EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[a completely inoffensive name]

Tangential to US election thread, guy I linked, Ian Bremmer, has been saying the UK government actively wanted a Trump reelection. I'm guessing because of the dynamics we see here:

Sinn Fein President: https://twitter.com/sinnfeinireland/...24387851399174

No trade deal unless Good Friday Agreement is respected, does that force UK to give up control of goods flowing through NI into Great Britain?

[Pannonian]

Remember the arguments about sovereignty and how unacceptable it was that the UK had to abide by the European Court of Justice? Which rules in favour of British companies nearly all the time, but it's the principle that counts.

The current headlines are a seachange in the British government because an unelected adviser was forced out for briefing against the PM's partner. Said adviser ignoring the lockdown rules resulted in the PM fully backing him and firing cabinet ministers (elected by the British people) for not backing him. But opposing the PM's partner and briefing against her was unacceptable and resulted in his resignation/firing.

It's like reading Suetonius.

[rory_20_uk]

Remember the arguments about sovereignty and how unacceptable it was that the UK had to abide by the European Court of Justice? Which rules in favour of British companies nearly all the time, but it's the principle that counts.

The current headlines are a seachange in the British government because an unelected adviser was forced out for briefing against the PM's partner. Said adviser ignoring the lockdown rules resulted in the PM fully backing him and firing cabinet ministers (elected by the British people) for not backing him. But opposing the PM's partner and briefing against her was unacceptable and resulted in his resignation/firing.

It's like reading Suetonius.

A technical point - MPs are elected to Parliament by the public. They are chosen by the PM for Cabinet. And I think I am correct there is little stopping the PM choosing whoever he wants for Cabinet - in some cases historically rhe PM has even enobled someone so they can choose them.
If you're saying that the system is broken I would agree - we have a proper pseudo-Royal Court with the PM's to-be wife having power alongside both Civil Servants, MPs and SPADs with the electorate able to cast a vote every 5 years for a person who kind of but not really is supposed to represent local issues yet can be neither local nor locally engaged.

We have had one chance to change at least one facet of the election system in recent years and even then the government ensured that the alternative chosen was the worst possible and didn't bother to explain it.

So please let's have political reform. Many other European countries show better options, as does New Zealand (and others).

This would be true Brexit or not.

[Pannonian]

The word is out; it's official. Starting with the DofE, schools have been told to stock up on long life food as there will likely be disruptions to food supplies.

In other Brexit related news, fishing reps have told the government the fishing industry will collapse in the absence of a deal. And a minister has told sheep farmers that, since the changes in market conditions will make sheep farming untenable, they should switch to beef farming instead.

Oh, and did anyone miss the realisation that the area allocated for the lorry park in Kent floods multiple times a year?

And polls across the EU show that positive opinions of the EU outnumber the negatives. I might have said including the UK, but, of course, the UK is no longer in the EU, despite 60% now being pro-EU.

Are Brexiteers going to be stocking up on food too? Or are they going to trust in the food supply chain that the government have now said will be affected?

[Furunculus]

I for one welcome our coming brexpocalypse!

"And polls across the EU show that positive opinions of the EU outnumber the negatives. I might have said including the UK, but, of course, the UK is no longer in the EU, despite 60% now being pro-EU."

Notably, public attitudes to immigration rose in the years after the referendum too.
I would suggest that this was because the issue was seen to be being addressed.
I would suggest a similar principle here, easily tested by seeing whether a political party can win on a GE manifesto of rejoining the EU...
**waits patiently**

[Montmorency]

I would suggest a similar principle here, easily tested by seeing whether a political party can win on a GE manifesto of rejoining the EU...
**waits patiently**

You had one in 2019 and *checks notes* pro-Brexit parties won less than 47% of the vote in an inversion of the referendum margins.

[Furunculus]

You had one in 2019 and *checks notes* pro-Brexit parties won less than 47% of the vote in an inversion of the referendum margins.

that's a funny, thanks for brightening my Sunday morning.

