Brexit Mega Thread 16 – Who's Next?

[LouiseCollins28]

We are approaching the 6th anniversary of Brexit, or I suppose the 5th, if you count the period of transition as "in."

Since then, the world has endured Covid-19, seen war in Ukraine and many other things. Brexit has had reduced salience in the minds of many people recently.

When digesting the latest setbacks to befall the elite who govern our islands, a phrase I keep returning to, is “OK, so now do you get it?”

Brexit is undoubtedly the biggest “OK, so now do you get it?” moment directed at our leaders in my life. It’s surely the largest since 1979, since the Labour victory of 1945? or even since the advent of universal suffrage?

The U.K. local elections in 2026, and subsequent national ones, could see a big increase in support for the Green Party and Reform U.K. Two parties with more different attitudes to European integration could scarcely be found, so Brexit’s salience in the U.K. may rise again soon
.
There are many electoral contests in progress or coming across Europe too (the Netherlands and France, for example) which will be worth paying attention to. Maybe the next questions we will face are less about "what next?" and more about "who's next?"

Relations between mainland Europe and the UK remain a worthy topic for discussion, whoever leads the nations of Europe, or leads the E.U. itself.

@Kendodd

Well maybe by the time we try to get back in the UK will be so poor, we will be a net taker?

Even the EU must be aware that if there are more net takers than net contributors, they will go bust.

Who said anything about a general election?

You did. See your comment from 8th at 17:13. You specifically stated this as evidence that 'the people' had the opportunity to reverse Brexshit.

Also as stated previously, applying to rejoin would not give us the same terms we had previously, so is not a solution. You can't put toothpaste back into a tube. The damage is done. Starmer is definitely doing what he can by moving closer to the EU. I suspect more is yet to come.

I don't know why you would think my use of the term Brexshit is intended to scare my former employer either. That's done and dusted.

I use the term as an amalgamation of Brexit and shit. Because Brexit has been shit for the UK economy as every single economic study I've seen agrees. You are the only person I've come across who thinks they've benefited. Good for you. Even the people I know who voted for it admit it didn't quite go as they expected. No shit. There was one version of remain (keep what we had), but a million versions of leave. To decide such a complicated issue with a binary vote was always going to end in many voters feeling disenfranchised.

@HappiestSleeping

You did. See your comment from 8th at 17:13. You specifically stated this as evidence that 'the people' had the opportunity to reverse Brexshit

They did have the opportunity to revoke Article 50. Layla Moran of the Liberal Democrat’s stated on BBC Question Time 5 September 2019 if they won with a majority, Article 50 (as opposed to Brexshit) would be revoked.

On the same episode, Emily Thornberry of Labour stated that she would campaign to remain if Labour won the election and offer a second referendum. She didn’t use the term Brexshit either.

Both Labour and the Liberal Democrat’s received fewer results compared to the 2017 general election.

My question was, why has Starmer as PM not called for a parliamentary vote on rejoining the EU if there is conclusive proof that the UK would be better off? With the majority Labour have they can get anything passed if all Labour MPs think that rejoin is the best option for the UK.

You can't put toothpaste back into a tube. The damage is done.

When my tube of toothpaste is empty I buy another, but compare prices and promotions first. My teeth are fine according to a recent check up.

You are the only person I've come across who thinks they've benefited. Good for you.

Maybe because people who have benefitted don’t all post on MN? It’s estimated that MN receives approximately 700K posts per month. The most popular subject is AIBU.

So, whilst some remain posters like to think their views reflect the entire UK, I am not convinced. Even TalkinPeace has stated the only votes that count are those at the ballot box.

To decide such a complicated issue with a binary vote was always going to end in many voters feeling disenfranchised

The decision to leave the UK was made by the 498 MPs who voted to trigger Article 50 on 29 March 2017. As per UK law, the government did not have the authority to leave the EU on the strength of a referendum.

According to many remain supporters, the referendum was only advisory regardless of the statement made in Cameron’s booklet sent to each household in the UK. The outcome of the Gina Miller case confirmed this view. Hence a parliamentary vote was called.

rejoining the EU if there is conclusive proof that the UK would be better off?

I don't think there is any conclusive proof that rejoining would be beneficial. The proof is that we have been worse off since leaving, as I have pointed out, and evidenced.

So, whilst some remain posters like to think their views reflect the entire UK

I haven't seen any remain voters allude to this. Mainly they are like me, and point to all the evidence and economic studies that support the fact that remaining would have been more beneficial. I suspect too that there are many voters who wished they'd bothered to turn up at the ballot box. As you rightly say, it is indeed the votes in the box that count.

I completely agree about the referendum being advisory. I don't think that is in dispute by voters for either outcome, as it is a fact. Can you imagine how the Brexshiteers would have had their knickers in a twist had the result been taken under advisement, with no further action though? I was going to start a sentence with "what Cameron should have done...", but that would have been a very long sentence.

@HappiestSleeping

The booklet sent to each household in the UK included the statement.

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

So, to say after the referendum;

As you voted differently to what we thought, we will not take any action.

Would have only served to prove that government cannot be trusted. Hence the vote in parliament held on 29 March 2017 in compliance with UK law as established by the Gina Miller case.

I suspect too that there are many voters who wished they'd bothered to turn up at the ballot box.

If the referendum was deemed to be advisory, what difference would a larger turnout have made?

