Brexit

[EVNow]

The polling in the run-up to the vote was actually quite mixed. You are free to research this yourself if you don’t believe me.

Yes, I understand that (I was listening to a UK specific polling podcast those days). But CW based on polling was that "in the end" remain will win. Betting markets had remain at 88% before the vote.

Why the Surprise Over ‘Brexit’? Don’t Blame the Polls

 

[Singer3000]

So you admit that the polling was uncertain and that nothing could be taken for granted. And you presumably now recognise that more people voted in that referendum than any plebiscite or election ever in the UK. Do you still stand by your claim that the vote only went the way it did due to voter complacency?

Sometimes it pays to try and see the world through someone else’s eyes rather than internally rationalising why people think differently to you. There were heartfelt motivations on both sides of the vote, which divided friendships, families and marriages in a way that no political issue ever has in the UK.

 

[EVNow]

The judgement to offer a binary referendum to a populus that was clearly already divided and particularly in light of the damage caused by the recent effect of a similar polarizing referendum in Scotland was crass in the extreme and no matter the eventual outcome has damaged the UK possibly irretrievably.

Well, isn't divorce basically a binary choice ?

Ofcourse you could give a multiple choice question - the legitimacy of the outcome would still be in question.

 

[anon]

So you admit that the polling was uncertain and that nothing could be taken for granted. And you presumably now recognise that more people voted in that referendum than any plebiscite or election ever in the UK. Do you still stand by your claim that the vote only went the way it did due to voter complacency?

I'd just like to comment on this: I don't want to argue that it was mostly due to complacency, but I want to point out that voter complacency is possible even with high turnout: at least a small fraction or pro-Brexit voters did so as a protest vote to express their dissatisfaction with life, without thinking it would lead to anything, as they expected a large pro-remain outcome. I don't know how large that fraction is, but I've come across no shortage of anecdotal examples of people stating that this was their intention, and were then shocked to find that the UK would actually be leaving the EU after the votes were counted - some of these people didn't necessarily want that to actually happen.

 

[EVNow]

So you admit that the polling was uncertain and that nothing could be taken for granted. And you presumably now recognise that more people voted in that referendum than any plebiscite or election ever in the UK. Do you still stand by your claim that the vote only went the way it did due to voter complacency?

Yes.

The Brexit affected the future life of a lot of young people who would have voted in higher numbers if they had known the outcome could have gone the other way.

What part of bets being betting markets showing 88% for remain did you miss ?

ps : This is similar to how everyone in US thought Hillary was sure to win and proceeded to act accordingly, there by enabling Trump to win. Whether Obama not talking about Trump Russia connection or FBI director disclosing a "reopening" with a week to go. Why would they not assume that - after all - some poll aggregators were giving >90% chance of Hillary win.

 

[Singer3000]

Yes.

The Brexit affected the future life of a lot of young people who would have voted in higher numbers if they had known the outcome could have gone the other way.

What part of bets being betting markets showing 88% for remain did you miss ?

ps : This is similar to how everyone in US thought Hillary was sure to win and proceeded to act accordingly, there by enabling Trump to win. Whether Obama not talking about Trump Russia connection or FBI director disclosing a "reopening" with a week to go. Why would they not assume that - after all - some poll aggregators were giving >90% chance of Hillary win.

Believe me when I tell you that I follow the political betting markets with particular interest. Your tired comparisons between Brexit and Trump and raising of the Putin spectre do not make for any meaningful conversation on what is likely to happen next with Brexit and hence how this might affect the markets (this is an investor forum). That you think that everyone in the UK "thought Remain would win" or the same about Clinton in the US probably says more about the breadth of your own social interactions than anything else. It's ok that people have different opinions to you.

I'd just like to comment on this: I don't want to argue that it was mostly due to complacency, but I want to point out that voter complacency is possible even with high turnout: at least a small fraction or pro-Brexit voters did so as a protest vote to express their dissatisfaction with life, without thinking it would lead to anything, as they expected a large pro-remain outcome. I don't know how large that fraction is, but I've come across no shortage of anecdotal examples of people stating that this was their intention, and were then shocked to find that the UK would actually be leaving the EU after the votes were counted - some of these people didn't necessarily want that to actually happen.

Maybe. But I can give you as many anecdotes of people terrified into voting for Remain because of the economic fallout that was promised by the government upon the vote itself (much less the later implementation of the vote). The much greater number of voters are those who will feel utterly disenfranchised if their vote is ignored and next time they get the chance to vote, may end up doing things that I suspect few of us here will like.