2009 - (EP09) Tories win on a "We're no longer part of the [federalist] Conservative-Right bloc" in the EP ticket:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_E...United_Kingdom

2010 - (GE10) Cameron wins on a "Hey, we're Euroskeptics, but not fruitcakes and nutters" ticket:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_U...neral_election

2011 - (REF) Lib-Dems fail to win on a "Would you like to reconsider our majoritarian electoral system?" ticket:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_U...ote_referendum

2012 - (OP12) Remain fails to win on a "Look at that nutter, Cameron, vetoing EU rescue treaty's!" ticket:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinio...eferendum#2012

2013 - (OP13) Remain fails to win on a "Look at that nutter, Cameron, promising to imperil our membership with a referendum" ticket:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinio...eferendum#2011

2014 - (EP14) UKIP wins on a "Let's leave the EU" ticket" (with tories just one seat behind Labour):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_E...United_Kingdom

2014 - (REF) The SNP fails to win on a "We were only it for the EU membership, and now look what he's gone and promised!" ticket:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_S...nce_referendum

2015 - (GE15) Tories get a (surprise) win on a "Lets have a referendum" ticket:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_U...neral_election

2016 - (REF) Leave wins referendum on a "Lets leave the EU" ticket:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_U...hip_referendum

2017 - (GE17) Labour fails to win on a "Let's reconsider what we're doing before we make a terrible mistake" ticket:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_U...neral_election

2018 - (Stupid18) People's Vote of Judea fail to win on a "There is no avenue we won't pursue to stop this bloody thing!" ticket:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People...ign_activities

2019 - (EP19) Brexit Party wins on a "We'll smash any party that dares thwart our aim of leaving the EU" ticket:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_E...United_Kingdom

2019 - (GE19) Tories win on a "Please, let us just get on with the damnable business of leaving the EU" ticket:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_U...neral_election

2020 - (OP20) Labour failing to win on a "Now that we're actually leaving, would you please reconsider voting tory" ticket:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinio..._election#2020

2021 - (??21) Shall i go on?

[Montmorency]

If this litany is meant either to establish a narrative that Brexit is a winning issue across the listed elections (most of what you link aren't elections but opinion polls so I'm not sure how to take that), or that my point about the 2019 election is superseded by some other information, it fails on either as other than a pisstake.

I'm especially miffed that you entirely ignored the latter, which was the whole extent of my single-sentence post you're responding to. You asked about elections in which Brexit was an issue. The 2019 election is the latest result we have, for an election that was more about Brexit than all but the Brexit referendum itself.

It is an anachronism to account for pre-2015 elections as being predicated on a Brexit controversy that wasn't yet salient, and even in 2015 it's debatable how prominently it figured relative to other issues. The most you could submit in your favor is that Brexit-supporting parties gained something less than 2% of the vote between 2017 and 2019 general elections. But as I pointed out they didn't come close to matching the vote share of the pure issue-ballot in 2016 (or even the Con/UKIP vote share in 2015, for that matter).

Where you verge on overt falsehood:

2017 - (GE17) Labour fails to win on a "Let's reconsider what we're doing before we make a terrible mistake" ticket:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_U...neral_election

The UK's withdrawal from the European Union was expected to be a key issue in the campaign,[117] but featured less than expected.[118]

I commend your precise "failed to win" language though.

2019 - (EP19) Brexit Party wins on a "We'll smash any party that dares thwart our aim of leaving the EU" ticket:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_E...United_Kingdom

An overly-creative narrative to tout a vote share of 30.5% bringing 29/73 seats of the national delegation (especially as compared to the 2014 EU Parliament elections in which the Brexit alliance actually won ~52% of votes).


Isn't this the sort of display Pannonian would call, 'typical Brexiteer guff'?

[Furunculus]

You missed the significance of what was on the surface the least relevent of the points listed:

2011 - (REF) Lib-Dems fail to win on a "Would you like to reconsider our majoritarian electoral system?" ticket:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_U...ote_referendum

This is how decision are made, and it is how decisions were determined should be made.
It is the only useful bar to be vaulted over or limbo'ed under.

We have a constitution that puts very few bars in the way of what an elected gov't with a compliant majority can achieve, and we have an electoral system that has a strong tendency to deliver a majoritarian result in parliament for that gov't to use.

Want change? Win elections!
Don't like what 'they' did? Kick them out!
Don't you think the decision's made are too big for one electoral cycle? Tough, win an election and reverse!
Yeah, but isn't this one too big to be treated as a normal political event? Not it isn't, it's just another choice!

[Pannonian]

This should belong in the Covid thread, but how it's been done belongs to the Brexit thread.

