster shown time and time again that along with having no idea about technology ('banning encryption', anyone?), they're more than willing to throw public interest under the bus in favour of corporate junkets, but without the political backing of the rest of the EU, they'll now be utterly unable to resist the demands of US media companies even if they wanted to.
Brexit will make Britain into Trump's bitch. And we're all going to get grabbed by the pussy.
you want to kill your economy for art 13? (Score:5, Interesting)
No the truth is that a few rich people like aaron banks see a great financial opportunity into destroying your NHS, and see opportunity in the brexit upheaval to snap part of the economy for bargain price once it hits rock bottom. You got bambaloozed by rich guys and you don't even realize it.
It's about time... (Score:5, Insightful)
Theresa May should have resigned many months ago. She negotiated a Brexit deal that gave the EU everything the EU wanted. When it failed in parliament, she submitted it again. And again. And it went down in flames every time. Meanwhile, all her government has managed to do is kick the can down the road - extending the period of uncertainty, for the benefit of exactly no one.
The UK should just take a hard Brexit and be done with it. They already have trade deals in place with various countries, more will follow. Once they're well and truly out, they will just be in the same situation as other European-but-not-EU countries, and they can negotiate the same kinds of trade agreements.
As for the Irish question: it's not really an issue. The UK does not have to enforce a hard Irish border, and the Irish certainly are not going to do so. It's not actually an issue at all.
Re: (Score:3)
That's correct, it's the EU that will enforce that border. Perhaps it is an issue.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean the EU will send foreign troops into Ireland, to enforce the border? First, that would be extraordinarily tone deaf. Perhaps more to the point: the EU has no personnel for such an assignment. It relies on each country to handle affairs as the EU directs. Ireland would not enforce a hard border - there has been too much blood spilt, and the current peace is too valuable. At most, they might pay some "customs officers" to sit at the border and wave at people passing through.
Re:It's about time... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
As for the Irish question: it's not really an issue. The UK does not have to enforce a hard Irish border, and the Irish certainly are not going to do so. It's not actually an issue at all.
Oh! So, all we have to do is to tell the migrants to move to Ireland so that they can freely enter the UK as they wish instead of keeping them in their arrival countries? I'm sure the brexiters will be happy with that.
Just like I'm pretty sure that a long queue of trucks at the border will never be suspicious enough to result in an increased customs activity that would de facto lead to hrs waiting time...
Re: (Score:3)
That's what happens you attempt to negotiate with entities, many, many times your size. Negotiate a mortgage with a bank -- they'll get everything they wanted too.
That's what happens you attempt to negotiate with entities, many, many times your size. They don't have nearly as much ince
Putin Wins! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Putin Wins! (Score:5, Insightful)
And there was much rejoicing (Score:3)
What a very stupid woman. She never tried to strike a wide national consensus - she just forged ahead blindly, making mistakes left and right, and always with the goal of holding together her ridiculous party, to the detriment of the country. Incidentally, the equally ridiculous opposition, led by Jeremy "Dinosaur" Corbyn - a fellow who would have been obsolete and anachronistic already forty years ago - seems to have the same priorities: party first, country next - if at all.
An appropriate time to remember that countries have the governments that they deserve.
Re: (Score:3)
Sigh. (Score:3)
"Europe will kowtow to us"
"They can't afford to lose us"
"We hold a special place in Europe"
"We'll negotiate on our terms"
"They need us more than we need them"
Or... as reality suggests: Piss off Europe and they'll not deal with you because although you're helpful, they are 26 other countries that had to make compromises to be in Europe too, and you can't have your cake, eat in, and then run off without paying the bill.
Brexit was short-sighted, giving the people the choice about it was just dumb, but at least the guy who did that recognised "Well, I can't ever negotiate that and have it go well for the UK" and buggered off soon after saying just that to let this one take his place (from the same political party, no less).
Literally like being at the gym and someone says: "Hey, our gym is expensive, do you want to cancel your gym membership? You do? Oops. Sorry, I didn't mean to bring that up. I'll get my friend here to sort that out with you." and she was stupid/desperate enough for power to jump into that place and try to negotiate a way to both have everyone leave the gym AND give them their money back AND keep the gym owner happy. Which just isn't going to happen.
Except now we've tried to cancel, we realise that we not getting any of the above, and that actually the gym was a pretty damn good deal compared to all the others around. We may still end up leaving the gym, but it's only us that's going to suffer in any substantial way.
Meanwhile, the EU are saying that whoever ends up in charge, the deal is the same (because they've done almost nothing but "negotiate" our exit for over 2 and a half years).
