Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Josquius]

That could be it. I think the alternative is that when people voted to 'take back control', they wanted control and now they have it so they're broadly happy (though there is still a group that want far more cuts in numbers - there's a broad middle that didn't exist before 2016). Similarly I think they were very aware there'd be an economic cost to 'control' or 'sovereignty' but thought it's worth bearing. That would be my take - I generally think that voters are cleverer and more sophisticated in getting what they want and know how to use whatever electoral system is in place than people often give them credit for.

Edit: Or to put it another way - I think enough people knew what they were voting for, knew the downside and are broadly okay with the results.

So they knew all along it would deliver nothing but feelings of nationalism, little plastic flags and fucked up lives for people who aren't them?

[Tamas]

Boris Johnson's government has made a dramatic U-turn in an attempt to save Christmas – with a raft of extended emergency visas to help abate labour shortages that have led to empty shelves and petrol station queues.

New immigration measures will allow 300 fuel drivers to arrive immediately and stay until the end of March, while 100 army drivers will take to the roads from Monday, the government announced late on Friday.

About 4,700 further food haulage drivers will arrive from late October and leave by the end of February.

The rules mean that the government has relented to lobbying from the fuel and food industries and extended some temporary visa schemes beyond Christmas Eve and into the new year.

[Sheilbh]

So they knew all along it would deliver nothing but feelings of nationalism, little plastic flags and fucked up lives for people who aren't them?

If you want Their take would be it delivered decision-making at a UK level over almost all policy areas where they can vote and that's worth the costs in their view.

Edit: Basically the same as Scottish independence - and as there, I wouldn't back it, but I'd understand (or try to) why. I think it's a legitimate, fair cause and I don't think they'd go for it lightly or not cogniscent of the costs and consequences.

Irish nationalism was the same - except obviously correct. It did not deliver much materially and Ireland could elect MPs on the same franchise and often held the balance of power (which is why Home Rule was happening and land reform etc had). But deciding who gets a binding say on policies that affect you is important - and why I think, for now (if Europe integrates more this may shift), democracy is inextricably linked to nationalism.

[Josquius]

But EU citizens do get a say on EU law? The EU is more democratic than the UK : alas there's a lot of ignorance about this floating around. With the president jobs in particular people have huge misconceptions (looping back to the American influence problem again)

A variety of people voted leave. Not all for the same reasons. But I wouldn't give too much credit to many of them. It really was a lightly thought of decision - the same is true for many remain voters too of course, but in that case the status quo is the correct answer.

[Sheilbh]

But EU citizens do get a say on EU law? The EU is more democratic than the UK : alas there's a lot of ignorance about this floating around. With the president jobs in particular people have huge misconceptions (looping back to the American influence problem again)

I don't accept that the EU is more democratic than the UK - or any democratic nation state. That's just because of the nature of the EU at this stage - I think the trend in the EU is to more democracy though and more power with the bodies that have democratic mandates.

But it's also a process of emerging statehood in my view in Europe. So for a chunk of voters in the UK the common citizenship and freedom of movement and citizenship rights were too far for them. It may be that when the EU takes the next steps on statehood - such as enforcing a single minimum standard of rule of law, tax or spending powers in a transfer union or foreign and defence policy - that other countries basically decide that's their limit. Because they don't have an issue with one of the core bits of the EU that won't require them to leave just sit in the EEA or an outer ring of the EU maybe - we don't know what yet.

But the issue for many UK voters is fundamental which is why soft Brexit was very difficult after the 2016 vote.

[Duque de Bragança]

Boris Johnson's government has made a dramatic U-turn in an attempt to save Christmas

Quite a feat to do an U-turn with a loaded lorry on wet British roads. 

[Josquius]

I don't accept that the EU is more democratic than the UK - or any democratic nation state

Why?

Commoms/Parliament - directly elected via stv vs fptp
Council/Lords- varied democratic means, in the UKs case indirect election via our elections vs. Appointed silly nilly with a few who inherit it from their dad and others because they're good at priesting.
Commission/civil service- appointed by the council according to a one per country system and I believe regular recruitment vs shadowy system of appointments and promotions and regular employment.

The EU isn't perfect. But it's ahead of the UK on the democratic metric.

[Zanza]

But the issue for many UK voters is fundamental which is why soft Brexit was very difficult after the 2016 vote.

Oh, please. Your Brexit apologism should really not go that far. It did not have to go the way it did.