"Speaking shortly after the announcement that the Pfizer/BioNTec jab had been cleared for use by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), Mr Hancock said that the authorisation process was faster than in the EU because Britain was no longer a member."

Was this one of the benefits of Brexit? No.

"But asked if this was the case, MHRA chief executive June Raine said the process was undertaken under the terms of European law, which remains in force until the completion of the Brexit transition at the end of 2020."

[Pannonian]

The main lorry park in Kent won't be ready until some months after the deadline, as the area has flooded (due to being in a flood plain). So we're exiting the barrier-free market, but our IT system is nowhere near ready, we don't have the customs officers to deal with the traffic, our main waiting area for the traffic isn't ready, and truckers entering Kent will require a permit.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The main lorry park in Kent won't be ready until some months after the deadline, as the area has flooded (due to being in a flood plain). So we're exiting the barrier-free market, but our IT system is nowhere near ready, we don't have the customs officers to deal with the traffic, our main waiting area for the traffic isn't ready, and truckers entering Kent will require a permit.

Still going with the Brit tradition of "muddling through" I see.

[Pannonian]

Still going with the Brit tradition of "muddling through" I see.

The hauliers are due to be issued guidance for what to do after the deadline. Which is in less than a month's time. On the positive side, one haulier rep reckons that there may be less traffic than expected. Due to European haulage companies not bothering with the UK altogether. Have I mentioned that the UK relies on food imports, most of which comes from the EU? Never mind, we'll just rely on our own food production. What's that, the fishing and agriculture industries reckon they will go out of business with the model of Brexit being mooted?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The hauliers are due to be issued guidance for what to do after the deadline. Which is in less than a month's time. On the positive side, one haulier rep reckons that there may be less traffic than expected. Due to European haulage companies not bothering with the UK altogether. Have I mentioned that the UK relies on food imports, most of which comes from the EU? Never mind, we'll just rely on our own food production. What's that, the fishing and agriculture industries reckon they will go out of business with the model of Brexit being mooted?

Hmmm. Remember reading about shortages and the like when you folks started the 1939 dust up. You had 38 million then, and roughly 56 million now. So I am guessing the 25% overall agro/food increase from 1940 levels leaves you lot a bit short without imports. Might get a bit peckish whilst things sort themselves.

[Pannonian]

Hmmm. Remember reading about shortages and the like when you folks started the 1939 dust up. You had 38 million then, and roughly 56 million now. So I am guessing the 25% overall agro/food increase from 1940 levels leaves you lot a bit short without imports. Might get a bit peckish whilst things sort themselves.

66 million actually. What would be interesting is whether anyone who voted Leave will be stocking up on food ahead of effective Brexit, or whether they will believe in what they've been saying, that everything will be ok. Don't know if you remember the discussions, but one of the points made about the UK's post-Brexit economy is that we will be moving towards a Singaporean model, and that agriculture and fishing can be dispensed with. That the Singaporean government thinks Brexit is nuts was ignored of course, but now we've combined making imports impractical with rendering our agriculture and fishing unviable. And we are still determined to retain our sovereign right to ignore international law, meaning no one supports us as a matter of principle, along with everyone wanting to exploit us as they see how weak we are (see New Zealand commenting along those lines).

Brexit is the single most stupid act by any western country in my lifetime. And unlike the US electing Trump, it's not a one term thing. As Brexiteers like to retort, let's wait for 40 years before drawing conclusions. Will the Brexiteers be going full steam ahead in their belief that everything will be fine as they'd promised? Or will they be taking alleviative measures whilst still maintaining that Brexit is right and proper? The worst hypocrites of course, will be those Leavers who leave the UK in order to escape the consequences of their decision.

[Pannonian]

Brexit latest: UK should brace itself for months of food shortages from 1 January, delivery experts say

The UK should brace itself for months of food shortages from 1 January as strict European rules are enforced and the prospect of long delays at the customs border scare off truck drivers from even attempting to deliver goods across the Channel, experts on both sides of the channel have claimed.

According to the boss of Europe’s largest haulage trade body, the UK is looking at a “nightmare scenario” that will lead to “weeks, if not months” of food shortages after the Brexit transition period comes to an end in just four weeks.

The UK’s leading haulage organisation has also criticised the Government’s preparations, claiming truck companies are unable to plan for the new rules “because we’ve not been told what the rules are”.
...
Marco Digioia, secretary general of the European Road Haulers Association, said he was priming his membership for “huge bottle necks between the UK and EU”.

