Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

[TheLeft]

You seem insistant on personalising any debate. Where in my post did I say I was a Brexit Party supporter or make any comment about this stupid woman's Tweets?

I'm confused. If you didn't want to make any comment about those vile tweets, why did you bring them up? And why bring them up in relation to the opposition?

Please quit with the Snowfake posturing!

Snowfake posturing?. Is that posing unnecessarily on a dry ski slope?

There has been a history of vote rigging in this town, I would think anyone who cares about democracy would have a concern about any doubts over a result, not just someone who supports a particular party, but I guess you aren't.

So you care about democracy, but not enough to query about the massive amounts of illegal spending in the 2016 Brexit Referendum. A result that, as a Brexiteer, you cherish and hold dear as the 'Will of the People'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawf..._EU_referendum

Does democracy only matter when the result goes against you? Isn't that the very same thing you accuse Remainers of?

[caratacus]

I'm confused. If you didn't want to make any comment about those vile tweets, why did you bring them up? And why bring them up in relation to the opposition?

Because... they are relevant to this election result.. AND they are relevant to the current anti-semitism claims splitting the Labour party, or aren't you aware of that?

Snowfake posturing?. Is that posing unnecessarily on a dry ski slope?

In that case, snowflakes would be things you want to ride above, right!

So you care about democracy, but not enough to query about the massive amounts of illegal spending in the 2016 Brexit Referendum. A result that, as a Brexiteer, you cherish and hold dear as the 'Will of the People'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawf..._EU_referendum
Does democracy only matter when the result goes against you? Isn't that the very same thing you accuse Remainers of?

Nothing has come of this and would anyway have made little difference to the result. Labour spent a pile campaigning in Peterborough months before the election (probably posting postal vote applications) but they only received less than 700 votes than a party that didn't even exist two months ago!

[TheLeft]

Because... they are relevant to this election result.. AND they are relevant to the current anti-semitism claims splitting the Labour party, or aren't you aware of that?

Of course I'm aware of it. It's the reason why I switched to the Green Party.

But to return to the issue, it's Labour antisemitism = bad, Farage's racist posters = good. Amirite?

In that case, snowflakes would be things you want to ride above, right!

I'm sorry but that makes no sense.

Nothing has come of this and would anyway have made little difference to the result. Labour spent a pile campaigning in Peterborough months before the election (probably posting postal vote applications) but they only received less than 700 votes than a party that didn't even exist two months ago!

If you bothered to read the link I posted above, you'll have seen that the Electoral Commission fined both 'Vote Leave', 'Leave.EU'. It also referred Arron Banks (the largest single financial supporter of Brexit and Farage's Sugar Daddy) to the National Crime Agency which still has an investigation ongoing. So I'll have to disagree that 'nothing came of it' and it would have made little difference to a 52-48% result.

It does beg the question that if, in your view, electoral cheating is fine and has little bearing on the result, why are you complaining about the Peterborough result? Sour Grapes? I seem to remember Farage complaining about voting irregularities each and every time he loses a by-election. I am tempted to trot out the old Brexiteer catchphrase...

You lost! Get over it!

As for Labour's margin of victory. They won by 607 votes in 2017, and 683 last week. So you could argue that their victory margin increased!

http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/con...erborough#2017

http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/by-...6/peterborough

[caratacus]

If you bothered to read the link I posted above, you'll have seen that the Electoral Commission fined both 'Vote Leave', 'Leave.EU'. It also referred Arron Banks (the largest single financial supporter of Brexit and Farage's Sugar Daddy) to the National Crime Agency which still has an investigation ongoing. So I'll have to disagree that 'nothing came of it' and it would have made little difference to a 52-48% result.

It does beg the question that if, in your view, electoral cheating is fine and has little bearing on the result, why are you complaining about the Peterborough result? Sour Grapes? I seem to remember Farage complaining about voting irregularities each and every time he loses a by-election. I am tempted to trot out the old Brexiteer catchphrase...

I see your vision is rather one sided

Fresh fines for Remain campaigners after referendum expenses breaches
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk...endum-expenses
Unions and Remain campaigners have been fined by election watchdogs over expenses breaches during the EU referendum.

Campaign group Best for Our Future was slapped with a £2,000 penalty for failing to submit documents about donations from Unison and the GMB. Both unions meanwhile were fined £500 each for inaccuracies in the way they reported the donations they gave to the campaign group.

Best for our Future appears to have been set up by Labour and press freedom activist Cormac Hollingsworth and left-wing political blogger Laurence Durnan.
It received some £10,000 from Unison during the 2016 referendum campaign, whilst GMB handed it £20,000.
It has also taken £369,000 from Lord David Sainsbury - who gave thousands to the official Stronger In campaign. Finance boss at the Electoral Commission, Bob Posner, said: “The reporting requirements for political parties and campaign groups are clear, so it is always disappointing when parties report late or inaccurately.
“It’s vital that voters are given an opportunity to see accurate and full reportable data on what parties spend money on in order to influence them at elections.”

Last year the Lib Dems were handed an £18,000 penalty over referendum campaign expense inaccuracies while the official Stronger In campaign was hit with a £1,250 fine.

Facebook paid hundreds of thousands to host anti-Brexit 'fake news'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ng-endangered/

Facebook has been accused of "pumping out fake news" after running political adverts claiming endangered animals were being threatened - by Brexit.

The social media giant has been paid hundreds of thousands of pounds by Britain’s two most prominent Remain campaign groups to stir up support for a second referendum.

Latest figures released by the Facebook show the two organisations - People’s Vote UK and Best for Britain - spent £373,587 on Facebook ads in the run up to the parliamentary vote on Theresa May’s defeated Brexit deal.
By contrast, Leave-supporting groups spent a little over £93,000,

You lost! Get over it!

There are no winners in British politics today, least of all the Labour party. Another numpty in Westminister will make little difference

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Alright Dante, you did your worst right there. 2 walls of text and then you added a third because it why not.