 

[Buckminster]

Are you saying even though there won't be a vote on May's deal for the 3rd time - it is still the likeliest outcome ?

But I've to say Brexit is giving all of us - not that affected by it - a lot of distraction & entertainment

I absolutely think there will be another vote or 2 on her deal.

1. Chance of EU throwing another bone
2. Restarting parliament seems extreme but has been mentioned
3. Following an agreement to an extension (almost a change in itself)
4. If backed by a new PM (increasingly likely)
5. Asking MPs to vote in an alternative way
6. MPs will demand it eventually
7. Public may demand it also

I still think her deal (ideally with further backstop change) is the right way to go.

 

[Dutchie]

I absolutely think there will be another vote or 2 on her deal.

1. Chance of EU throwing another bone
2. Restarting parliament seems extreme but has been mentioned
3. Following an agreement to an extension (almost a change in itself)
4. If backed by a new PM (increasingly likely)
5. Asking MPs to vote in an alternative way
6. MPs will demand it eventually
7. Public may demand it also

I still think her deal (ideally with further backstop change) is the right way to go.

1. Not a chance, this is purely an internal UK thing. EU has done talking
2. Doing so before March 29? Will the Queen go along as keeper of the democratic process?
3. EU will not agree to extension without a clear strategy moving forward. That is not the case
4. That dos not change the bill, a prerequisite for allowing a vote
5. That does not change the bill either
6. Ok, have to make a new parliamentary rule. Is this wise?
7. If public demands it let them decide

 

[neroden]

Excellent summary. You only missed from what I see is:
The MPs dilemma. Most are remainers but are representing people that now essentially want to leave.

Oh, the other thing not included in that summary is the fact that May's government is propped up by Northern Ireland Unionist parties. The Northern Ireland Unionists don't want a hard border with Eire, but also don't want a hard border with the UK. Which generates an impossible situation for Brexit, since Eire is going to stay in the EU.

If the government didn't require Northern Ireland votes, they could make a decision one way or the other (honestly, at this point, I say toss Northern Ireland back to Ireland; to hell with the Unionists); but they do require Northern Ireland votes. This makes Brexit flatly impossible -- or worst case, it will happen and immediately cause the fall of the government. Because *any* version of Brexit accepted by the EU will be unacceptable to the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland.

 

[Mader Levap]

While some here imply that the Brexit vote was exclusively motivated by racism

Weasel wording and cute strawman noted.

The Brexiteers argue that if the EU is operating in good faith to prevent a return of violence to Ireland, it should be willing to commit to such a solution upfront now, with the implementation to be defined later. That they are not, raises the suspicion that the EU are not acting in good faith and intend to use the Northern Irish backstop as a means to “trap” the UK in the customs union without representation.

I like how you blame EU for brexiteers being morons and not thinking thoroughly that whole "brexit" thing.

 

[EVNow]

Election Maps UK on Twitter

It would be a travesty if the second referendum is not held. Remain is 20% ahead of May's deal.

2nd Referendum Voting Intentions:

Remain Vs Govt. Deal

Remain: 61%
Govt. Deal: 39%

Remain Vs No Deal

Remain: 57%
No Deal: 43%

Via
@YouGov
, 14-15 March.

 

[Buckminster]

1. Not a chance, this is purely an internal UK thing. EU has done talking
2. Doing so before March 29? Will the Queen go along as keeper of the democratic process?
3. EU will not agree to extension without a clear strategy moving forward. That is not the case
4. That dos not change the bill, a prerequisite for allowing a vote
5. That does not change the bill either
6. Ok, have to make a new parliamentary rule. Is this wise?
7. If public demands it let them decide

I take your point that individually these each have low probabilities but together and with further ideas, there is a very good chance. Brexit has not been predictable - so I don't see why you are so certain. Thats not to say that the MPs would vote for it though...
It remains logical in my opinion to get the deal done as it is broadly good for both parties.

 

[thegruf]

not saying this is what I want, but right now if I were the EU I would say "sign the deal or you're out"

Seems to be the only way this can be sorted, every other route is mired in endless hand wringing and angst.
It's a rubbish deal with the EU keeping the UK exactly where it wants it. Once signed nobody will be happy but at least it is done.

Then perhaps some slightly more rational discussions can move forward on a trade deal to the benefit of all concerned.

 

[neroden]

The correct action, as May and everyone else has known for months, is new Parliamentary elections. The Fixed Term Parliaments Act was a disaster.

 

[EVNow]

The correct action, as May and everyone else has known for months, is new Parliamentary elections. The Fixed Term Parliaments Act was a disaster.