“You can expect empty shelves in supermarkets from the first week of 2021,” said Mr Digioia. “It’s a complete nightmare scenario. It will last for weeks, even months.”
...
Duncan Buchanan, policy director for England and Wales at the UK’s Road Haulage Association, confirmed many EU truck drivers were refusing take on the queues in Dover and other UK ports.

“This will be more disruptive to supply chains than Covid has been,” said Mr Buchanan. “EU hauliers are refusing to travel to the UK from 1 January, and they’re asking our drivers to take up the slack.”

Mr Buchanan went on to criticise the Government for not allowing truck companies to see the new digital customs system – called Goods Vehicle Movement Service (GVMS).

He added: “We haven’t even had the chance to see the GVMS yet. We should have had this information in August in order to prepare.”

[Furunculus]

What would be interesting is whether anyone who voted Leave will be stocking up on food ahead of effective Brexit, or whether they will believe in what they've been saying, that everything will be ok.

Yes, the wine collection is pretty impressive right now.

Re: the rest of your invective - can you please alter the constant whining drone? Or, at the very least, learn how to talk with some nuance when referring to what is half the voting population? Otherwise, any serious interest in engaging with you dies.

----------------------------------------

separately - an interesting discussion on what brexit is actually about - and the subject of [potential] discussion on whether this bet is a good one:

https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...-covid/617280/

[Seamus Fermanagh]

66 million actually. What would be interesting is whether anyone who voted Leave will be stocking up on food ahead of effective Brexit, or whether they will believe in what they've been saying, that everything will be ok. Don't know if you remember the discussions, but one of the points made about the UK's post-Brexit economy is that we will be moving towards a Singaporean model, and that agriculture and fishing can be dispensed with. That the Singaporean government thinks Brexit is nuts was ignored of course, but now we've combined making imports impractical with rendering our agriculture and fishing unviable. And we are still determined to retain our sovereign right to ignore international law, meaning no one supports us as a matter of principle, along with everyone wanting to exploit us as they see how weak we are (see New Zealand commenting along those lines).

Brexit is the single most stupid act by any western country in my lifetime. And unlike the US electing Trump, it's not a one term thing. As Brexiteers like to retort, let's wait for 40 years before drawing conclusions. Will the Brexiteers be going full steam ahead in their belief that everything will be fine as they'd promised? Or will they be taking alleviative measures whilst still maintaining that Brexit is right and proper? The worst hypocrites of course, will be those Leavers who leave the UK in order to escape the consequences of their decision.

Of course Singapore must rely on food imports and fishing. They don't have enough dry land to do elsewise with their population. I would think that the UK would at least want to retain a "boutique" agro industry. Our side of the pond may be too "corporate" of an agro industry for some folks' tastes, but we could feed everyone without a hitch on one year's notice if we had to do so; even though we import quite a percentage as it currently stands.

[Montmorency]

You missed the significance of what was on the surface the least relevent of the points listed:

2011 - (REF) Lib-Dems fail to win on a "Would you like to reconsider our majoritarian electoral system?" ticket:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_U...ote_referendum

This is how decision are made, and it is how decisions were determined should be made.
It is the only useful bar to be vaulted over or limbo'ed under.

We have a constitution that puts very few bars in the way of what an elected gov't with a compliant majority can achieve, and we have an electoral system that has a strong tendency to deliver a majoritarian result in parliament for that gov't to use.

Want change? Win elections!
Don't like what 'they' did? Kick them out!
Don't you think the decision's made are too big for one electoral cycle? Tough, win an election and reverse!
Yeah, but isn't this one too big to be treated as a normal political event? Not it isn't, it's just another choice!

If you wanted to highlight the majoritarian features of the Westminster system in practice, you should have done so, since what you did highlight was fallacious or misleading toward the point you seemed to be explicitly making (which was triumphalism over the popularity of Brexit as demonstrated through elections).

I do not oppose the practice of allowing plurality winners the opportunity to form coalitions or implement their valid agendas, in systems that are sustained on plurality victories. That wasn't the issue at hand, which is that Brexit has lost support over time by the metric of elections.

