Brexit Twitter

74 thoughts on “Brexit Twitter”

1. Some German parade floats to add to the conversation.

   German carnival mocks Donald Trump and Theresa May with controversial floats

   1. I like the democracy leaf with the caterpillars the best!

2. … the Leave side has not yet produced a workable answer to the problem that it would have with the Irish border …

   It’s fairer to say that the Leave side have not produced an answer that the EU side would accept.

   The Leave side would solve the Irish border problem by simply having a free-trade deal with the EU. That’s what they’ve wanted all along. But the EU won’t agree a simple free-trade deal with the UK, without demanding all sorts of other stuff that the UK wouldn’t accept.

   In the event of a no-deal Brexit, one likely scenario is the UK refusing to put up a hard border in Ireland (since they want no-tariff free trade, so would be happy with that), and then daring the RoI to put up a hard border if they wish.

   1. The point is though that the Leavers are ignoring the fact that Brexit may well lead to the dissolution of the UK. Brexit may end up unifying Ireland and with Scotland leaving the UK to stay in the EU. These seem very real possible consequences to me. Are the little Englanders ready to trash the Union to achieve their goals?

      1. If that’s what the Irish and the Scots want, is there a problem with it?

         1. Maybe not. But I cannot see how England, already shorn of its colonies, will be “great” again with the Union gone. Are not the Leavers claiming that, somehow, leaving the EU will make Britain great again. LOL.

            1. Nope, they’re not.

               It really is amazing how badly “remainers” understand the “brexiters”, which might account for their inability to persuade the brexiters.

               Indeed, you’ve accused them of being both “little Englanders” and of wanting to “make Britain great again”, which are roughly opposite attitudes.

            2. I think with most things political, politicians don’t understand that people are persuaded more on feelings than they are on facts and the underestimate how much fear and anger there is in a crowd of people.

            3. Oh… I think politicians understand that very well.

            4. Maybe conservative politicians. I don’t see that so much on the left.

            5. So are you saying they (most Leavers) are “little Englanders” then? That is, they’d be happy just being England again without the bother of all these external entanglements?

            6. Obviously there would be a wide range of opinion among the 52% who voted Brexit, but most of them want a Britain cooperating with and free-trading with the world. (That is not a “little Englander” perspective, whatever that means.)

               As for Northern Ireland being part of the UK or joining the RoI, a large swathe of the British don’t care much either way, seeing that as an issue for the them.

               And if the Scots prefer to join the EU, adopt the Euro, etc, then ok.

            7. Don’t forget Wales. It voted to leave, like England.

            8. I’m not sure that “little Englanders” and wanting to “make Britain great again” are necessarily opposite. The first describes an attitude of selfishness, the latter has to do with imposing that selfishness widely.

               Empires are kind of like that. They impose the lifestyle of Rome (for example) on everyone, far and wide.

            9. To me, denying a nation the right of self-determination and self-rule is the epitome of selfishness.

            10. Maya, since you hate the EU so much, I suggest you start a movement for Bulgaria to leave. I doubt the EU would miss it much (though going on Michael Fisher’s figures, Bulgaria might find itself regretting doing so).

                cr

            11. To Infinite:
                The overwhelming majority of Bulgarians do not want to leave the EU. The numbers cited by Michael provide a partial explanation :-). It would be ridiculous for me to insist on something so much at odds with the will of the majority of voters.

            12. So, Maya, since you’re in a minority in Bulgaria in wanting to leave the EU, you’d rather see the whole EU gradually destroyed and Europe revert to a Balkanized mess of little squabbling countries? I’m sure tRump (if he ever had a coherent thought) would be right there with you.

                I won’t say what I think of your position as it would only inflame the debate. Obviously I deplore it.

                cr

         2. It is what half the population in Northern Ireland want. The other half don’t. The two sides have a long history of not sitting down together to talk it through peacefully and a long history of violence against one another. This is kind of why the Ireland/ Northern Ireland border is considered an important aspect of Brexit. You tend to hear the ‘who cares what happens to Ireland?’ comment more from the leave side of the argument. The Democratic Unionist Party holds the balance of power in the House of Commons currently and, as their name implies, their raison d’etre is to hold the union together. They will refuse to vote for a deal which threatens the union.

      2. Anyone else recall Tories (Theresa May springs to mind) saying, during the 2014 Scottish referendum on independence, that it was better to be in the Union (ie, the UK) than outside? And yet when it comes to “respecting The Will Of The People” (all 28% of the 65million!) it’s so much better to leave the Union (ie, the EU). Confusion and double standards.