There was a clear majority of MPs that wanted a softer version of Brexit or even remain. And with a tight result in the referendum that had no clear definition of Leave everything was possible. The most extremist faction won though due to political incompetence of the more moderate factions and the inability of British politicians to act bipartisan even in this question of national destiny. The Tory party came before national interest.

And then current government made ideological deliberate choices to make Brexit as hard as possible. Maximum divergence is a choice. Your government has agency. Do not pretend that this was somehow pre-destined or the only possible outcome after the referendum. 

[Zanza]

Council/Lords- varied democratic means, in the UKs case indirect election via our elections vs. Appointed silly nilly with a few who inherit it from their dad and others because they're good at priesting.

Lord Hannan, Baron of Kingsclere disagrees. That tosser is now governing you for the next decades. 

[Josquius]

Agreed with a 48-52 outcome a soft brexit was the obvious mandate.
Alas we saw this coming.... And it was called project fear.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Probably the worst feature of the UK's electoral system; the ascendant faction in the winning party gets to call all the shots even though their support in the general public might well be less than 25%.

[Agelastus]

Soft Brexit could have happened if the remainer and soft brexit faction in parliament co-operated while May was "in charge".

Instead the three main factions in parliament ("remainer no-brexit" (void the referendum), "remainer/brexiter soft-brexit" (accept the referendum), and "brexiter means-brexit" (push the referendum result to the limit) factions with various MPs and groups of MPs floating between these three positions) fought each other to a standstill.

Parliament's "indicative votes" were indicative of one thing - none of the options suggested (no matter whether they were likely to be accepted by the EU or not) could get enough support across the factions to become a policy to try and pursue. Leaving it eventually, after more shenanigans, to come down to a General Election.

I am deliberately using "faction" rather than "party" as that was how Parliament seemed to be going in early 2019; almost 18th Century in essence albeit the factions were coalescing around political positions rather than "great men".

[Sheilbh]

Oh, please. Your Brexit apologism should really not go that far. It did not have to go the way it did.

The biggest issue in the campaign was immigration. It was repeatedly raised throughout the campaign that ending freedom of movement meant leaving the single market. I think it's disingenuous to suggest that it's a surprise or unusual to end up at hard Brexit when that is the only way to address the number one issue during the campaign - as people like me repeatedly said during the campaign. In part because we thought - well no-one will want to leave the single market so this'll be a killer argument during the campaign. It was not.

I think you absolutely can go out their and argue for soft Brexit, but I think you need to make the case - which no-one did. In the 2017 election Labour and Tories went to voters with a commitment to end freedom of movement (because immigration was the biggest issue in the referendum). My view is if you wanted a Brexit deal that didn't end free movement (and I did - I would have liked someone to argue for this) - that's fine but you need to tell people and campaign for it during an election.

And then current government made ideological deliberate choices to make Brexit as hard as possible. Maximum divergence is a choice. Your government has agency. Do not pretend that this was somehow pre-destined or the only possible outcome after the referendum.

I don't think it's the only outcome after the referendum - but I think the moments when that could shift are basically limited to the elections and the odd bit of the 2017 Parliament. No-one made that argument, because ending free movement was a really important goal and I think that was always the political challenge.

But I think if you leave the single market then maximum divergence is the logical sensible choice. You're not getting the benefits of the single market so the best you can do is try and get benefits from being outside it which'll be adopting different rules.

I don't think it's inevitable but I think it does flow logically from immigration being the biggest issue in the campaign.

[Tamas]

Oh, please. Your Brexit apologism should really not go that far. It did not have to go the way it did.

The biggest issue in the campaign was immigration. It was repeatedly raised throughout the campaign that ending freedom of movement meant leaving the single market. I think it's disingenuous to suggest that it's a surprise or unusual to end up at hard Brexit when that is the only way to address the number one issue during the campaign - as people like me repeatedly said during the campaign. In part because we thought - well no-one will want to leave the single market so this'll be a killer argument during the campaign. It was not.
.

What you might have forgotten is that leaving the single market was confidently painted as a non-issue by the Leave side. They claimed that not only it would not cause issues, it would be to our advantage as we "hold all the cards". People might had known that ending East Euros coming in meant leaving the single market, but there was a lot of effort spent to convince them that's a non-issue with zero tradeoffs. In fact, nobody on the Leave side has acknowledged any tradeoffs until yesterday.

[Duque de Bragança]

In fact, nobody on the Leave side has acknowledged any tradeoffs until yesterday.

Progress!