45

Before Monday I have always taken an impartial stance when ingesting information produced by clearly pro-Leave and pro-Remain groups, to analyze the information and take time to cross-reference it with the information available on the internet. However, when I read the released Yellowhammer papers, cross-referenced them with the leaked papers published in the Sunday Times as well as the comment made by the First Minister for Scotland, I started to wonder: Why is the UK still pursuing Brexit?

The only reason, politically, I can conceive is to allow the Tory party to square off the Brexit Party and siphon off all their votes - however, I cannot see how that can be the only reason.

At the moment, support for Scottish Independence has gone up - Brexit contributing to the support for a second independence referendum - and Welsh Independence has a sharp increase in support over the past few weeks, posing a threat to the current structure of the union (which wouldn't be all that good for the stability of the country, especially if a Scottish indyref takes place in the next 3 years); the Yellowhammer Papers outline near-paralysis on the imports of Medicine and Food, it even states that people that are under the most financial strain will more disadvantaged than the rest of the citizenry; the NI/ROI border issue hasn't been solved; and, to make matters worse, there is a high possibility to a recession brought on by the US-China trade war as well as the uncertainty brought on by Brexit (and no deal).

As the Government is pressing on with what looks like the only Brexit the UK is getting, a no-deal Brexit, why are we pressing on with it? The disadvantages outweigh the advantages previously stated in the 2016 referendum, and all but no deal has been thrown out of the window for being either too soft, not fitting the Governments 'red lines', or not being Brexity enough (Customs Union, Canada deal, &c).

If Brexit will do the opposite to what was promised in the official campaign, then why pursue it - when it will do so much damage to the UK?

JJJ
  • 39,094
  • 10
  • 121
  • 182
Duke Jake Morgan
  • 759
  • 1
  • 5
  • 7
  • 33
    I downvoted because of the horrific misrepresentation of the Yellowhammer papers. It doesn’t say anything about a near paralysis of medicine and food, it says “these two factors will not cause an overall shortage of food in the U.K.” and “unmitigated this will have an impact on the supply of medicines” - well obviously this is being mitigated, right now - those mitigation’s are even discussed in the next paragraph! – Tim Sep 14 '19 at 20:42
  • 1
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – yannis Sep 15 '19 at 12:32
  • 2
    It's worth noting that those papers detail a Worst Case scenario that the British government is and has been moving to mitigate. The papers detail the fallout if essentially no mitigating action was taken by the British Government. – Callam Delaney Sep 16 '19 at 11:40
  • 4
    @cal97g I disagree. The content of the released Yellowhammer report by the Govt in compliance with the Humble Address Motion is similar to the content in the released Yellowhammer report leaked to the Sunday Times and shared to the Scottish Gov. The difference is in the title. Unless the report shared with the Scots is not the report released by the Gov, there is evidence to support the accusation that the Gov changed the title from 'base scenario' to 'reasonable worst-case scenario' to shield itself from proper scrutiny, protecting the Cabinets image to the public. – Duke Jake Morgan Sep 16 '19 at 13:34
  • 2
    @Tim Here's the relevant part from the next paragraph. "DHSC is developing a multi-layered approach to mitigate these risks". I'm not sure it's a correct characterization to say that's a discussion of mitigation. All it says is they're thinking about mitigating it in some unknown way. Probably because this document is not intended to contain that sort of detail. – Nathan Sep 16 '19 at 16:32

7 Answers7

86

You are making the same mistake as the remain campaign did:

This is not a rational decision, at the core, it's an emotional decision. It's not about what financial, economic or whatever benefits either way brings it's about whether people want to be in or out of the union and what they emotionally consider their main political entity (i.e. "nation"). Any feeling of belonging to the political entity EU is totally missing for a large part of the population, they have no emotional connection and thus it feels wrong that the EU they "don't belong to" makes decisions that affects them.

All the negative predictions, whether probable or not, will not convince most leave supporters to change their mind, but harden their decision to leave "despite all the scare mongering". Boris Johnson rides on this emotional support consciously or not. These "worst case" scenarios won't change the underlying attitude, so they have no impact on his (large-scale) decision making. Again, to supporters, it makes him even more of a hero to not be dissuaded by these "fake news" of people who want to thwart the "will of the people" by scaring them with the consequences of their actions.