So, I looked at the Conservative candidates and I'd say by the end of it, the only one who can legitimately prevent the implosion of the party is Dominic Raab.
This is why:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...rgotten-stand/

Goodwin's analysis is generally top notch. Now, without going too much into the details, you have 3 electorates that vote Tories. The social-conservative working class: up to half of the vote. The Euroskeptic Libertarian upper class, small but influential, and the social-progressive economic liberal educated middle class. The last one is sort of switching to Lib Dems. The first one is flocking en mass towards Farage. Now, here's the huge problem: lack of working class representatives within the party. That means, and it's exactly the case, that most Tory MPs are from the 2nd or 3d group, none of which has a clue about what the electorate wants. Indeed you have Bojo, who doesn't even have a clear stance, he's an opportunist, Gove (3rd group), Hunt (also 3rd group), Stewart (also 3rd group), Javid (unclear, I'd say 3rd group light) and Raab who's socially conservative and economic liberal. That makes him the only cross-electorate bridge that can keep the party afloat.

As it is right now, however, he's not going to win. He'll likely end up 3rd or lower. I stick to my prediction. Bojo will win, he'll try to renegotiate and here I'm reading crazy stuff like postponing to 2021. Barnier also said he has zero intention to renegotiate the deal, the EU will not want Farage's BP in the European Parliament after October, so Bojo will try and fail. At that point it's up to Farage. If he wants, there's a clear path towards Prime Ministership. He has a key advantage over Lib Dems, who can overthrow Labour as the other party and that's the fact that Lib Dems have to contend with the Greens (and Labour). Farage has only one obstable in comparison.

Genuinely made my evening with that first comment mate . I got overexcited that morning... set an alarm and everything for the election results.

I luckily for you're eyes, and my probably impending early-onset arthritis do not have much to add, on what i will say is both a very interesting article, and i feel an excellent analysis from you of conservative demographics and the 'leadership' problem. I cannot fault it, nor the comprehensive categories you're grouping their voting base into, they're different and more detailed than my 'go-to' ones, so i might have to steal them for referral use in future discussions. I would just add my support to you're point in the discussion with @Elmetiacos, that indeed the Tories traditionally had a large working class block. It was something Labour started worrying about indeed around 1967 epitomized in their so-called 'affluent worker study'. Essentially the Tories at the time were economically interventionist (As Basil identified in terms of being a 'winning combo'), but were merely 'less so' than Labour, However, Labour had wondered at this point why more often-than-not they had seemed to be losing in the 1960s or more importantly- just why the British working classes had never swung so fully, as expected, behind 'Labour's socialism' (which was very different to that on the continents) which 'clearly' was geared towards the benefit of said working classes. So, there was an issue even here, historically, in the working classes not being just the domain of Labour, but significantly also voting Tory, something which Thatcher was to fully capitalize on indeed later, but it put the fear of god into post-war Labour.

A good read on this-
'Mike Savage. "Working-Class Identities in the 1960s Revisiting the Affluent Worker Study." Sociology,(2005)'

Essentially the findings were...well... disputed. But a common theory articulated at the time and now is that Britain's working classes vote Conservative when they are economically interventionist, but socially conservative, but also when the economy is doing 'well' (And the theory, which is historically dodgy, but also relevant is that the British working classes had a higher standard of living for most of the 19th-20th Centuries compared to their continental counterparts, and so were less likely to 'rock the boat').

But it is somewhat of a fight that has continued for today, Labour do have a habit of winning over the working classes when the 'going gets tough' economically (If not for brexit adding in a new competing element for instance, its possible Corbyn would be PM by now) and they come forward proposing 'dynamic' solutions (New Labour were indeed somewhat similar, not in actual policy, but the rhetoric was one of state intervention where needed, which in the context of Thatcher was an endorsement of state intervention...and even Thatcher was a heavy believer in a strong, centralized and interventionist state...just in very specific areas). So it is i would say a very real demographic, and a key one, that Tories and Labour have both struggled to gain and retain.

An interesting question of course is if the 1960s 'social classes' as they stood hold up in 'modern Britain'...worryingly...they do. Which shows just how little the UK has progressed, but the BBC did their own 'affluent worker study' in the 2000s, and the same findings were uncovered in terms of a 'well-off' and significant group of the working class, feel that they are 'middle class' (When the BBC and indeed the 1960s study actually showed they were not at all), and thus voted Tory. This is a similar finding to Labours original. Their findings of course though were more along the lines of 'Christ...their delusional', but the perception is key, and it is a 'thing' that politically we need to take account of (Instead of delusional, the 'aspirational' can be used to be fairer). So aye, still a key battleground i'd say.

@Basil- Back to your point though, i think that could be a fair estimate, i'll have to come up with my own prediction to put some skin where my mouth is , but i'm going to wait a bit for Farage's domestic platform...which apparently should be next week or so. It is true though that the EU are not going to be happy with the BP presence, and also that the split on the right is while very new, still far less of a problem than Lab-Lib-Green (and of course in Scotland which in 2017 kept the Tories in power essentially, the SNP looms). I also do agree that Raab is not likely to get to the final two- my prediction is well... Hunt vs Boris, though i caveat with i also suspect Boris will not be allowed to get to the final 'two' to go to their party, as it would damage the parliamentary party unity too much.

EDIT @Caratacus- Just on the postal voting question- it was indeed fairly high, however those who are advocating it was voter fraud that won it are out on a limb. Labour actually based their campaign around promoting postal voting because they knew there was (as we saw indeed with voter turn-out) the very real issue of voting fatigue to contend with. Postal Voting is a traditional way parties can mitigate this. It was perhaps the inexperience of the BP (which is fair, they're new), a point they admitted on the night, that led to them losing out to Labour, the PV emphasis being part of this. Also BP was handicapped massively by merely being about Brexit. Labour's platform almost entirely ignored brexit, but relied on economic and indeed 'local issues' like fly-tipping. Its a very similar strategy to what labour did in the wider 2017 GE.

If you're opponent has brexit, and only brexit, ask them about jobs, or fly tipping, or social care. The narrative is yours to control as they have chosen to hunker down in one spot, the media during an election love new stories, thus 'Brexit' can only realistically headline for a small amount of the overall time. Indeed this is why the Tory vote share held up in Peterbourgh far more than actually was expected, because there is no realisitc way for the BP to seize and maintain the narrative around the GE and keep it centered on brexit. This is important, because as the EU elections saw, neither side of 'Brexit'- leave or remain, has the numbers interested it seems anymore to make it a 'dominating' issue on its own (Partly because even fulfilling 'brexit' requires a domestic platform surrounding what they would do to VAT etc- most people are aware at a GE the PB would be in for 5 years...they need an agenda beyond the first week of foreign policy), and of course it was a reach to expect they would. The Brexit referendum brought out voters who had never voted before, and are difficult to consistently get to engage politically.