Which means - like it always has - we're no closer to doing one of the only three possible things:
1) Crashing out, putting our economy on the line against the rest of the world.
2) Accepting the deal, losing face, possibly protests, paying lots of money, still losing all the benefits of membership.
3) Cancelling the whole idea entirely and just carrying on how we are (again, possibly protests, but that's about it).
The only way to do 3) safely is another vote, which she keeps promising but "only if we do 2) ". Which is just dumb. If we don't decide before October, 1) happens anyway (and that's nearly happened and the time limit been voluntarily extended by the EU twice already).
Any new mug, I mean replacement, will have to just make a decision and do it. And take the consequences. Because any more pandering and the whole party will lose all their leadership and that'll lead to pretty much anarchy on a random basis depending on what happens with a vote then.
But it'll be another desperate-for-power mug who thinks that this will boost their career and they'll end up holding the hot potato, same as this one did.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
More on topic, either stay in the EU or get out. Stop with all the damned drama.
The problem, which is never well explained is that there are in fact two treaties or agreements here:
Firstly, there is the Treaty on European Union. This is the one being revoked (though Article 50).
Secondly, there is the Belfast Agreement, aka the Good Friday Agreement. This in essence has the status of a treaty. It is also underpinned by membership of the EU (by both the UK and the Republic of Ireland). No-one, on either side, wants to revoke or in any way weaken this.
The "damned drama" has been
Re:Lawmakers?? (Score:5, Informative)
You don't refer to members of the US Senate and Congress [and Parliament] as 'lawmakers'
https://www.politico.com/story... [politico.com]
https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com]
Are you sure about that?
Also, the Senate is one house of Congress. The other house is the House of Representatives. We have Senators and Representatives. They're all Congress Critters.
Re: (Score:3)
Please stop referring to them as "critters", as if they are warm cuddly stuffed animals. These are the people who control us by force -- deadly force if necessary.
They could be like the Satanic Christmas critters from South Park....
Re: (Score:3)
Re:A bigger mistake than the Brexit referendum? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. I believe the original Brexit vote will go down in political history as one of the biggest blunders of democracy, because it was insane from every possible angle.
Even if you believe that the average voter has enough understanding of the numerous nuances involved (trade, the Irish border question, how much the Union actually benefits the British economy etc, all which I find highly doubtful because people in general have a very poor understanding of how the Union works) having a vote on the matter when the alternative is unknown is outright moronic. The vote should never have been 'stay or leave' it should have been 'stay or leave with this kind of plan with these kinds of implications'. They should have first worked out which option outside of a Union membership is best for them knowing full-well which kind of options are available (the Norwegian Model, the swiss model and so on) and then put that on the vote if they wanted a vote. Doing it this way ia equivalent to having a vote such as: 'Do you want to lower taxes?" without any details on what the implications are and where the money would be cut from.
But see, the way I look at it as a non-British European is that the purpose of the vote itself was never actually about people making an informed choice. Farage, UKIP and their ilk have been salivating over 'Brexit' as the magical utopia of the future for decades now, so Cameron probably figured in the wake of the successful (from the POV of the government) Scottish independence referendum that now is to time to shut them down for good. By giving them the vote that he thought they'd easily win, he could then essentially say to Farage: 'The people have been heard, and they disagree with you, so STFU and move on." but because it was executed in such a horrible manner, Cameron basically handed the opposition the keys to victory. There's a good movie about the Brexit campaign by the name of 'Brexit: the uncivil war' that focuses on the way the Leave campaign built its marketing: targeted marketing via social media especially and hammering of a couple of key concepts: 'sovereignty', 'take back control', the famous 350 million a week for the NHS, etc. Fancy sounding phrases with no substance that don't really mean anything without an existing Brexit plan, and that are in large parts lies (the NHS claim, even the leave campaign admitted it was a lie) or mutually exclusive (maintaining free trade with the Union requires free movement of goods and people vs. 'border control', not to mention that no side really wants there to be a hard border in Ireland which they entirely skipped). The entire marketing could be summed up as: 'Brexit: have our cake and eat it too, the EU will have no choice but to let us do it because we are mighty rawr!"
It's hard to know for sure, but it looks to me like neither side expected Leave to win. Cameron and his side did a horrible job countering the numerous lies and spin coming from the Leave side, while at the same time it's clear that Farage had no actual plan for them actually winning, because immediately after they won he bailed and left the entire Brexit-process to the hands of his political opponents and shuffled back to (ironically) his duties as a member of the European Parliament. Was it incompetence? Maybe. Was it him thinking he wouldn't win anyway and the campaign would just serve as a way for him to boost his party's popularity? Maybe. Was it a clever plot to destroy his political opposition by creating an idea of Brexit that's basically impossible to achieve and then throw the ticking time bomb to the conservatives and watch them take the damage? Maybe. A little from column A, some from B and C is my guess.