Frank Hopkins
  • 1,096
  • 8
  • 11
  • 24
    For sóme people it may actually be a rational choice. And they could have lobbied and funded and campaigned hard for it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-more-we-learn-about-brexit-the-more-crooked-it-looks/2019/03/08/b011517c-411c-11e9-922c-64d6b7840b82_story.html – Sebastiaan van den Broek Sep 14 '19 at 16:43
  • 7
    You're right. But it's so sad that it hurts. – Eric Duminil Sep 14 '19 at 16:49
  • 18
    There's more to life than money. Votes aren't cast based on "how much better/worse off we'll be financially". In this case, the sense of national identify is more important. That's perfectly rational. – Chris Melville Sep 15 '19 at 13:21
  • 9
    "Boris Johnson rides on this emotional support consciously or not." Oh, it's conscious.... Calculated, in fact. – T.J. Crowder Sep 15 '19 at 16:00
  • 1
    An interesting perspective. The only emotional drive to leave the EU I considered, but ultimately thought that it wouldn't be one of the main driving forces to leave the EU, was that people felt democracy in the EU was too far away. I considered the primary reasons to leave were entirely financial, and, to an extent, cultural (as immigration cropped up one too many times in the leave campaign). For financial, One motive I considered that the previously industrial heartlands of the North thought that the money sent to the EU should be spent here, at home, fixing up their towns, &c &c. – Duke Jake Morgan Sep 15 '19 at 16:12
  • 2
    @DukeJakeMorgan That feeling of lack of democracy, is certainly a symptom and a part of the cause for the lack of emotional self identification with the EU. The structure of the EU institutions and the role the parliament has in decision making certainly don't help much with building that feeling of identity and make the EU rather "remote". The lack of EU level figure heads that are worthy for tabloid head lines and pub talk is one such aspect. Interestingly Brexit allowed for some EU representatives to actually "grow" in the public perception a bit. – Frank Hopkins Sep 15 '19 at 20:05
  • 17
    @DukeJakeMorgan - The potential financial benefits of Brexit have been demonstrated to be a sham. The "distance" from EU democracy has more to do with the press refusing to report on what the EU does except in wholy negative ways. And the fact is, the EU does invest money in the regions of the UK which are mostly ignored by Westminster. Oh, and (this bears constant repetition), EU FoM rules include restrictions which the UK govt consistently refused to implement. Because the UK needs immigration. And Brexit will not change that. – GeoffAtkins Sep 16 '19 at 04:59
  • 1
    @GeoffAtkins If one does the mathematics they'll find that the financial benefits stated in the leave campaign are negligible. However, it would have been in the minds of the people who live in the towns who once had bustling industrial areas that are now left in ruin, hence why I consider it a benefit because, strictly speaking, it is a benefit not to be paying large sums of money to the EU. It just so happens that the money will not be directed to aiding those towns. It will doubtlessly be spent on feeding matter to the black hole that is the public spending gap the EU used to fill. – Duke Jake Morgan Sep 16 '19 at 10:45
  • @GeoffAtkins I do agree with you on the statement regarding the press. Good news doesn't sell well in the UK, To take a quote from Walter Bagehot's The English Constitution that quite accurately illustrates the biases of the press: "The newspapers only repeat the side their purchasers like: the favourable arguments are setout, elaborated, illustrated; the adverse arguments maimed, misstated, confused.". – Duke Jake Morgan Sep 16 '19 at 10:53
  • @GeoffAtkins the remoteness of the EU's processes is far from an artifact of how it's reported. Whilst the proceedings of the European Parliament are transparent, they don't have the power to propose legislation, only to veto it. Legislation is drafted by the European Commission, who operate in a far more opaque way. I've attempted to find out the origins of European legistlation in the past, and never gotten farther than "The European Commission". My impression is that this is at least partly deliberate, and stems from the EU's goal of being apolitical and technocratic. – James_pic Sep 16 '19 at 11:12
  • 2
    @James_pic nah, it's that way because the national governments want to stay in control (the commissioners are suggested/appointed by the Council of the EU/European council, i.e. the national governments). Which makes it somewhat ironic that the EU is blamed to take away power from the national governments whenever there are supposedly bad laws coming from the EU. – Frank Hopkins Sep 16 '19 at 11:32
  • 4
    Not wanting to be controlled by somebody else is an emotional decision? It seems you're using some very specific meaning of "rational" in your answer. – Luaan Sep 16 '19 at 11:32
  • 3
    Of course it takes power away from the national governments, just like your power is taken away through the representatives you elected. It's a voluntary trade-off, but it's definitely loss of power. In the end, your nation's representatives only have a limited amount of power, because there's other nation's representatives too, deciding about things that used to be internal matters. – Luaan Sep 16 '19 at 11:34
  • 4
    @Luaan there is apparently a willingness to be controlled by somebody else, in the scope of the UK government. The willingness to consider the UK a body that is fine to be ruled by, but the EU not is primarily emotional. – Frank Hopkins Sep 16 '19 at 11:37
  • 1
    @Luaan Yes it does in principle, yet the core power still resides with the national governments and the EU is often merely the proxy through which it all goes through, though agreed they have to agree with other governments to push something through. It opens a backdoor for governments to create legislation. And given that the EU is supposed to take over responsibility, the power-shift is rather small given this construct. Plus the "bad stuff" typically was approved by the national government anyway (or even initiated). That's why this criticism has an ironic touch. – Frank Hopkins Sep 16 '19 at 12:34
  • 1
    I think the reason why UK in particular has such a complicated relationship with EU is in its political structure. In UK politics is about winning, tyranny of majority derived from the FPTP-voting system and tradition of being ruled by strong men and women. In EU, and in rest of the Europe, democracy is about consensus and compromise. In regular country, UKIP/Brexit party would have approximately quarter of the seats in parliament and would be sanitized out of daily politics. It's easy to see EU as undemocratic when 51% can't overrule the 49% as in Proper democracy (c.f. USA as well). – Geenimetsuri Sep 16 '19 at 14:25
  • @Geenimetsuri the first past the post system usually leads to tyranny of the minority. As every UK government since the 30s demonstrates. – Jontia Dec 13 '19 at 19:16
35