The BP will need a domestic agenda that is fully fleshed out if they want to get out of this rut and be in with a 'surer' chance of beating the Tories for second spot (which FPTP makes, even with their far higher vote share, a very close-run and undecided outcome currently).

[Daruwind]

Something more lower to the ground..
https://www.theguardian.com/business...no-deal-brexit

Britain’s businesses are being urged to step up their preparations for a no-deal Brexit amid signs that Theresa May’s successor could be prepared to leave the EU without a deal at the end of October.


The Institute of Directors – one of the UK’s employers’ groups – said its members had so far failed to take advantage of the seven-month delay to Brexit and warned that companies should not put faith in politicians to produce an agreement.



The IoD produced figures that showed less than half of businesses had Brexit plans, and said firms should be considering all reasonable preparations for no deal.
Some Tory candidates for prime minister – including the frontrunner, Boris Johnson – have said they would be prepared to leave the EU without a deal but an IoD survey of almost 1,000 companies found the proportion that had activated contingency plans between January and April rose from 18% to only 23%.


Only 4% of those questioned said they would be using the extension period to pick up the pace.


Edwin Morgan, the IoD’s interim director general, said: “This week’s vote won’t be the last twist in the Brexit saga but it made clear how real the possibility of no deal is. Business can have no absolute reassurance that an agreement will be reached, particularly given the commitment of some Conservative leadership candidates to leaving the EU in October, with or without a deal. It feels like the extension is at risk of being wasted.”


The IoD said there had been very limited financial support from central government for small businesses to prepare, despite repeated calls from the employers’ group for Brexit planning vouchers to help small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) receive professional help for complex trade and legal issues.

[Basil II the B.S]

I had mentioned how importat is English (not British) identity when determining who voted what.

Here's the most relevant evidence:


Conservative voters are ready to sacrifice Scotland, Northern Ireland, the economy and the Conservative party itself so long that it means leaving the EU. This is why the Remain campaign, which relied heavily on economic scare, failed. This is mainly about identity, sovereignty and self-determination. The numbers almost reach qualified majority. Only Jeremy Corbyn, who's seen as a communist, is a bigger scare.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

I had mentioned how importat is English (not British) identity when determining who voted what.

Here's the most relevant evidence:


Conservative voters are ready to sacrifice Scotland, Northern Ireland, the economy and the Conservative party itself so long that it means leaving the EU. This is why the Remain campaign, which relied heavily on economic scare, failed. This is mainly about identity, sovereignty and self-determination. The numbers almost reach qualified majority. Only Jeremy Corbyn, who's seen as a communist, is a bigger scare.

I've had the privilege to partake in a series of brexit seminars and conferences over the past few weeks analyzing it and this point was raised extremely well as something that has rather gone under the radar, so kudos for reaching the same conclusion faster i'd say mate. If we take the (quite right i'd say) thesis that Britain only became a 'nation' (prior to being the first 'sphere' of an empire- being Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland with London, Glasgow and Liverpool as an imperial metropoles) post-1940s, when the 'techo-nationalist' state forged an identity that for the first time attempted to incorporate the constituent nationalities into 'Britain', but then this work was undone (or abandoned- depends on view) by Thatcher, who 'internationalized' again Britain...this time without the Empire (So going from a free-trading foremost power, who directly reaped all the benefits of free trade to a free trading, but rather typical economy that no longer was in the position to reap the real rewards of pushing a free trading policy, the term 'reverse colonization' could be somewhat awkwardly applied in terms of the business world indeed). In doing this though, the half-formed 'British identity' gave way, to well... nothing. What unified Britain's constituent nations together was the imperial project, without it, the fact that administration and identity had never really been addressed (Indeed i wrote a paper on the Boer War highlighting admittedly a very niche group- soldiers- how their 'national' identities within Britain, relied on the 'Empire' to define and shape them- Scottish and English without that imperial aspect where broad, debatable and fluid...and just rather awkward).

So from Thatcher to brexit, a background narrative has been these nations of Britain attempting to resolve this mess (Another interesting aside, its why Labour is arguably the only truly 'British' party in terms of historically having an identity and policy platform that actually attempts to bridge the four nations identities...how successful this has been you decide ) and forge their identities, often in opposition to one another. Brexit is part of this indeed- It will likely either result directly in, or be the catalyst for Scotland leaving the UK, But for England, its a battle within their identity (as well as vs 'British') over what it means to be English, and frustration at a perceived (and actual) lack of recognition for 'English' identity (though going back to my Boer war paper, its partly the English political elites fault for essentially using 'English' and 'British' interchangeably- thus unlike Scotland and co, they've rather 'stunted' the typical work that goes into adapting and 'keeping relevant' a national identity, and instead relied on 'British'...which is in itself tied to a dead imperial project, seeking new meaning and rather empty post-1960 essentially- if anyone is interested in all this stuff, i can give them a full bibliography- most work is open access).

Political representation is a big part of this, no longer is it fair to assume 'Westminster= England and Britain'. However, the other fear, made apparent above is that for some perceptions of 'English', taking 'England' out of Westminster would essentially just signal that Britain and the UK is truly 'finished'. So its an interesting perspective, and historians who are interested in identity and nationalism are loving it a lot so far .

A personal comment to that poll though- Genuinely scary (for my perspective), as while it is evidence that Conservatives are still very much tied to a solid 'English' (and not British as Labour) identity, the fact that

A)politics is so polarized that Conservative members largely would rather see the UK cease to exist and a decade long depression happen than see Corbyn as PM- The damage he could do even for a far-right worst case perspective is far less, and indeed in 5 or less years could be undone... It seems tribal politics is back in a way that it hasn't been for quite a while, and that logic is out the window.