      3. Brexit may end up unifying Ireland

         I think that we’re several generations from that, at best. Rather more likely that the UK leaves and fragments. Ulster will have a hard border with the EU. If Scotland manages to avoid leaving the EU, then there will be a hard border there too (Carter Bar is going to be thorny, but it’s the least used crossing). What happens in England is, frankly, their problem.
         The myth of the “United” Kingdom started to fragment with the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies in 1999, and the Brexit CF has accelerated the process.

   2. Some would suggest that the obvious answer is a unification of Northern Ireland with the rest of Ireland. Maybe Scotland also leaving the union, leaving Wales to decide if they also want to leave…! 😉

      1. Some would suggest that the obvious answer is a unification of Northern Ireland with the rest of Ireland.

         The boys are re-stocking with weapons and explosives in anticipation of efforts in that direction from either side.

   3. How would that be “taking control of the borders”? Anyone who wanted to walk from Europe into the UK could simply do so over that border. Are you claiming that brexiters would be happy with that scenario? If you are claiming that
      1) We think uou are lying
      but
      2) Go for it. No-one in Ireland is preventing you.
      Propose it. Phone up James O’Brien and propose it now.
      We dare you. We double dare you.

      1. Yes, most Brexiters would be happy with that. See, e.g., here.

         (Again, it is the EU who would not be happy with a no-border, free-trade deal in Ireland; they want to withhold a free-trade deal in order to either punish the UK for leaving, or as a way of extracting all sorts of other concessions.)

         1. Yes, the EU men are the bad guys here, wanting to inflict on Britain all sort of damage in order to punish it for the wish to escape their lordship and to prevent others from doing the same. And, to boot, they present themselves (and are largely perceived as) the good guys.

   4. From the beginning, promoters of European integration blackmailed Europeans by giving them the free trade they wanted only in a package with an ever-increasing number of things they did not want.

      1. mayamarkov:

         “…promoters of European integration blackmailed Europeans by giving them the free trade they wanted only in a package with an ever-increasing number of things they did not want”

         No. the definition of blackmail simply says no:

         “demanding payment or another benefit from someone in return for not revealing compromising or damaging information about them”

         And something else to consider: Total EU spending in your own country [Bulgaria] Maya is €1,896,000,000 & the Bulgarian contribution to the EU budget is 379,000,000.

         For every 100 Euros Bulgaria puts in the EU pot you are given 500 Euros. Your gangster government has a lot to answer for – the EU not so much. That is where you should be addressing your woes!

         1. The EU subsidies to my country and its “gangster” government have nothing to do with my woes expressed in this thread, namely, that the EU powers are dragging through hell another country that simply wants to walk out. I would liken the whole Brexit affair to an abusive husband beating his wife because she has filed for divorce.

            1. The country DOES NOT want to “walk out” – leaving the EU without an agreed plan is reckless & a fair few Brexiteers with justified grievances about ‘austerity Britain’ are realising that Brexit will not make anything better for them nor the country! All I hear from you is rhetoric. Some of it bordering on the distasteful frankly.

            2. +1

               cr

            3. +11

            4. The UK is acting the abusive partner here.

3. Thanks, Grania. I found the Oliver Norgrove rather interesting. Refreshing to listen to someone who values intellectual honesty.

4. I think all this shows is that we have a live & vibrant democracy! 🙂

5. The demands for another referendum are fascinating. Would the same people demanding another vote be so open to another vote if they had won the first one? This is not the first time there has been a case of “You will revote until you vote correctly” in association with the EU.

   And I’ve noticed that remain voters never address sovereignty. The idea that someone in another country gets to create the laws you have to live by. The leave voters I’ve talked to always put that at the top of the list.

   Both sides made some ridiculous claims. The remain predicted complete economic collapse and world war 3.

   1. Regarding sovereignty, you write as though the UK has been a subject state of the EU not a fully paid up member of the Union with full voting rights and all other forms of input into the law-making processes of the EU.

      1. You are pointing out that the British are compensated for having to obey what other people decide with decision-making power to which the other people have to obey.

         However, this works only if both sides perceive themselves as parts of a whole. And it is clear that a large percentage of the British do not.

         1. You are incorrect about the UK “obeying” other people. It makes its own laws, including those laws governing immigration, as do all the other EU nations. /Grania

            1. For EU member states, EU legislature trumps national legislature. A number of laws in my country had to be abolished or changed because of contradiction with EU laws. I have already complained that EU-compliant animal welfare legislature has created major obstacles to research and has turned pedestrians into prey for stray dogs.

               About migration: EU institutions are trying, with much success, to centralize the policies in this respect. Right now, residents of Bulgarian town of Malko Tarnovo are protesting against the building of a refugee center near the town. However, Bulgaria has already promised to build the center and if the project is abandoned now, the country will have to pay a fine to the EU. You must have also heard of the constant threats by Merkel to Central and Eastern European countries that any country refusing to take in a quota of the non-EU migrants invited by her will be deprived of EU funds.