Whatever Farage's true motivations may be, it'
Re: (Score:3)
Replying to myself to correct a critical typo: that should say 'not win'. because even though I did use the preview button, the lack of caffeine made me miss it. Luckily that should be clear from the context anyway. Sorry about that.
Re:A bigger mistake than the Brexit referendum? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The hard border is a particularly cynical bit of Remain propaganda - there was never a hard border and there never will be.
I don't think Cameron was taking the Scottish Independence vote as his lead - that would suggest the opposite, I think - he was gambling on demographics and a somewhat unfounded belief that young people were all Remainers; they're not. The campaign to leave the EU has been going on for decades and support certainly has weakened as people got used to living under an unelected government
Re: A bigger mistake than the Brexit referendum? (Score:5, Interesting)
- the implications of leaving
- the options for a reasonable exit deal (between the inept negotiating by the UK and Europe's intent to make an exit as painful as possible: slim to none)
- the utter dereliction of duty the House of Commons have shown in this matter.
So yes, I do believe the people of the UK deserve another referendum. Don't think of it as a second Brexit poll, but as a vote of (no) confidence in a workable outcome. If the result is another vote for leaving, then so be it, at least the UK will leave with the people actually knowing what they are getting into. And if they want to stay, well, the rest of us are glad to have them back.
Re: A bigger mistake than the Brexit referendum? (Score:4, Informative)
I've spoken with many educated Brits on the subject, and (to my surprise), they all voted for Brexit. Moreso, they actually all used the same rationale I would have in voting for Brexit. The things I see commenters here screaming about - that it's bad economically, inefficient, reactionary, etc., of course those are true. The people understand that. Of course being part of a union across Europe is theoretically far more advantageous.
The problem is that reality doesn't always follow theory, and even more here, sometimes you have to put principles above all else. The UK was losing autonomy to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, and that was the only real driving factor. Perhaps a good analogy would be if the police found out who a murdered was through an illegal search. What I see is people on here yelling that he must be jailed, he's a murderer, but you cannot abandon principle for an outcome you like or think is best. The end never justifies the means. The voters were smarter than most people here, and it's a lack of their own reflective ability to see why.
Re: A bigger mistake than the Brexit referendum? (Score:5, Insightful)
So in that sense yes, you cannot leave.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: A bigger mistake than the Brexit referendum? (Score:5, Funny)
The difference between trading on WTO rules only and "cutting ourselves off completely" is so slight as to be completely indistinguishable.
You want to chop three quarters of the British people's collective cock off, and claim it's not like chopping all the cock off. The rest of us are trying to wrestle the knife from your hands.
Re: A bigger mistake than the Brexit referendum? (Score:4, Interesting)
The difference between trading on WTO rules only and "cutting ourselves off completely" is so slight as to be completely indistinguishable.
You want to chop three quarters of the British people's collective cock off, and claim it's not like chopping all the cock off. The rest of us are trying to wrestle the knife from your hands.
Coarse but perfect restriction. May and her cabal of Brexiters are the British version of the American Tea Party. They hate the present system, they want the present system gone, and they want a new and perfect system in it's place.
But not liking a system doesn't mean that you have any clue on how to replace it. Or have any clue what a perfect system is, or how to run even an imperfect system.
And as the US has learned, allowing those type to run has it's downside.
There are some reasons that a Country might want to leave the EU. It is an outfit that is increasingly regulatory, and less innovative, preferring to demand that other countries innovators take the knee to their regulations. And it appears to be on the way to regulationg all aspects of it's cisizen's lives.
But if you are going to leave it, you better have the best and brightest working on that effort, and you better know that there will be utterly massive economic and social upheaval.
The simpletons that thought you'd just wave bye-bye to the EU as it floats down the Thames in the HMS Theresa May out into the English Channel to be scuttled to a recording of Yakety Sax, then all would be Marmite and clotted cream, were simply wrong.
No, leaving it at this point requires the same level of commitment and damage level as actual internal physical warfare
Re: A bigger mistake than the Brexit referendum? (Score:3, Insightful)
We could leave tomorrow. The EU isn't stopping us.
Re: A bigger mistake than the Brexit referendum? (Score:4, Insightful)
So you admit that we cannot leave the European Union. That is to say, it's "unworkable".