B) That the Conservative members are now solely thinking of the short term. If brexit does 'significant damage to the UK economy' or breaks up the UK, you can guarantee the sustainability of brexit (already questionable) will collapse, it means we'll be back in the EU a mere few years down the line, and without in all likelihood our special status within it. Actual analysis of how to make their cause 'work', has gone out the window in favour of short-term emotional fulfillment, that would see the thing their willing to sacrifice so much for (Brexit), collapse and be undone in front of their very eyes a relatively short time later.

This is though a failure of brexiteer leadership to get that across of course, its also a failure of remain who indeed did totally misjudge their campaign- if anyone wanted to hear a chancellor squirm on this point, the QC interview on youtube between Osborune and Campbell highlights an awareness of this- Osbourne essentially admits that fresh from the GE and successful Scottish referendum, they were partly overly confident and partly misjudged brexit and ran the same campaign they had in these cases without really doing the groundwork research. Cameron further hamstrung himself by his constant emphasis that 'blue on blue' violence should be avoided, thus Boris and co were given a very free hand. Maybe from this poll they should have all allowed Corbyn to campaign for brexit (as i suspect he wanted to do), it would have seen the Tory membership change their minds rather sharpish by the look of it .

[Basil II the B.S]

Ahah I agree the poll is pretty scary, let's be honest here, there's a level of fanaticism. You bring an interesting point about Westminster, let me expand it. For England, Brexit was a revolt against London as well, because it's no longer perceived as part of the nation. Too distant politically, economically, culturally and socially. I honestly think if you had taken these polls two years ago, the numbers would have been lower. Now it has become emotional, there's a strong sense of distrust due to the potential threat of Brexit being overturned, which is obviously radicalizing people's views. This is mostly the EU's fault and the hardline Remainers like Blair. People really don't like the idea of voting for something and then finding out it doesn't matter anyway because ''the elite says so''.

The polls about Scotland and Northern Ireland shouldn't really be seen as anti-Scottish or anti-Irish, but simply as a declarion of independence from the EU. I'm sure most would rather remain friends with the Irish and the Scots but that shouldn't come at the cost of being subordinates to Brussels. It's also quite the punch against the argument that Brexit was voted on the memories of the imperial past. If Brexiteers are ready to give up on the UK altogether so long that it means leaving the EU, it's not about empire. It's the total opposite, it's about sovereignty. They would rather let go Scots, Welsh and Irish people in the name of true independence.

As for Osbourne, yeah... I have been noticing for years that the entire party is out of touch with reality. There's a massive problem of cognitive dissonance that was probably caused by relatively easy and undeserving victories at the ballot, mostly thanks to the infighting of Labour. I heard that Rory Stewart did very well in the TV debates, by Brexiteers standards, who appreciated his honest speak despite disagreeing with him. Unfortunately, the latter counts and Bojo should win easily.

The economic one... is tricky. When it comes to working class Brexiteers is simply a ''I don't have much to lose anyway, my life sucks, if there's going to be mass economic damage it'll mainly hit rich Londoners and those people don't care about me anyway''. But that's just part of the argument. I suspect Brexiteers that are well off have more mixed thoughts about this. They either really value independence or they think they'll do just fine and find opportunities as well.

About your point ''what happens if the UK'' falls apart: I assume that in your post ''we'' means the Scots and in that case I agree that you'll likely re-join soon enough. The English definitely won't, given the polls above.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Ahah I agree the poll is pretty scary, let's be honest here, there's a level of fanaticism. You bring an interesting point about Westminster, let me expand it. For England, Brexit was a revolt against London as well, because it's no longer perceived as part of the nation. Too distant politically, economically, culturally and socially. I honestly think if you had taken these polls two years ago, the numbers would have been lower. Now it has become emotional, there's a strong sense of distrust due to the potential threat of Brexit being overturned, which is obviously radicalizing people's views. This is mostly the EU's fault and the hardline Remainers like Blair. People really don't like the idea of voting for something and then finding out it doesn't matter anyway because ''the elite says so''.

I agree here in the main particularly with the analysis of greater radicalization as time goes on, but i'd also say this is from the brexiteer leadership as well among the Conservatives and the brexit supporting media- when you have them instead of trying to forge unity to create a sustainable position, instead the use of 'traitors', and the 'put up and shut up' argument- which politically has been a huge mistake, combined with a government who whatever we think of May (I see her as a brexiteer, others i know see her as a pro-EU leader) whose rhetoric is to deliver brexit, flouting parliamentary and legal precedents to weight committees and conduct brexit in as much secrecy as possible, it will polarize. So all sides share the blame, and to an equal extent i'd say as neither side has bothered to try and reach a middle ground. Its embodiment is in parliamentary terms the Lib-dems vs ERG, 'bollocks to brexit' vs 'anyone who is not our vision is a traitor', there is no attempt from these two at compromise, thus you'll get a divided electorate equally politicized (or at least, a divided electorate will not be brought back together by leaders showing the way forward on this).

Though remainers i will reiterate are by no means innocent here, Change UK...or whoever their calling themselves now, highlighted that well enough when essentially the perception of their talking down to leave voters meant they could get very little traction to what they were trying to achieve, which hilariously we must all remember was originally to 'unify' the country on a centrist platform... by...not remotely being 'centrist' in regards to the brexit debate (which as your poll shows on the yougov page, has essentially bridged across party divides, with Tory brexiteers feeling more in common with Corbynite brexiteers, than remain voting conservatives- while brexit exists their is a new axis to consider for British politics.. because who loves drawing simple graphs?)

The polls about Scotland and Northern Ireland shouldn't really be seen as anti-Scottish or anti-Irish, but simply as a declarion of independence from the EU. I'm sure most would rather remain friends with the Irish and the Scots but that shouldn't come at the cost of being subordinates to Brussels. It's also quite the punch against the argument that Brexit was voted on the memories of the imperial past. If Brexiteers are ready to give up on the UK altogether so long that it means leaving the EU, it's not about empire. It's the total opposite, it's about sovereignty. They would rather let go Scots, Welsh and Irish people in the name of true independence.