There are multiple reasons.

Financial gains (updated)

According to a press release from Channel 4's Dispatches:

Funds betting against British businesses:

Dispatches also reveals how some hedge funds have built up huge bets against British business and hoping to make big profits if the economy hits the rocks after Brexit.

Dispatches reveals that the US investment firm Blackrock holds the most bets against British business totalling more than £1bn. Blackrock has paid former Chancellor and key remain campaigner George Osborne more than a £1m since 2016.

The hedge fund run by leading Brexiteer Crispin Odey is betting almost £500m against British businesses. Odey made more than £200m on the night of the referendum by betting that the value of the pound would plummet.

The source used for the part below has been disputed in the comments linking to this article on fullfact.org. The old part is stated below, but as outlined by fullfact.org, the source does not seem to have sufficient evidence to back up figures used on the number of short positions taken out against British businesses.

Some people may stand to make money over a no-deal Brexit. The simplest way to argue for this taking short positions on stocks that will be badly affected by a no-deal Brexit and then trying to make sure that outcome is reached.

The Byline Times recently published an article on this in relation to Brexit:

Currently, £8,274,350,000 (£8.3 billion) of aggregate short positions has been taken out by hedge funds connected to the Prime Minister and his Vote Leave campaign, run by his advisor Dominic Cummings, on a ‘no deal’ Brexit.

Less regulation

This is actually a point that may be easier outside the EU on a no-deal basis. Within the EU or inside some customs arrangement, the UK will have to conform to some (or many, depending on the type of arrangements) EU regulations. On the whole, that's a good thing, but there may well be sectors where less regulation is good for some business. An example may be shady banks that are fairly strictly regulated after the financial crisis of 2008, something no-deal Brexit Britain may choose to relax. Another is about corporate tax, they could try to become a tax haven (see this Reuters article touching on that). Not necessarily good for the UK as a whole, but possibly beneficial for those businesses.

Credibility, not wanting to admit having misled voters

A lot of politicians campaigned / supported for Brexit, some before the referendum (e.g. PM Boris, Brexit Party leader Farage) and some afterwards (former Conservative leader and PM Theresa May, Opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn). Coming back from that position may be hard electorally, as it means admitting having supported something that cannot be delivered.

Electoral difficulties

Since many people have bought into Brexit (it was advertised a certain way, they will not settle for not getting it) and still want it. Especially if you consider that many people who have never really been involved with politics may have come to because of Brexit-related promises, abandoning the project altogether may be political suicide (as other parties will still try to profit from those voters).

Community
  • 1
JJJ
  • 39,094
  • 10
  • 121
  • 182
30

Disclaimer: I'm not a Brit. I think Brexit is a bad idea, but by now I almost hope they'd leave Europe and not just the EU, sailing away into the Atlantic ...