It is unworkable under current conditions. The EU has no intention to give the UK a decent deal... however the national leaders do (trade between the UK and EU goes both ways, after all), and national leaders have on occasion reminded Brussels not to punish the UK for leaving (though without any effect). The deals on the table at the moment are so bad that a hard Brexit might actually be better (a lot of my friends in the UK who voted Remain are of the same opinion). And both the EU and the UK share the blame for that pickle.
That we're STUCK in it, forever. That there can be NO democratic choice against the treaties (as Junker said). That we've been lied to since the early 1970's about the nature of the European Union. That the politicians ratifying first the Maastricht Treaty without a referendum, and then promising one on Lisbon in 2005 manifestos but then ratifying it anyway without one was a Colossal Deceit to trap us in this union?
That I agree with, to a degree. It is a problem with treaties in general, whether it is that so called EU "constitution", or stuff like CETA: it takes months and years of drafting, lobbying, and negotiations to come to a treaty which all involved in the negotiations can agree on. None of them are at all eager to put up such a hard won agreement up for another vote, whether it's by the EU parliament, national parliaments, or voters in a referendum. So such a vote is carefully avoided or given lip service. Several countries held a referendum on the first EU "constitution" and rejected it, after which it was revised, that is: An die Freude was dropped as the EU anthem and the rest of the text was obfuscated, then passed without referendum.
IMHO all EU citizens should have had a direct vote on the EU treaties, and before those got passed we should have had an actual constitution, outlining in clear concise terms the limitations of power on the Union, the rights of its citizens, and the process by which it governs. We have none of that and the resulting Union is testament to that. Juncker, or Druncker as we like to call him, said it himself: "We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back." The EU is like that, but so is Brexit, and I think it does deserve a second vote.
Personally, I have serious doubts about the workings of the EU (as I should, with our country being by far the greatest net contributor per capita), but with all of that said I still think we'd be better off in it than outside it. As for the British voters, who knows? Despite the veritable torrent of doomsday news around the Brexit, don't the polls still show a sizable Remain faction?
Re: A bigger mistake than the Brexit referendum? (Score:5, Insightful)
They want out of the customs union, trade area, EU court, etc. etc. but they want no border on Ireland, no border in the Irish sea, no people from the EU, not following EU regulations on good, still want to participate in EU warrants, and EU information on terrorists.
So yeah, you put all that together and you get the current deal simply by mechanically following the consequences of those decisions.
Re: A bigger mistake than the Brexit referendum? (Score:4, Informative)
They want out of the customs union, trade area, EU court, etc. etc. but they want no border on Ireland, no border in the Irish sea, no people from the EU, not following EU regulations on good, still want to participate in EU warrants, and EU information on terrorists.
What's contradictory about those things?
I mean, we exchange security information and have extradition treaties with the US but no freedom of movement, no customs union, no shared court.
Norway isn't in the EU but has many points at which you can cross the border into the EU without stopping to show a passport or go through a customs check.
I'm not seeing the contradictions. Just the EU bureaucrats, British civil servants and idiot fuckwit Theresa May that are incapable of negotiating a way to make it work.
Cementocracy (Score:3)
Re:Cementocracy (Score:4, Insightful)
What you are speaking of is not democracy, but cementocracy, as in "once a decision is done it is set in cement and cannot EVER be undone.
No. But when you vote to do a thing, you do that thing. Later, after it is done, you can vote again.
When you vote someone into office, it's a sabotage of democracy to vote again for the same term of office, even though you might get a different result on a different day. You don't vote again for office until the next scheduled election.
Can you not see that whoever decides which vote counts is the actual ruler?
Re: A bigger mistake than the Brexit referendum? (Score:4, Insightful)
So what do we do now?
Just leave.
Once you've left, figure it out. Quickly address whatever's actually painful, and ignore the rest. You can endless debate possible future outcomes of decisions, but that soon becomes a pretense for dong nothing. It's far easier to identify actual problems than rank future problems.
Since people simply can't agree on much in advance, take the small subset that people do agree on (the big worldwide trade treaties that bind Britain with or without Brexit), and just leave.
Just leave.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Trump has proven that if anything. The EU doesn't make laws. It writes directives which the member countries implement in the form of laws, or completely ignore as they see fit.
Show me a US state that ignores Washington.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, 'cause Britain will have no trouble swimming as a little fish along the sharks in international economic waters. Get over yourself.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
she should have listen to Trump's advice and reached a common deal to ease the breakup instead of trying to stop it.
What part of that is true? May and the EU negotiated for 18 months and reached an agreement. It was May’s job to get Parliament to accept the deal. Here’s the problem: the delusional people who thought Brexit would be easy and beneficial didn’t want to accept the deal.