I don't think its anti-Scottish or Irish indeed, but it is anti-British essentially (according to this poll at least for this groups perceptions) which is the joint project, and i get the reasoning behind this, but it is just shocking that essentially the anti-Brussels perspective is so virulent that (and not to get too macro about this), brexiteers of the Conservative party are in the long term willing to see their 'place in the world' diminish to the point where indeed power imbalances take on an even greater aspect in trade agreements and diplomacy (Which is a whole part of the sovereignty dispute that is not yet talked about, but soon i think will be firmly on the political agenda). But indeed, i wouldn't say brexit is linked to imperialism at all, Just like the idea of 'Global Britain' that Conservative brexiteers like to tout is a fantasy, their not narratives that 'fit' with what most people want, nor what is possible.

As for Osbourne, yeah... I have been noticing for years that the entire party is out of touch with reality. There's a massive problem of cognitive dissonance that was probably caused by relatively easy and undeserving victories at the ballot, mostly thanks to the infighting of Labour. I heard that Rory Stewart did very well in the TV debates, by Brexiteers standards, who appreciated his honest speak despite disagreeing with him. Unfortunately, the latter counts and Bojo should win easily.

I'll admit i couldn't actually watch the leadership debate earlier- i love these sorts of things, but it was too excruciating for even me. Rory is coming across well i agree, but he's essentially using the Blair playbook and modernizing it for the current times and audience, Boris was just...christ. Javid is an air head, Hunt has no idea where his line should be, and Gove has been on his best behaviour since the drugs thing... which is creepy, i'll be honest, take the politics out of it, the man comes across as a creep. So i couldn't get beyond 15 minutes i'm afraid , so i'll gladly trust and use your analysis here on whose coming across better.

But aye, the Remain referendum campaign was terrible. The fact that relying on economic arguments had actually almost lost the Unionists the Scottish referendum was seemingly lost (It was only last minute promises of devo-max that swung it essentially), they gave the emotional and nationalist appeal, as well as the 'positive' case to the SNP- who had then the whole of Scottish culture, a culture and identity designed to be easily exportable (and monetized ) by its emotional appeal, to play with, and they used it well. It's like nothing was learned but as you say the message of 'well, we won'. I'm beginning to suspect that the Conservatives Post-Blair, never actually managed to get their (in)famous political campaign machine back, i suspect it may have died with Major.

The economic one... is tricky. When it comes to working class Brexiteers is simply a ''I don't have much to lose anyway, my life sucks, if there's going to be mass economic damage it'll mainly hit rich Londoners and those people don't care about me anyway''. But that's just part of the argument. I suspect Brexiteers that are well off have more mixed thoughts about this. They either really value independence or they think they'll do just fine and find opportunities as well.

Agreed here- it was something again that Remain totally missed, after the crash, austerity and the structural issues, the worst thing to do is to argue that 'Economically things will be worse'- sure they can always get worse in a macro sense that then effects personal circumstances, but trying to get across that message in a convincing way just does not wash. You have people currently in work, using foodbanks in ever rising numbers- try telling them that brexit will be bad for the economy- what will they care? And rightly so, i get it. In terms of those not struggling it is indeed interesting to see the attitudes. A big misassumption i've seen the brexit press make is that academics are anti-brexit because it'll hit them economically, which isn't the case. It's looking like it will provide a lot of opportunity for the social sciences (except for economists... but that is more because i'm committed to applied History being revived and taking over from economists because they lack the tools to take into account the nuances of human behaviour through most of their models... its a personal bias ) and humanities due to the sheer amount of work post-brexit Britain will require in these fields. So your right to point out the nuanced issues of this that economically, there will be those who benefit from brexit as well as lose, but also that the 'winners and losers' will not be quite as expected i suspect.

About your point ''what happens if the UK'' falls apart: I assume that in your post ''we'' means the Scots and in that case I agree that you'll likely re-join soon enough. The English definitely won't, given the polls above.

This is true, though i should have been clearer (it was late, and pizza called...), i more meant to say that a Britain that doesn't collapse, but appears on the verge of collapsing (or one that is indeed experiencing significant economic damage) is likely to rejoin the EU in short order because of the non-sustainability of brexit currently, there is no 'solid' support for it. The Conservative membership are one of the smaller party membership bases, for instance the SNP actually has more.https://researchbriefings.parliament...ummary/SN05125

For the rest of the UK electorate, brexit is somewhat contingent on not causing any major issues, and delivering on some of the positives that were promised, positives that given the UK's domestic situation economically might have been a stretch. Given that even now essentially brexit is either for remain or leave the same kind of support, its very 'up in the air'. So even in England, a brexit that sees serious economic damage (Caused directly or able to be spun as thus convincingly), or indeed the UK fall apart will not exist for much longer. There simply are not enough hardcore adherents 'in any situation' as these Conservative members are, which is why they here are essentially being their own worst enemy. 51% of 124,000 (and its arguable now less as their have been reports of the Tories having real issues with donations and activists) is nowhere enough. There needed to be a sold majority consensus, of which there is not, and certainly not for the 'hard brexit' that might see these Rubicons crossed to overuse a phrase . We're likely in the territory now of brexit as political football regardless of what happens (If Boris WTO's it, its likely Labour will get in and then do their customs union adherence to EU rules, which the lib-dems might even push to a second ref on rejoining, and then the Tories no doubt will split/decide on a new approach- we're in for a fun decade i suspect...), but a big even like sacrificing the UK, or a true economic crash from it would see brexit as a political concept finished for England, Scotland and all.

EDIT: Sorry there mate, i blathered a bit , so damn tired haha. But i hope what i was trying to say came across well enough.

[Basil II the B.S]

Yeah the problem is that when you have an In or Out question it's really hard to find an inbetween that satisfies both sides. It kinda doesn't exist on paper. It'd require some leader with vision to sell to both, or to the very least make the majority happy. You got Theresa May and she proved to be completely delusional.

I think one of the biggest mistakes was also to focus on ''soft vs hard Brexit'' instead of ''good vs bad Brexit'', in the sense of trying to get one that would turn beneficial to the country rather than not. Here the EU is also at fault, because they wouldn't allow a good one. They played the hard ball to deliberately punish the UK and make it more polarized. This is why I'm quite relentless myself in bashing the EU, because they consistently repeat this kind of mistakes ever since the Greek crisis a few years ago. They are trying the same thing with Italy right now and then wonder why Salvini's consensus keeps increasing. If you insult voters, tell them they are wrong and that they need to change the way they vote or you'll punish them, what exactly do you think they are going to do? The same thing that Brexit hardliners do: bring down the whole house with them just to give you the finger.


