Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

If I am getting mugged, and I try to resist and have my nose broken, that was poor management -if I just handed my stuff over I would have saved me from the broken nose- but it's still the mugger' fault the mugging happened and the way it happened, not mine.

Running a campaign in a national democratic event like a referendum or an election is not like being mugged though. You've got a lot of agency to shape the outcome and that's your job.

I can't quite get my head around the idea of faulting someone for saying "we should leave the EU", winning the referendum and then leaving the EU. I disagree with it and I think they're wrong on the issue but I'm not sure what they've done that is wrong or should get blame for.

Are we talking about the referendum or about the whole Brexit process? Sure, the Remain campaign was a disaster, but that doesn't make Remainers the ones at fault in the whole thing.

I agree. I think there's a lot more blame to go around after 2016.

I've said before I think the two key moments were the 2016 leadership vote on Corbyn (because the result in 2019 was, in large part, driven by  swing voters deciding they'd rather risk Johnson's Brexit than Corbyn - I'm not sure it works like that with any other potential leader); and the 2017 election, which I think radicalised both sides and ended the chances of any compromise Brexit.

That parliament went through, I feel like,, over 10 "meaningful votes" on different options (from staying in the single market/EEA option to no deal) and none of them could win majority support. I think because both sides felt they could win completely so weren't willing to compromise. Although I'd say the route for hard Brexiteers to no deal/very hard Brexit was always clear to me, I could never work out what the Remain/People's Vote group were trying to do or how to get there.

[Josquius]

Are we talking about the referendum or about the whole Brexit process? Sure, the Remain campaign was a disaster, but that doesn't make Remainers the ones at fault in the whole thing.

Even the whole Brexit process - how can they be blamed for the end result?

I guess it depends on the perspective you're taking and whether brexiters are us or "other".

It's like how the Falklands war was thatchers fault.
Obviously she didn't start the war. Argentina was to blame. That doesn't even need mentioning its so stupidly obvious.
But from a British perspective it was her fuck ups that led to Argentina seeing the green flag to go ahead and invade.

So from a progressive pov one can blame the remain campaign given the leave campaign is an other and was always going to do what it did. It was remains job to defend against it and they failed.

We need to make the best of what we've got and that does mean trying to get a situation like that of Switzerland or Norway.

While I agree to your opening statement, the reality is neither model is realistic.

The EU is quite unhappy with the structure of the Swiss deals, and would not agree to repeat such mistake.

Joining the EEA has problems of its own. For one the UK is too big and would dominate the agenda of the organization, which might give other members pause (and the Norwegians stated as much IIRC).
But the truly big issue is that Brussels would be dictating regulations to a UK without voting rights. I can't see any British government signing on to that.

Sure. That's why I said like rather than a carbon copy.
It's true taking rules and not being a fan key decision maker would be unfortunate. But that's what we voted for with brexit. It's better than the alternative of having to follow the rules anyway with none of the benefits.

[Sheilbh]

So from a progressive pov one can blame the remain campaign given the leave campaign is an other and was always going to do what it did. It was remains job to defend against it and they failed.

Maybe?

I think of leave and leave voters as us - because they're our fellow citizens. But I do have a side. It is similar with the SNP and Scottish independence - I totally get the pull of independence, but I'm for fairly emotional/nebulous reasons a huge believer in the union. But I don't think if the SNP won and Scotland became independent it would be their "fault" or they'd be to "blame" - they'd have delivered what they wanted and have campaigned for for years by convincing enough of their fellow citizens.

They would be responsible for what an independent Scotland looks like and achieves - in exactly the same way as the Tories are responsible for post-Brexit Britain (until they lose an election). And I don't like the SNP on that either

[crazy canuck]

Do you hold Democrats responsible for the excesses which occurred during the Trump presidency?  Hillary ran a poor campaign after all.

[Sheilbh]

Do you hold Democrats responsible for the excesses which occurred during the Trump presidency?  Hillary ran a poor campaign after all.

I don't think Brexit and Trump are at all comparable beyond being shock results and drawing attention to post-industrial voters. It's why I think the better comparison would be Scottish independence.

I blame the Democrats and Hilary for losing in 2016. I blame Republicans for enabling, nominating and then acquiescing to Trump and giving him power. I blame him for what he does in his term of office (and Senators/Reps) who could develop a strategy or vote to stop him, not doing it.

Edit: I suppose one other point of comparison is that their opponents spent far too much energy complaining that the result was illegitimate or trying to find a way to blame them for winning rather than working on how to fight back. I think it's probably a quest for catharsis more than anything else.

Edit: Also with Trump then and now I think the media bear an awful lot of blame.

[Josquius]

Do you hold Democrats responsible for the excesses which occurred during the Trump presidency?  Hillary ran a poor campaign after all.

Blaming the Democrats would be dumb though as a democrat it is possible to blame Hilary.

[crazy canuck]

Do you hold Democrats responsible for the excesses which occurred during the Trump presidency?  Hillary ran a poor campaign after all.

I don't think Brexit and Trump are at all comparable beyond being shock results and drawing attention to post-industrial voters. It's why I think the better comparison would be Scottish independence.

I blame the Democrats and Hilary for losing in 2016. I blame Republicans for enabling, nominating and then acquiescing to Trump and giving him power. I blame him for what he does in his term of office (and Senators/Reps) who could develop a strategy or vote to stop him, not doing it.

Edit: I suppose one other point of comparison is that their opponents spent far too much energy complaining that the result was illegitimate or trying to find a way to blame them for winning rather than working on how to fight back. I think it's probably a quest for catharsis more than anything else.

Edit: Also with Trump then and now I think the media bear an awful lot of blame.