Such systems exist, by the way, independent of First Past the Post. Obvious example: Australia. And majoritarianism is not a function of FPTP, it is a function of what constraints are placed on governments (i.e. constitutional boundaries and licenses). You can have FPTP systems that are majoritarian in principle, such as the US, but by contingent factors anti-majoritarian in practice. Or anti-majoritarian in principle, such as in Canada, which I understand has particularly-strong constitutional safeguards for civil and human rights on top of its federal character.

Want change? Win elections!

On those glib terms alone the Tories enjoy a heaping of structural bias. Given the distribution of voters in the UK, between the SNP on one end and the LibDems on the other (now that there's minimal crossover between LibDem and Tory demos), Labour has little prospective hope of forming a government without forming a Faustian coalition regardless of their electoral approach. Which is beside the Brexit issue, as no party will have a coherent platform to offer on EU relations anytime soon.

(Although it can cut against Cons sometimes as well; constituency inefficiency meant 36% of the vote could win 306/650 seats in 2010, 42.4% of the vote won only! 317/650 seats in 2017, yet 1% more PV in 2019 gained them 56% of seats or 365/650. That's an addition of ~50 seats, more than 7% of the total, for 1% of the vote. These imbalances could potentially swing against you soon, so both major parties should have some stake in reform.)

Gesturing to the electoral process is all well and good from a shortsighted Bolshevist perspective - let's be honest, you would back Brexit to the hilt if it got in with 5% approval, because you want it that way - but it can't inform us about Brexit today.

Yeah, but isn't this one too big to be treated as a normal political event? Not it isn't, it's just another choice!

Strange way of looking at things. Obviously - and in the event you would be seen to agree - there is a substantive difference in perception and treatment between tweaking NHS access standards and, say, abolishing the hereditary aristocracy (all of it). It is only arguably the same in the purely-mechanical formal act (not even process, but act, as we've seen what disturbances can befall the parliamentary process) of passing legislation.

The interests of fairness and stability do place some limits on sheer will to power, whether they are legal, constitutional, or just normative. Commitment to overturning these is risky; gloat as you please, but don't be insouciant about where you're going.

66 million actually. What would be interesting is whether anyone who voted Leave will be stocking up on food ahead of effective Brexit, or whether they will believe in what they've been saying, that everything will be ok.

Didn't even most people who knew about the oncoming pandemic fail to stock up before governments initiated action? People tend not to be proactive about future threats, including the ones they acknowledge will affect them.

(If most people who anticipated the force of the pandemic did make preparations, disregard the above.)

Brexit is the single most stupid act by any western country in my lifetime. And unlike the US electing Trump, it's not a one term thing.

It's not American Exceptionalism to highlight the Bush II and Trump terms, as well as the War on Terror itself, just out of the 21st century, because all of the above likely have had and will have a much worse effect on the global human condition than Brexit (notwithstanding certain comments about deregulation below).

Let's compromise and gripe about the degradation of the Anglosphere (outside New Zealand).

About the lorry quotas, isn't the EU holding some restrictions in abeyance for the transition? Or has that already expired?

Yes, the wine collection is pretty impressive right now.

Re: the rest of your invective - can you please alter the constant whining drone? Or, at the very least, learn how to talk with some nuance when referring to what is half the voting population? Otherwise, any serious interest in engaging with you dies.

----------------------------------------

separately - an interesting discussion on what brexit is actually about - and the subject of [potential] discussion on whether this bet is a good one:

https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...-covid/617280/

Nuance? I mean, you @ half the UK voting population: "Want change? Win elections!"

Weird article. Lists a lot of concrete downsides but follows airily with lines like:

But that doesn’t mean the gamble is wrong; it just means it’s risky.

Like, OK, but what? how? why? Maybe flying a jet fighter without a canopy will make the pilot "quicker and better" than other pilots, but the reader deserves to know what "quicker and better" means, how that could be the case, and why we should credit it.

Those around Johnson plainly believe that Brexit offers an opportunity to outcompete the EU not just in today’s industries but, perhaps more important, in the industries that haven’t been invented—and therefore haven’t been regulated—yet. What is less often acknowledged is that this belief—or fear—is shared on the continent. The prospect of a deregulated post-Brexit Britain outcompeting Europe is why the EU has demanded much tighter regulations to protect the “level playing field” with Britain than it has with any other country.