               Britain has another migration problem: many of its people do not want Central and Eastern Europeans (the proverbial “Polish plumber”). And because most Eastern European countries are already in the EU, the only way Britain can keep their people out is by leaving the EU.

            2. Careful what you say mayamarkov:

               “Britain has another migration problem: many of its people do not want Central and Eastern Europeans (the proverbial “Polish plumber”). And because most Eastern European countries are already in the EU, the only way Britain can keep their people out is by leaving the EU”

               I could point to people here in the UK who say “bugger off back to Bulgaria” to the Bulgarians who are here & who are actually a net PLUS to our economy! The intelligent, thinking, non-rabid Brits are not among your supposed “people who do not want Central & Eastern Europeans [here in the UK]” & I’m beginning to resent the way you represent British attitudes.

               Stop with the mongering please!

            3. Michael,
               Why should I stop?
               I would also prefer that all British would like us, but the fact is that many do not. And it is not only nice people who have rights.

            4. Bullshit. UK needs European workers – we cannot do without them. If some Brits resent the migrants than that is tough on them. You can have your Bulgarians back when you do your bit with the stolen EU money & make it worthwhile for your people to stay & work in Bulgaria.

               The idea of a Bulgarian telling us what to do politically & economically is laughable.

            5. Michael,
               I think that your attitude illustrates perfectly why supranational structures like the EU cannot work in the long run.

               I want to clear some misunderstanding that I seem to have caused: I am not hoping that the UK will kick out its Bulgarian immigrants so that they return to their homeland and contribute to its GDP and rule of law.

               And I strongly disagree that people like me who stay and work in their poor countries owe anything to those who emigrate.

   2. “And I’ve noticed that remain voters never address sovereignty. The idea that someone in another country gets to create the laws you have to live by. The leave voters I’ve talked to always put that at the top of the list.”

      ——

      And you left out an important part of that issue. You left out the fact that the laws are created by _unelected_ EU officials.

      1. The laws are created by the elected EU governments and elected MEPs.

         1. Indeed. And the Brussels bureaucrats are supervised by the Commissioners, who are in turn appointed by the (democratically elected) EU member Governments.

            1. I suppose you mean commissioners like the Kynocks appointed by the Blair administration. Erm what shall we do with that embarrassment Neil Kynock, oh I know, we’ll make him a EU Commissioner, oh Mrs K.. also, keep them both out of the way but at the taxpayers expense. Yes very democratic.

            2. First of all it would be better if you could spell Kinnock correctly.

               Second the commission are civil servants, like UK civil servants. No one elects them either, that’s because they report to people who are elected.

               Third Glenys Kinnock was an elected member of the European Parliament.

   3. Before the result was declared Farage said that a narrow remain win would not be the end of it.

      It is fanciful for leavers demand that remainers shut up and accept the result. They wouldn’t have.

   4. If the situation was reversed and remain had won and leave were demanding another referendum there would indeed be some situations under which I would certainly agree to it.
      1 – If it transpired that there had been electoral finance rules broken by the winning side.
      2 – If it turned out that staying in the EU turned out to mean something wildly different to what had reasonably expected or promised.
      3 – If there was no consensus amongst remain politicians as to what staying in the EU actually meant in practical terms. Maybe if the Prime Minister’s plan was to adopt the Euro and to form an EU army and they were using the previous referendum result to make those things happen.
      4 – If more than half the population wanted another referendum.

      In all these cases I would understand the need for a confirmatory referendum; without one I would feel like the electorate had been hoodwinked and highjacked by an extreme viewpoint.

      1. That’s how I see it, too, although I don’t live in the UK. I only have a peripheral stake in the game but the extremist exploitation of the political process is sadly familiar to what we see happening on this side of the pond as well.

         1. The lying. That’s the part that disturbs me…that a significant portion the electorate didn’t know what they were voting for. The same happened with the last referendum for Quebec to separate from Canada. It turned out that many voters actually didn’t know they were voting to leave the whole country.

            1. The only counter to the liars are the truth tellers. Unfortunately, people often believe what they want to believe, rather than what is true. Unscrupulous politicians have exploited this human weakness for—well—forever. The fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings. That we are underlings by our own choice.

            2. And whoever can play on fears seems to win – perhaps not in the long term but in the short term. I don’t know what is an anathema to fear and suspect it takes a lot of customization and energy to counter on a fear by fear basis so the fear mongers often get the head start.

            3. But one can attempt to make truth telling easier to do (or at least lying harder). This is what Canada did with the Quebec thing.