On the 40th anniversary of BBC question time, Gina Miller was asked if she would have taken the government through the courts if the result of the referendum had been to remain. Yes was her reply to ensure it was done legally.

I would say that was a forced answer. Had she said no, it would be an admission that her goal was to thwart Brexit. Later she actively encouraged voters to vote tactically in 2019 by voting for the Liberal Democrat’s, but that failed too.

There was no obligation for MPs to follow the result of the 2016 referendum as per the 2015 EU referendum act. The vote was 498 to leave and 113 to remain.

Once the government had sent a leaflet to every household in the U.K saying

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

Doing anything other than implementing the result would have been folly.

In point of fact, however, they lied. The Government which held the referendum didn't "implement" what was decided since Cameron was gone in under 6 months. May's government finally triggered Article 50 and Johnson's finally saw us leave the EU. So the above statement is a lie, and was from the moment David Cameron left Downing Street.

Anyhow, Government's lie, what else is new?

On the Government we have now, I wonder how much closer Starmer's Labour Govt will try to move the UK towards the EU?

Interesting as they appear to be facing serious challenges from both the very pro-EU Green Party and the obviously much more "Brexity" Reform UK. I wonder if they will try to keep to a middle course on Brexit from now on and focus on attempting to rejuvinate the economy? Of course, if future local elections go spectactularly badly for Labour, they might find another leadership contest looms large but any such outcome is a good way off yet IMO.

So Mr Brexit is trying to pretend he didn't campaign for Brexit?

Talking about BBC QT, appearances between 2010 and 2019

Not this rubbish again. How many times has QT had a majority of right/conservative panellists? Bascially never. Farage as a right aligned panellist as 1/5 with most of the rest being liberals does not equal balance, no matter how many times they put him on!!

If only Farage had attended that many fisheries meetings as MEP

Headline from a serious and long working paper on the economic impact of Brexit.

https://bsky.app/profile/davidheniguk.bsky.social/post/3m5bcwsjbdc2m

So it's been even worse than they've been saying.

Colour me shocked...

@DuncinToffee

So, back to the estimates again. How about looking at what is actually known and can be measured?

Examples could include:

UK has highest growth in the G7. The top four in the G7 are all non EU. Likewise, the bottom three in the G7 are all EU.

Germany remains the only EU member to have a larger economy than the UK. So, if UK GDP is shrinking, it must also be shrinking in EU members who remain below the UK. If not, they would have surpassed the UK.

UK has lower debt to GDP ratio than, Belgium, France, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece.

UK has lower immigration than; Germany, France, Spain and Italy.

UK also has lower taxes than; Germany, France, Spain and Italy. Could this be due to lower immigration?

Global: "Where is your proof of XYZ?"

Also Global: "Maybe ABC is due to <entirely unsupported supposition>".

I know AI can't do irony yet...

Lower taxes due to lower immigration, that's a new one.

@MaybeNotBob

The immigration figures can be found from euronew.com and www.worldpopulation review.com

The debt to GDP ratios can be found from www.tradingeconomics.com

@DuncinToffee

Taxes vs immigration was a question, not a statement.

Ah, something about correlation and causation.

If you're feeling ignorant, please feel free not to make wild assumptions...

@MaybeNotBob

If you're feeling ignorant, please feel free not to make wild assumptions..

The post was:

UK also has lower taxes than; Germany, France, Spain and Italy. Could this be due to lower immigration?

That’s a question, not an assumption.

It was clearly meant as an implication, however much you may try to pretend.

Unless you really are desperate to show how ignorant you are...

@MaybeNotBob

It was clearly meant as an implication

You mean it was like the comment that has been made on MN many times:

Boat crossings have increased since Brexit. Therefore, Brexit is the cause of the increase in crossings.

I couldn’t even begin to list the number posters who have made that argument.

It has indeed been given, along with the evidence of exactly how Brexit caused it.

It's just that you try and pretend it doesn't exist because it doesn't fit your narrative.

You can have your own opinions, but I'm afraid you can't have your own facts...

One of the causes, but you can't do nuance.

Do tell us when you find the answer to lower taxes-lower immigration.

Globe actually believes immigration and emigration figures.

Oh dear, I may wet myself laughing

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjr0p4l2qryo

@MaybeNotBob

It has indeed been given, along with the evidence of exactly how Brexit caused it.

Maybe read the thread Immigration/brexit.

It was explained how correlation does not establish causation.

@DuncinToffee

One of the causes, but you can't do nuance

MaybeNotBob does not agree with you and has stated there is evidence that Brexit is the cause of increased boat crossings.

I would say there is no conclusive evidence that Brexit is the cause of increased boat crossings.

Increases are due to:

Stricter controls on ferries and lorries has prompted more people to use the more dangerous method of boat crossings. Hence the number of boat crossings increases

As immigration into the EU has increased from 2 million in 2020 to 5 million in 2022, the greater the number that will end up in Calais.

If illegals did not enter the EU by either crossing the Mediterranean or through borders in Eastern Europe, then by definition they would never end up in Calais.

@Talkinpeace

Talking about boat crossings, not people who are going on holiday. However, I have had many experiences of HMRC not knowing what they are doing.

If the published figures are wrong, how do remain supporters conclude there has been an increase or decrease in boat crossings? Or do remain supporters have their own database?