Any country can deregulate itself into a shithole country. For a former heart of "civilization" to undertake that project would be bad not just for Britons but for the entire world, when we need "developed"-world diplomacy toward transnational corporate accountability and a virtuous cycle of cooperation rather than another race to the bottom.

Of course the developed world should fear such a turn if that's what Brexit represents. Seems manifestly like an argument for characterizing Brexit as a blight on humanity...

I've found this piece on Brexit to be especially incisive:

t least the Sun thrives on chaos. The savage parliamentary mauling of Britain’s withdrawal agreement with the European Union allowed Rupert Murdoch’s pet tabloid to unveil on Wednesday morning a front page of grandly gleeful malevolence. Under the headline Brextinct, it conjured a creepy chimera of Theresa May’s head pasted on to the body of a dodo. But the thing about such surreal pictures is that it is not easy to control their interpretation. From the outside, this one seemed to suggest much more than the immediately intended message that both May and her deal are politically dead. When, it prompted one to ask, did Brextinction really happen? Was this strange creature ever really alive or was it not always a grotesquely Photoshopped image of something else, a crisis of belonging that has attached itself to the wrong union? Do the events of this week point us, not towards the EU, but to the travails of a radically disunited kingdom?

The dodo, after all, may be proverbially dead but it has a vivid afterlife in that great trawl of the English unconscious, Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. It is the Dodo, when various characters have fallen into a pool of tears, who suggests how they might dry themselves – the Caucus-race. “There was no ‘One, two, three, and away’, but they began running when they liked, and left off when they liked, so that it was not easy to know when the race was over. However, when they had been running half an hour or so, and were quite dry again, the Dodo suddenly called out, ‘The race is over!’ and they all crowded round it, panting, and asking, ‘But who has won?’”

This seems, this week more than ever, a perfect description of the state to which British politics has been reduced – a lot of frantically anarchic running overseen by a defunct creature, the Brextinct dodo. And who has won? Carroll’s Dodo, of course, decrees: “Everybody has won, and all must have prizes.” Having emptied Alice’s pockets to provide rewards for everyone else, the Dodo solemnly presents her with the only thing that’s left: her own thimble. “We beg your acceptance of this elegant thimble.”

The Brexit game is patently not worth the thimble to be presented at the end of it. Yet in Theresa May’s humiliation on Tuesday, there were prizes for almost everybody else: a glimpse of opportunity for her rivals in cabinet; a revival of their sadomasochistic no-deal fantasies for the zealots; the hope of a second referendum for remainers; proof of the near-collapse of the Westminster order for nationalists; the hope of a general election for Jeremy Corbyn. But in truth nobody has won anything – it is a losing game all round.

For all of this is the afterlife of dead things. One of them is Brexit itself. When did Brextinction occur? On 24 June 2016. The project was driven by decades of camped-up mendacity about the tyranny of the EU, and sold in the referendum as a fantasy of national liberation. It simply could not survive contact with reality. It died the moment it became real. You cannot free yourself from imaginary oppression. Even if May were a political genius – and let us concede that she is not – Brexit was always going to come down to a choice between two evils: the heroic but catastrophic failure of crashing out; or the unheroic but less damaging failure of swapping first-class for second-class EU membership. These are the real afterlives of a departed reverie.

If the choice between shooting oneself in the head or in the foot is the answer to Britain’s long-term problems, surely the wrong question is being asked. It is becoming ever clearer that Brexit is not about its ostensible subject: Britain’s relationship with the EU. The very word Brexit contains a literally unspoken truth. It does not include or even allude to Europe. It is British exit that is the point, not what it is exiting from. The tautologous slogan Leave Means Leave is similarly (if unintentionally) honest: the meaning is in the leaving, not in what is being left or how.

Paradoxically, this drama of departure has really served only to displace a crisis of belonging. Brexit plays out a conflict between Them and Us, but it is surely obvious after this week that the problem is not with Them on the continent. It’s with the British Us, the unravelling of an imagined community. The visible collapse of the Westminster polity this week may be a result of Brexit, but Brexit itself is the result of the invisible subsidence of the political order over recent decades.