''Global Britain'' is another evidence that Conservatives have no clue about what their electorate wants because the priorities from the polls are clearly elsewhere. It was a poorly thought manifesto promoted by think thanks that needed something for business to give them evidence there's a path forward. Under that aspect, I assume the sales pitch worked.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Yeah the problem is that when you have an In or Out question it's really hard to find an inbetween that satisfies both sides. It kinda doesn't exist on paper. It'd require some leader with vision to sell to both, or to the very least make the majority happy. You got Theresa May and she proved to be completely delusional.

I think one of the biggest mistakes was also to focus on ''soft vs hard Brexit'' instead of ''good vs bad Brexit'', in the sense of trying to get one that would turn beneficial to the country rather than not. Here the EU is also at fault, because they wouldn't allow a bad one. They played the hard ball to deliberately punish the UK and make it more polarized. This is why I'm quite relentless myself in bashing the EU, because they consistently repeat this kind of mistakes ever since the Greek crisis a few years ago. They are trying the same thing with Italy right now and then wonder why Salvini's consensus keeps increasing. If you insult voters, tell them they are wrong and that they need to change the way they vote or you'll punish them, what exactly do you think they are going to do? The same thing that Brexit hardliners do: bring down the whole house with them just to give you the finger.


''Global Britain'' is another evidence that Conservatives have no clue about what their electorate wants because the priorities from the polls are clearly elsewhere. It was a poorly thought manifesto promoted by think thanks that needed something for business to give them evidence there's a path forward. Under that aspect, I assume the sales pitch worked.

That is true, i think the issue being indeed that Britain just doesn't have that sort of leader available. I know its easy for us to knock the current Parliament, but i do agree with commentators who point out that this is probably the most talent-less/mediocre at best parliament we've had probably in living memory. There are those on both sides of the spectrum with vision indeed, even radical, but they lack the leadership skills and political ability to turn that vision into an effective policy platform and reign in the more fantastical/ideologically inspired elements.

A good point there, again i think the current lot need better spin doctors...i mean better communications officers , as the polarized narrative benefits no-one, but i'm intrigued by and think your spot on in terms of if anyone had seized control of the narrative and dealt a 'good vs bad' brexit story for their vision, then we might indeed have got a sustainable public majority for something, it would also have ensured that certain wild ideas (Such as the idea of the Singapore model ever being applied to Britain...) would have been dismissed earlier on, instead of as now chipping away at the fringes.

In terms of the EU i think that is a fair criticism, i tend from the British domestic perspective though to give them a free pass/ignore their issues, as i'm viewing it in terms of they as a now 'independent' actor from Britain, are naturally going to do as much as possible to damage a potential rival (The threats from Britain to turn itself into a Singapore style tax-haven early on were taken seriously, despite being domestically politically untenable) as well as just normally (as the US does and is) seek to extort the best position themselves above any consideration for Britain's interests, so for me it was rather a given, as its rare for a state to care about another state who is no longer 'part of their club'- I mean take the 'special relationship'- the are Brits who still genuinely believe the term has any real meaning what-so-ever, despite the fact that even a semi-serious look at the reality highlights that its a very 'norma' and non-friendly relationship, unless the UK and US interests collide on the same side...which is actually a huge rarity, more often than not, its entirely oppositional. So i wouldn't have expected the EU to pull any of their punches with a brexiting UK, as the US won't. But i do agree that is has contributed to the domestic instability- but for me, that's a failure of the British government to be effective in preparation or recognizing British weakness at the negotiating table fast enough to limit both their rhetoric and thus the damage the EU can (and did cause). But by all means, i agree there is a platform for criticism of the EU and how its dealt with this process, and its important those points are raised, but me as a Brit, it would just look like i'm whining if i did it too much, and trying to shift the blame for the absolute mess the Tories have created .

Christ yes, the 'Global Britain' stupidity is essentially the same as running the free trade vs protectionism debate... but in the context of the 1930s world. Its pissing into the wind with no idea, i think you are right that it was a narrative for business to allay fears during the last GE, but then any good-will the Tories gained from that regarding brexit with business has been squandered with their mess-ups since It'll be interesting to see when, if at all the their will be an articulation of post-brexit Britain's role and vision for it, i suspect it'll be equally as polarizing as brexit itself (Thus far most talk is either wishy-washy fantasy or merely kicking the can down the road).

[Aexodus]

I think Basil’s point about the EU’s attitude towards voters is very true. It’s a big part of why a lot of people simply don’t like the EU. Every time a vote went against the EU, it has been re-run or worked around. Denmark had to vote twice on Maastricht, France and Denmark were ignored on the EU constitution, Ireland voted twice on the Nice Treaty, Ireland voted twice on the Lisbon treaty and would have rejected the EU constitution had the referendum not been abandoned, and Greece was ignored on the bail out referendum. The European Project is sacred.

Jean-Claude Juncker the EU President has a very half hearted attitude to democracy.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...uotations.html

On Greece's economic meltdown in 2011
"When it becomes serious, you have to lie.

"I'm ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democratic, but I want to be serious ... I am for secret, dark debates"


On British calls for a referendum over Lisbon Treaty

“Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?,”

On French referendum over EU constitution
“If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue’,”

On the introduction of the euro
"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."

On eurozone economic policy and democracy

“We all know what to do, we just don't know how to get re-elected after we've done it”

Edit: He has also said national borders are the worst invention ever.

[Daruwind]

I understand the view from UK side but from my side...I just cannot justify why UK should get any premium conditions. It is not UK vs Brussel, it is UK negotiatingwith EU27. UK has A+ conditions in EU and wants even better in leave? Sorry guys but that is dream crashing into reality. I as EU citizen simply don´t like such cherry picking. Plus to me all the discussion from UK side sounds way like: You are in marriage, wanting divorce, but don´t like the contitions you signed...international laws....wait, what about creating new church and getting new conditions? Remember Henry VIII?