To Tyr's point, you put a lot of blame on the guy running the remain campaign - and probably rightfully so.  But how is it the fault of the people who supported remaining.

I can understand putting some blame Hillary and her team.  But blaming all democrats? 

The main problem is you are not ascribing blame where it really belongs - the spineless GOP members who enabled Trump (think of what could have been if a majority of them had the backbone McCain had). And with Brexit, blaming the remainers for not having a plan for the disaster they foresaw is, frankly not their fault.

[Barrister]

The issue of "blame" comes up in criminal justice.

Let's say you go out, late at night, to the bad part of town, and start waving around a big wad of cash.  You promptly get robbed of your money.

The moral blameworthiness of this falls 100% on the robber.  You do not deserve to get robbed no matter what.

But are you partially responsible for these events?  Yes.  You chose to put yourself in a vulnerable position, and didn't take proper steps to protect yourself.

[Zanza]

Sheilbh and me had this discussion many times before and I understood his argument as basically blaming the opposition (not Labour, but Remainers of all parties) for not being constructive in a policy that was repugnant to them. He feels that them being constructive would somehow have yielded a better Brexit.

I feel that this argument holds no water as the cited Economist article points out that there is no real middle ground now and I feel there never was in hindsight. Betraying your convictions to achieve an SPS agreement seems a big ask.

[Sheilbh]

To Tyr's point, you put a lot of blame on the guy running the remain campaign - and probably rightfully so.  But how is it the fault of the people who supported remaining.

I can understand putting some blame Hillary and her team.  But blaming all democrats? 

Oh I'm not blaming any voters. When I'm criticising Remainers - I mean the campaign and opinion formers. I've no doubt every activist was doing their absolute best for a cause they really believed in and every voter supported what they thought was best. With Democrats I mean the institutional Democratic party and party elites, not every activist or voter.

The main problem is you are not ascribing blame where it really belongs - the spineless GOP members who enabled Trump (think of what could have been if a majority of them had the backbone McCain had).

As I said I absolutely do blame Republicans for enabling, supporting and acquiescing to Trump.

And with Brexit, blaming the remainers for not having a plan for the disaster they foresaw is, frankly not their fault.

Again it depends on when we're talking about.

The Brexit parliament was a hung parliament - Johnson and May never had a majority. Given that the customs union came within four votes of winning majority support - it was all open and to play for.  Ultimately I think that one of the big issues was the tribalism of British politics - I don't think May was able to really deal with opposition MPs (even those who might vote for her deal) and I don't think many opposition MPs were willing to vote for a deal that would give May a 'win'.

I think hardline Remainers and Brexiters also made a decision to block any deal so they could either stop Brexit or go for the hardest possible option. I remember saying here at the time only one side can win this and I thought at the time and still think it was a catastrophically bad strategic decision by Remainers. Again I don't see how you can't blame them if that's the side you support - they shouldn't have bet the house.

[Barrister]

As I said I absolutely do blame Republicans for enabling, supporting and acquiescing to Trump.

Where I really blame Republicans is the second impeachment.  7 Republicans voted to remove him from office.  If just 10 more had done so we'd be forever done with the guy - he'd have been barred from ever holding office again.

[Sheilbh]

Sheilbh and me had this discussion many times before and I understood his argument as basically blaming the opposition (not Labour, but Remainers of all parties) for not being constructive in a policy that was repugnant to them. He feels that them being constructive would somehow have yielded a better Brexit.

In the 2017-19 parliament yes. Moderate Remainers and Leavers had a majority, but were split across all parties. May was bad at working with colleagues and with opposition parties. The rest were I think ultimately just too tribal to break the impasse. As I say the "meaningful vote" with most support was staying in the customs union which only lost by four votes.

Hardline Remainers and Leavers tried to block everything to reach their preferred option. I never understood the Remainer strategy on that; the hardline Leaver one made more sense. Those hardliners got what they wanted in blocking any compromise and voting for the 2019 election - again madness from my perspective given that Johnson didn't have a majority, couldn't get his deal or no deal passed. Parliament could have set the terms on which it would support a deal - but it would involve MPs from all parties working together which was impossible by that point.

I feel that this argument holds no water as the cited Economist article points out that there is no real middle ground now and I feel there never was in hindsight. Betraying your convictions to achieve an SPS agreement seems a big ask.

I disagree on then. I agree with the Economist article now because there are new facts on the ground.

I think there is a logic to hard Brexit which the hardline Leavers took full advantage of, but I think there were the votes and the space for basically a customs union deal before 2019.

[Sheilbh]

Two by elections tonight - lots of expectations management from all sides (although the Lib Dems have moved to "cautiously optimistic" on Tiverton and Honiton).

If the Lib Dems win Tiverton and Honiton it will be the biggest (winning) swing ever in a by election, overturning a majority of about 40%/24,000 votes. The Lib Dems are experts at by elections but this will still be a pretty big scalp.

With Wakefield, it's more of a marginal that Labour are better placed to win back. The Tory majority is only about 3,500 votes or 7.5%. The key here is probably swing. If Labour get a swing of 10% then that's in line with national polls and local elections (and shows Labour winning 85 of 88 marginal seats); if it's more than 10% then it's been good for them.

This gives a bit of a sense of why losing Wakefield is priced in, while Tiverton and Honiton is likely but still a big deal:


Edit: Hadn't realised this but if Labour win Wakefield, as they should, it'll be the first by election victory for them since 2012 (That's the second longest dry spell for a party after the 11 years after 1997 before the Tories won another by election).

[HVC]

Apropos of nothing, I came across this quote today:

" The sun never set on the British Empire because even God doesn't trust the English in the dark."


- Sashi Tharoor

[Admiral Yi]

The "poorly run Remain campaign" argument is very similar to the "Democratic messaging sucks" argument.