It may seem strange to call this slow collapse invisible since so much of it is obvious: the deep uncertainties about the union after the Good Friday agreement of 1998 and the establishment of the Scottish parliament the following year; the consequent rise of English nationalism; the profound regional inequalities within England itself; the generational divergence of values and aspirations; the undermining of the welfare state and its promise of shared citizenship; the contempt for the poor and vulnerable expressed through austerity; the rise of a sensationally self-indulgent and clownish ruling class. But the collective effects of these interrelated developments do seem to have been barely visible within the political mainstream until David Cameron accidentally took the lid off by calling a referendum and asking people to endorse the status quo.

What we see with the lid off and the fog of fantasies at last beginning to dissipate is the truth that Brexit is much less about Britain’s relationship with the EU than it is about Britain’s relationship with itself. It is the projection outwards of an inner turmoil. An archaic political system had carried on even while its foundations in a collective sense of belonging were crumbling. Brexit in one way alone has done a real service: it has forced the old system to play out its death throes in public. The spectacle is ugly, but at least it shows that a fissiparous four-nation state cannot be governed without radical social and constitutional change.

European leaders have continually expressed exasperation that the British have really been negotiating not with them, but with each other. But perhaps it is time to recognise that there is a useful truth in this: Brexit is really just the vehicle that has delivered a fraught state to a place where it can no longer pretend to be a settled and functioning democracy. Brexit’s work is done – everyone can now see that the Westminster dodo is dead. It is time to move on from the pretence that the problem with British democracy is the EU and to recognise that it is with itself. After Brextinction there must be a whole new political ecosystem. Drop the dead dodo, end the mad race for a meaningless prize, and start talking about who you want to be.

To be fair, the same or similar is really true for much of the world, including America and most of Europe. But self-carnage is not an answer. This, Pannonian, is also what I meant when I remarked at some other time that we can't go back home; the old order has died and the new one is waiting to be born.

[Pannonian]

It's not American Exceptionalism to highlight the Bush II and Trump terms, as well as the War on Terror itself, just out of the 21st century, because all of the above likely have had and will have a much worse effect on the global human condition than Brexit (notwithstanding certain comments about deregulation below).

I'm not just talking about the magnitude of effects on the human condition. I'm talking about the amount of evidence and expert argument against, and the dearth of evidence and arguments for. I'm talking about taking the wrong step every step of the way, given many, many opportunities to take even just a single tiny step the right way. I'm talking about the determination to make it as long term and even permanent as possible. I'm talking about going out of our way to do the greatest possible damage to ourselves, when practically everyone else (barring probably Russia) was urging us against it.

The only unrefuted argument left for Brexit that I've seen is "We won".

[rory_20_uk]

The constant mixing your point of view with "fact" gets very wearisome. But as far as you appear to be concerned, it is solely about the economy.

One reason to vote Leave - National sovereignty.

[Pannonian]

The constant mixing your point of view with "fact" gets very wearisome. But as far as you appear to be concerned, it is solely about the economy.

One reason to vote Leave - National sovereignty.

Do you support National Sovereignty as an absolute? Or is it only a factor wrt the EU?

Would you also like us to leave the UN, WTO, NATO, and all the other bodies which we are members of?

[rory_20_uk]

Do you support National Sovereignty as an absolute? Or is it only a factor wrt the EU?

Would you also like us to leave the UN, WTO, NATO, and all the other bodies which we are members of?

Which of these other bodies can add to the laws of the country? Or are they demonstratively different?

[Pannonian]

18th September 2019:
Ineos chairman Sir Jim Ratcliffe (one of Brexit's biggest backers) said: “We have looked long and hard at possible manufacturing locations for Grenadier across the world with lots of good options to choose from.

“The decision to build in the UK is a significant expression of confidence in British manufacturing which has always been at the heart of what Ineos stands for.”

Engineered for the world. Built in Britain.

We’re delighted to announce that our #uncompromising 4x4 will be built in Wales and named
@INEOSGrenadier
.

A significant commitment to UK manufacturing, creating up to 500 #jobs as part of our £600m investment."

Boris Johnson: “Today’s announcement from Ineos will deliver hundreds of new jobs in Bridgend and is a vote of confidence in UK expertise, making sure we keep our status as a pioneer in new vehicle technologies.

“Backing our automotive sector is a key priority for this Government, and we’re working closely with industry to ensure it stays competitive and to put the UK at the forefront of the global drive to zero emissions.”

------

8th December 2020: Ineos Automotive confirms Grenadier 4x4 will be built in France

-------

Yet another Brexit hypocrite. Gets Britain out of Europe, then moves his business into Europe. Brexit is a good thing, as long as the costs are paid by others.