Like you are blaming the goverment and politics, but from EU side of things? That is internat Uk problem. From our side UK has no idea what to do and is hijacking time and energy to do more serious stuff around. It was UK activating article 50, it was Uk asking to delay brexit date and even now there is no 100% plan what will happen. Looks like all options are still on table....

[Dante Von Hespburg]

My criticism tends to stem from the fact that yes the EU is playing hardball, its how power politics within international relations work, but the British government should have been prepared for this and ready to face it. Instead they didn't even bother to confront the fact that it was going to be difficult, activated article 50 with 0 prep to appease party politics demands and then spent three years stuck doing 'internal party politics' and totally failing on the actual front against the EU. I think also the brexiteers were under the illusion for a long time about Britain's relative 'weight' at the table- this was entirely a sham (At one point there was Tory MP's genuinely making the argument that because we're a purchaser of German cars, we thus hold some kind of Ace card...it was economic illiteracy of the highest order, and a misunderstanding of how trade works), this sham though was propogated because it covered for the fact that the government hadn't prepared at all (We indeed lack the basic negotiating infrastructure at the time of hitting article 50).

So the thing is, sure we can complain that the EU is being unfair- i mean the fact as Aexodus has sourced, the EU has played hardball before- we should have damn well known and well...actually bothered to prepare. The fact is too, the US is playing hardball with us as well, and when the negotiations start proper with them, unless we've somehow 'got better', it'll be the same scenario of Britain being walked over, blaming the US for being 'unfair' and yet still having to suck it up, due to the fact that we've done nothing to address the power imbalance. We already saw this with Korea and Japan- both states have made it clear they want to renegotiate on brexit as they can (and will) draw out far better terms for themselves. What's annoying is the fact that this is a key flaw in Britain's international diplomacy currently, and a major problem for a post-brexit Britain, but its not being at all addressed politically, because it makes the government look bad (as well it should), and leads to doubts about their competnecy in leading a post-brexit Britain so their relying on hot air about the real nature of trade.

So for all the blame that can be attributed to the EU from the British perspective. We need to take responsibility for what has been a disaster in our negotiation infrastructure and strategy, and will continue to be so until we address this.

In other news though- https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news...north-16430145

The Treasury has no way of knowing whether regions of England are in a recession, Chancellor Philip Hammond has admitted.He said the Government only collected the relevant data for the UK as a whole - even though there are huge disparities between the economic performance of different parts of the country.
MPs on the influential House of Commons Treasury Committee have now launched an inquiry looking at the failure to collect information about the economies of different regions.
They will ask whether this helps explain why the huge wealth gap between north and south has been allowed to continue.
Committee members include Newcastle North MP Catherine McKinnell, who said economic differences between regions "have become even clearer" in recent years.
Writing for ChronicleLive, she said: "As the Government Department responsible for increasing employment and productivity, ensuring strong growth and competitiveness across all regions of the UK, it was pretty disconcerting when the Chancellor recently told us the Treasury does not have the data required to measure whether regional economies are growing or shrinking – or perhaps in recession whilst the country as a whole is not.
He said: "I do not think we have regional recession data ... it would be a problem to try to collect it. There would be a huge statistical and data challenge in trying to disaggregate the economy into regions in that way, to look at macroeconomic performance."
The Chancellor admitted: "I am the first person to recognise that growth performance has not been even across the country. Overall, the UK has not grown as quickly as we would like and that is down to a productivity challenge."

A major flaw in UK economic data, especially when you consider that London is the key driver of the UK economy, contributing around 30% of our GDP, thus compared to the regions is completely unbalanced. This not only highlights the fact that while the UK economy on paper can be seen to be doing well, the regions of England might well indeed be in a recession (Hence the working poverty rise, food bank useage etc), while London inflates the figures. So here we have (going back to our talk Basil ) the economic drive behind brexit- the London/Rest of the UK divide, based on regions- which we simply do not have the economic data for (But we do have the evidence for in terms of working poverty, food bank usage etc). Thus the UK economy i would put forward (and i'll do some further digging) is probably far worse than i originally thought. It suddenly explains a lot, and indeed could lie to the whole idea of past governments economic policies doing any good. Its no wonder the Conservatives fail to mention the working poverty rates, as well as the fact that their low unemployment statistics are rather bunk in reality (It was found last week a key driver of growth has been people forced into being self employed and trying to do business start-ups on a small scale, this adds to the issues surrounding the dramatic fall in living standards and how far their wages are stretching.

This genuinely a shocking admission though, it essentially is 'we don't collect regional data, because we can't be bothered'- a huge issue as its well known the UK has a major regional divide when it comes to living standards and the economy, frankly its a ridiculous oversight, particularly when a core part of the Conservatives economic policy has been the 'Northern Powerhouse'... it turns out they lack key data sets to see how well (or not) this was doing anyway.

[Basil II the B.S]

The London vs rest of England divide needs to be seen with a specific optic.
If you already have most of the country thinking ''London politicians don't care about me'', the chances that they'll feel represented by a non-legislative European parliament and a non-elected European Commission is pretty much zero. If they aren't even satisfied with the ones they can vote for, why would they be satisfied with those that have no accountability towards them?

Then of course you have Londoners saying ''let's stay in the EU'', what is the rest of the country going to do? There was an interesting, purely hypothetical, debate a few weeks ago. What if the UK moved the capital elsewhere? Thus you had proposals like York, Liverpool, Manchester and a few others, essentially to fix the divide.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

The London vs rest of England divide needs to be seen with a specific optic.
If you already have most of the country thinking ''London politicians don't care about me'', the chances that they'll feel represented by a non-legislative European parliament and a non-elected European Commission is pretty much zero. If they aren't even satisfied with the ones they can vote for, why would they be satisfied with those that have no accountability towards them?

Then of course you have Londoners saying ''let's stay in the EU'', what is the rest of the country going to do? There was an interesting, purely hypothetical, debate a few weeks ago. What if the UK moved the capital elsewhere? Thus you had proposals like York, Liverpool, Manchester and a few others, essentially to fix the divide.