      2. Well said.
         Since the referendum was non binding to start with, and since the leave majority was very small, and since it is clear, two+ years down the line now, that a majority of the people want to remain, why not just revoke article 50?
         (What should have been done after the 2016 advisory referendum was making a workable plan before invoking article 50, just to see
         if and at what price it could be done)

      3. I concur with that too, particularly point 2.

         I think the ‘it was a binding referendum’ faction are trying to pull a massive bluff. Suggesting that nobody is allowed to change their minds when further information becomes apparent.

         Very few legal processes enforce that – consumer contracts usually have a ‘cooling-off’ period, verdicts can be set aside if further evidence comes to light. So why a non-binding (allegedly ‘binding’) referendum should be the exception is beyond me.

         cr

   5. + 1

6. How can I get this to Theresa May, vite, vite!? The Delta Rhythm Boys singing “You’re Undecided Now So What Are You Gonna Do?”

   1. That vid is too cool!

      1. Ain’t it!

7. Sounds like some honest regret. Switch from original vote to leave and state the reason for the original vote included ignorance. You do not often see that. I wonder how many Trump voters have said such a thing? Sadly, not many that I know of. I do not even hear much of it from those farmers in Iowa or those use to have a job auto workers in Ohio. Just like Trump, never admit a mistake.

8. How could a NON-BINDING resolution be allowed to cause so much damage to a country?

   1. We’ve discussed this before, I think.

      The referendum was non-binding *legally* but binding *politically*. Unfortunately that means it cannot be set aside legally (because it was non-binding legally, the courts have ruled – https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-vote-leave-electoral-commission-rules-a8806331.html) nor can it be set aside politically (because it was binding politically).

      If you follow!

      1. No Mark, I don’t really follow, why was it binding politically? And if so, why it still is?

         1. It would have been electoral suicide in 2016 for a government to have ignored or gone against the referendum result. UKIP were on the rise and genuinely could have won many MPs if the Tories had not been seen to be acting on the result of the referendum. Labour were likewise being threatened in their heartlands and needed to be seen to be full-square behind leaving. It was in this political atmosphere that Article 50 was triggered. This killed off UKIP as their more sane voters swung behind the Tory Brexit project. UKIP subsequently imploded (there were punches thrown and everything).
            It would currently be electoral suicide to revoke A50 without a referendum and even the most remain parties (LibDems and SNP) are only asking for a confirmatory vote.
            This is why the result was politically binding.

            1. Such action is not constitutional. The referendum that was legislated for was advisory. Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty says that any member state may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

         2. why was it binding politically?

            Simply because all politicians and the Government conducted the referendum campaign on the basis that they would implement the result of it. See this Government leaflet, for example, which said:

            This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.

            https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/515068/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf

            And if so, why it still is?

            That is a better question, and I think the answer is moot. Many of us think that three years down the line the political bindingness is much reduced, because:

            1) If no government can bind the policies of subsequent governments, then that referendum promise lapsed at the general election in 2017. One could argue that both main parties had election manifesto commitments to implement the vote, which re-introduced the political commitment, but as neither party won the election that is not a strong argument!

            2) Since the referendum the Leave campaigns have been found guilty of numerous electoral irregularities, and maybe criminal actions. In normal times such widescale electoral irregularities would invalidate the vote, whether or not any effect on the vote could be proved, but these are not normal times.

            3) Many of the promises made by the Leave campaign have turned out to be unicorns, as many on the other side predicted. If one counters with ‘all sides lied’, or ‘all politicians lie’, that doesn’t do anything to temper the reduction in political bindingness that results from those lies.

            The truth is, though, that the Government, most Tories and a good proportion of the Labour party, including its front bench, still maintain the political commitment to the referendum vote, and I don’t see that changing soon.

            1. ”This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.”

               That was a lie. Although the Government continue to claim that it was the people’s decision, they have admitted in a court case brought by Article 50 Challenge that it was Theresa May’s decision. The Government had no right to ignore the advisory status of the Referendum and pretend that a binding referendum had been legislated for.

9. … the Leave side has not yet produced a workable answer to the problem that it would have with the Irish border …

   Might not the solution be the one advocated lo those many years ago by Mr. McCartney, in what I believe to be his only overtly political tune:

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0zGVVcsbPg

   A dilettantish take, to be sure, by Sir Paul, but perhaps this is how the Brexit mess is to transfigure the Emerald Isle?

   1. McCartney’s ditty is second only in the da-da-dun-dun dirge charts to January by Pilot, which I shall not EMBED cos it’s shite. He’d have done better if he’d protested Bloody Sunday with a solo, unplugged tune with a touch of prose poetry. Every instrument part is kind of a generic space filler, but the worst might possibly be the plodding drums [the drummer worked on Happy Days & knots Landing] & Paul’s bass, well…

      1. With a few notable exceptions, I’ve never been a big fan of Maca’s post-Beatles catalog.

10. As Jonathan Pie said in one of his posts, “Where’s Guy Fawkes when you need him?”

Comments are closed.