[Pannonian]

Which of these other bodies can add to the laws of the country? Or are they demonstratively different?

NATO dictates to the UK's budget. Control of the finances is traditionally what makes the Prime Minister the Prime Minister. Is there any reason why the UK does not have the right to spend whatever it likes on defence? Isn't NATO's stipulation a violation of our sovereign right to control our own budgets?

[rory_20_uk]

NATO dictates to the UK's budget. Control of the finances is traditionally what makes the Prime Minister the Prime Minister. Is there any reason why the UK does not have the right to spend whatever it likes on defence? Isn't NATO's stipulation a violation of our sovereign right to control our own budgets?

NATO doesn't dictate the budget whatsoever - it is completely optional. Most choose not to follow.

Is that as good as it gets? What about all the other bodies you mentioned are somehow equivalent to the situation with the EU. Please, do enlighten me.

[Pannonian]

NATO doesn't dictate the budget whatsoever - it is completely optional. Most choose not to follow.

Is that as good as it gets? What about all the other bodies you mentioned are somehow equivalent to the situation with the EU. Please, do enlighten me.

I'd like to ask a question though. Is your support for sovereignty and dismissal of economic effects absolute? Will you back your support for Brexit on the grounds of sovereignty against any economic effects that are said to be coming up? When the economic effects come up, and they are as Remainers said they would be, will you say, I knew this would happen, and I think it is worth it?

[rory_20_uk]

I'd like to ask a question though. Is your support for sovereignty and dismissal of economic effects absolute? Will you back your support for Brexit on the grounds of sovereignty against any economic effects that are said to be coming up? When the economic effects come up, and they are as Remainers said they would be, will you say, I knew this would happen, and I think it is worth it?

To be clear, you are admitting all the previous examples you gave of other institutions that impinge on UK sovereignty are void? I take this as the case since you appear to be moving on.

Moving on to a question that appears to be meaningless - since nothing is absolute. Every country that surrendered in a conflict had the choice to fight on until utter destruction and chose not to.

What time frame is the economic effects to be measured over? March 2021, 2030, or a different time point? If I knew what was going to happen I would be rich beyond my wildest dreams - as people did on Black Wednesday when the UK left the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (another time the Government tried to shoe horn us closer to Europe and didn't feel the need to bother asking the people)... And although it was a disastrous event that cost a load of money the country survived.

[Pannonian]

To be clear, you are admitting all the previous examples you gave of other institutions that impinge on UK sovereignty are void? I take this as the case since you appear to be moving on.

Moving on to a question that appears to be meaningless - since nothing is absolute. Every country that surrendered in a conflict had the choice to fight on until utter destruction and chose not to.

What time frame is the economic effects to be measured over? March 2021, 2030, or a different time point? If I knew what was going to happen I would be rich beyond my wildest dreams - as people did on Black Wednesday when the UK left the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (another time the Government tried to shoe horn us closer to Europe and didn't feel the need to bother asking the people)... And although it was a disastrous event that cost a load of money the country survived.

I moved on because it's clear we are speaking in different languages. You cite sovereignty as the principle that justifies Brexit, but then differentiate control of our government from laws. I could ask you which EU laws you want us to drop, if that would be more to your taste. Would you care to answer that question then, as a concrete example of the principle you cite?

[rory_20_uk]

I moved on because it's clear we are speaking in different languages. You cite sovereignty as the principle that justifies Brexit, but then differentiate control of our government from laws. I could ask you which EU laws you want us to drop, if that would be more to your taste. Would you care to answer that question then, as a concrete example of the principle you cite?

Ah, I see. I was talking about Sovereignty as the ability to impose laws on the UK. You were... choosing to cross talk on something barely related. You've not managed to point out one entity that controls our government - unless you are trying to stretch this to include almost every form of soft power and then claim that this is also the same as what the EU does. Is this the case?

The "concrete principle" is simple - EU Regulations. A system where rules can be added to the UK from outside of the UK. And I've specifically chosen not to include EU Directives where countries are forced to draft and pass a law that the EU requires since I'm sure you'd say that as this was drafted and passed in the UK it was our "choice"

But please, do tell - what other bodies have the same control over the UK - laws or otherwise - as the EU.