Along with second referendum. A referendum where both Brexit yes/no - and exactly what kind of Brexit are asked on two different questions.

 

[EVNow]

not saying this is what I want, but right now if I were the EU I would say "sign the deal or you're out"

There are billions at stake (and a lot of jobs behind those billions) for EU members too. Not that simple.

 

[neroden]

After Bercow shut down May's attempt to make Parliament vote a second time on the same deal (not allowed under Parliamentary rules), I'm reading more and more articles saying "May should resign because she doesn't have a working majority".

Which is correct. In fact, the Queen should request May's resignation, but Her Majesty is apparently out to lunch mentally and unable to perform her duties any more.

 

[Singer3000]

Oh, the other thing not included in that summary is the fact that May's government is propped up by Northern Ireland Unionist parties. The Northern Ireland Unionists don't want a hard border with Eire, but also don't want a hard border with the UK. Which generates an impossible situation for Brexit, since Eire is going to stay in the EU.

If the government didn't require Northern Ireland votes, they could make a decision one way or the other (honestly, at this point, I say toss Northern Ireland back to Ireland; to hell with the Unionists); but they do require Northern Ireland votes. This makes Brexit flatly impossible -- or worst case, it will happen and immediately cause the fall of the government. Because *any* version of Brexit accepted by the EU will be unacceptable to the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland.

Saying "to hell with the unionists" is an easy thing to say from a safe distance but comes across as quite irresponsible to those of us that grew up with the bombs going off in our home towns. You won't find too many English or Welsh that give Northern Ireland much of a second thought beyond the occasional grumble that it's a financial and political burden for the UK. When travelling beyond the glossier parts of Belfast, it really does feel like a foreign country to this Brit. But fortunately most Brits still believe in the right of self determination and if asked to consider, would think it's only right that the wishes of the Northern Irish (both republican and unionist) are properly considered in key democratic processes.

That the UK government is being forced to take into account the complexities of Northern Ireland is a happy accident of May's disastrous 2017 election campaign, because she would I'm quite sure otherwise leave them on the scrapheap. I still scratch my head that she ever thought it possible or appropriate to rubber stamp an agreement that she knew would be unacceptable to her confidence-and-supply partner. She was warned going as far back as a year and didn't listen. I hope and trust that history judges her appropriately.

 

[Singer3000]

Welcome back by the way Mr Nerode! Very glad to hear you've given the site another chance.

 

[neroden]

Saying "to hell with the unionists" is an easy thing to say from a safe distance but comes across as quite irresponsible to those of us that grew up with the bombs going off in our home towns.

Oh, I know; given the history, however, I do feel sort of the same way as when I say "to hell with the Afrikaaners".

You won't find too many English or Welsh that give Northern Ireland much of a second thought beyond the occasional grumble that it's a financial and political burden for the UK. When travelling beyond the glossier parts of Belfast, it really does feel like a foreign country to this Brit.

Bingo.

But fortunately most Brits still believe in the right of self determination and if asked to consider, would think it's only right that the wishes of the Northern Irish (both republican and unionist) are properly considered in key democratic processes.

Certainly, but the main (hard right wing extremist) Unionist party is asking for the impossible and nonviable. The DUP simultaneously demands free movement to the UK and free movement to Ireland (because nobody wants the Troubles back) ***and*** refuses to vote no confidence in May. I mean, prior to the Fixed Terms Parliament Act, their actions would have BEEN a no confidence vote and caused fresh elections -- they need to actually take a side. They have three choices (close the UK border, close the Irish border, or toss May out and cancel Brexit) and they're refusing all three. (I know which one I'd choose -- #3, no confidence.)

Of course, the DUP are living in fantasy land -- I just checked, and the DUP is currently a hotbed of climate deniers, evolution deniers, HIV deniers, anti-gay-rights types, anti-abortion extremists, etc.

Most Unionist parties have been equally obstinate and pigheaded since the 19th century, frankly.

That the UK government is being forced to take into account the complexities of Northern Ireland is a happy accident of May's disastrous 2017 election campaign, because she would I'm quite sure otherwise leave them on the scrapheap. I still scratch my head that she ever thought it possible or appropriate to rubber stamp an agreement that she knew would be unacceptable to her confidence-and-supply partner. She was warned going as far back as a year and didn't listen. I hope and trust that history judges her appropriately.

She'll be judged even more harshly for trying to run a government without confidence, without supply, after being found in contempt of Parliament, trying to force Parliament to vote the third time on the same bill... her behavior is looking very, very much like the behavior of the various Kings (Charles I, James II, etc) which caused Parliament to take power away from the King.