Aye, but i think brexit isn't going to resolve this, but potentially make it worse. The next big debate that is brewing is over US and Chinese influence in the British economy and politics (Huewai (spelling?) being an example of this creeping in), but i can already see due to the power imbalances and the mismanagement of brexit creating a far weaker UK than actually it would have been had we left the EU with a clear plan and preparation, you'll have people talking about US and Chinese economic influence over Britain, especially if there is (as expected) legal outsourcing mechanisms for resolving disputes that favour the larger parties (Which is almost always how it happens). The Sovereignty aspect is far more nuanced than has been sold to the public currently, but its starting to come to the fore the closer we get to being past 'brexit' and into the post-brexit structures. I can see how disconnect with Westminster, certainly translates into disconnect with the EU (Though i've always seen the latter as being somewhat of an in-built reign in, of the formers more incompetent ideas- just look at some of the idiocy that Conservative brexiteers were spouting and pushing for just last year regarding the Singapore model, workers rights and the scope of US market access- they are completely at odds with public expectation, but know that brexit is the perfect opportunity to get these ideas implemented, without worrying about the usual electoral scrutiny), the EU needs desperately to reform politically (I expect now it might be too late, and instead we'll see a 'streamlined EU emerge of the core Franco-German-Dutch and others area...which would be rather more sensible and workable, and would still essentially be able to dominate Europe by the sheer power imbalance) indeed, but i think unhappily, frustrated British voters who want greater accountability will be left sorely disappointed post-brexit- i mean we'll still have FPTP as a basic blocking point.

I'll have to look up on that debate, sounds interesting. I've been a big supporter of the idea of 'multiple capitals' to spread the various levers of power around a state- political and economic capitals should be separate to spread the benefits, indeed i vaguely remember the argument that the political capital in our digitalizing world should be mobile, and be situated where the current poorest region of the country is, so that politicians are on the daily aware of the impact of their policies on the worst off as a measure of how well their doing (The idea being, if their doing better, everyone else benefiting even indirectly too).

I know New Labour had the idea of regional assemblies, which i think were a great start, but like AV, the British public in its i would say love of tradition, decided against it, in favour of a centralized Westminster (and FPTP).

[Daruwind]

Each state is nominating one commissar into EU commission....Commission president is proposed by EU Council, which is body compoused of national leaders. And whole commission is then voted by EU parliament.

UK had no so long ago elections for EU parliament and your own goverment was also voted in your own elections....so what you actually want? Directly elect commissars? Commission? I agree that EU needs some reforms but hardly it is undemocratic. All 27 (28) states are affecting a lot there...

Anyway. Trying to blame everything on others..like EU, like the rest of EU is simply bad strategy. Politicians should explain that to people. Because you want to trade with EU, cooperate etc. My thoughts are, that the major problem is still that we don´t know for which plan is majority of UK. Not against which plan, but for which one. This is the most important discussion that should happening. Finding some real compromise or long term plan. Else this piss content will sooner or later colapse and then it is right back to EU....

[Basil II the B.S]

Dante, I wouldn't personally worry about ''the Singapore model''. It is a claim that's so out of touch with reality that simply can't be taken seriously. A country of 60+ million people can't have the same economic model of one that has only 2. It's one of those things that make me angry when I read them.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Each state is nominating one commissar into EU commission....Commission president is proposed by EU Council, which is body compoused of national leaders. And whole commission is then voted by EU parliament.

UK had no so long ago elections for EU parliament and your own goverment was also voted in your own elections....so what you actually want? Directly elect commissars? Commission? I agree that EU needs some reforms but hardly it is undemocratic. All 27 (28) states are affecting a lot there...

For my part, bearing in mine i'm someone who thoroughly supports PR and advocates how achievable a more direct form of democracy is thanks to our digital age, its a bit too distant for my preference (In regards especially to the Commission) . Also the issues surrounding who actually holds legislative initiative (for me, the parliament which is directly elected should have that firmly within its remit), that from a British perspective does make the EU somewhat of an oddity. Though our own parliament of late has indeed been going through its own constitutional crisis on something of the same lines i admit.

Dante, I wouldn't personally worry about ''the Singapore model''. It is a claim that's so out of touch with reality that simply can't be taken seriously. A country of 60+ million people can't have the same economic model of one that has only 2. It's one of those things that make me angry when I read them.

I can appreciate that mate, i hear what you say. But its one thing about several (some more 'realistic' in scope indeed) that has crept our alongside the brexit process, which at certain points threaten to insert themselves into brexit to hijack it by integrating themselves into it (Boris for instance has a clear neo-Thatcher platform emerging that is only tolerated by the emphasis on brexit). When you have people like Gove, Boris, Barker, Moggs etc who start talking about how brexit can make the UK more 'business friendly' and they start looking to the Japanese or Chinese 'models of productivity' and referencing them rather frequently in their parliamentary speeches , and May (who is incompetent in fairness ) far from putting her foot down to the creeping radical ideas, refuses to refute them, i can't help but get worried .

Its a criticism i will apply to remainers too as being partly responsible for- currently Brexit is an intellectual void waiting to be filled- it needs a 'purpose' and 'vision' to be marketable for that needed sustainable majority, but the only ones engaging in this are the extreme brexiteers of the Conservative party, who also hold equally extreme and radical economic perspectives that are out of step with the general voting public and which would be normally put in place if ever raised at a GE, but which can 'sneak in' under brexit currently (Henry VIII powers aiding this). The Remainers/soft brexiteers are too busy trying to prevent brexit (and fair enough, its a campaign point), but this means that you essentially cede the brexit vision to those fringe elements who really want brexit for a variety of reasons that are nothing to do with those in the majority who voted for brexit, but who will gain the support of brexiteers, simply because they also are offering brexit (its sort of the point going back to your membership poll). Waiting for the post-brexit dust to settle before starting to engage in this 'future' debate will i think be too late, as the narrative of a post-brexit UK will by then be bound up in these competing radical visions, with sensible ideas that are workable, lost to the ether.

So aye, it could be what i fear will not come to pass, as the others get their houses into order and drag these radicals kicking and screaming away from their attempted hijacking of the longer brexit process, but currently we're still caught up in repeating the referendums original argument for anyone to really concentrate or take much notice on the post-brexit arguments. Which is an issue, though i appreciate your point mate, makes me feel somewhat better indeed haha.