Think of the long term.

For decades, many important EU members have worked towards an ever closer union. This was no comfortable fit for the UK, which has caused endless squabbling about opt-outs, rebates, and other special cases.
Some of the new EU members share the British concerns, but they're too dependent on subsidies and market access to go their nationalist way. The UK can go it alone and if they really don't like the EU integration, they should take the consequences.

Read Yellowhammer carefully.

There won't be famine. There will be shortages and price increases of some ingredients. Comsumers in Western countries have gotten used to fresh lettuce on the supermarket shelves year-round, but that's not necessary for a healthy diet.
Price increases will hurt some people, who have trouble of making ends meet now, but UK society as a whole can easily weather the cost. It is up to the UK to increase welfare etc. to keep up with the prices.
There could be problems if vital medicines are stuck in a giant traffic jam. The way around that would be drastic government intervention, clearing some ferry ports for priority traffic only. I believe there are some Cold War plans they could dig out.

Unicorns and Backstops.

There could have been an almost-workable Brexit, or at least one which mitigates the obvious problems. That would have required a transitional agreement and significant steps towards the final agreement within the two year period. But that would have required a realistic plan by the Brexiteers, ready for negotiation the day after the referendum.

  • The Backstop problem is fundamentally unsolvable as long as there is integrity of the EU27 internal market, no visible border between NI and the RoI, integrity of the UK-NI internal market, and no free trade agreement between the UK and the EU27.
    If the first and second issue are EU27 red lines, and the second and third issue are UK red lines, that requires at least free trade in goods and regulatory compatibility across the border.
  • The UK economy is heavily dependent on financial services. Some Brexiteers had planned to boost the financial sector by deregulation and tax cuts, but the sector depends in part on easy access to EU financial markets. The Brexiteers should have made financial sector access a priority, and they should have been prepared to make concessions elsewhere to secure it.
  • Brexiteer negotiators seem to have bet much on the assumption that the EU is all about backroom deals, and that the German car industry could coerce Berlin and that Berlin could coerce the rest of the EU. What we are seeing is the EU27 backing the Republic of Ireland (as the most affected EU27 member). The Brexiteers should have had a contingency plan for that.
Community
  • 1
o.m.
  • 108,520
  • 19
  • 265
  • 393
  • What was the German car industry/Berlin/Germany assumed to coerce the EU into? – nwp Sep 16 '19 at 07:44
  • 8
    @nwp Brexiteers believed that threat of UK market closing to German auto-mobile companies is enough to make those companies bully German government into strong-arming entire EU into agreeing to whatever London wants. To say that brexiteers overestimated their negotiating position would be an understatement, and only one of long list of things on which they were ridiculously wrong. – M i ech Sep 16 '19 at 07:49
  • @nwp, accepting many/most/all Brexiteer demands, in exchange for being allowed to export cars to the UK. – o.m. Sep 16 '19 at 07:49
  • @RedSonja, I guess that's because of the distance. I will be affected, but it won't be a vital issue for me (unless the UK talks the EU into self-destructing for their benefit). – o.m. Sep 16 '19 at 10:42
  • The "German Car" argument suffers from one minor flaw. Dieselgate has made quite a few non-German countries unhappy with the German car industry. – MSalters Sep 16 '19 at 11:34
  • @MSalters It doesn't sound wise to generalize the problem of one company to the whole country's industry. Or were car manufacturers other than VW involved? – Dmitry Grigoryev Sep 16 '19 at 13:14
  • Nothing needed to be "ready for negotiation the day after the referendum" (although a sanely organised referendum would have been based around a detailed proposal, such as the Scottish indy-ref had). The negotiation goals only needed to be ready on the day after the Article 50 notification. – Peter Taylor Sep 16 '19 at 13:43
  • 2
    @DmitryGrigoryev: Besides VW, the VAG group also had issues with some Audi A3's. BMW had a smaller issue that was quickly settled for an $8M fine. All German car companies had lobbied (legally and successfully) for weaker diesel standards, so many countries were already unhappy before the cheating was discovered. – MSalters Sep 16 '19 at 14:34
  • I think the whole "german car industry" is a proxy soundbite to reflect the difference between UK imports and exports to the EU. Everyone else will be unhappy "treasure island" stops being such a cash cow as before and will demand trade conditions as close to pre-Brexit ones. – gbjbaanb Sep 16 '19 at 15:20
  • @PeterTaylor, prolonged uncertainty is bad for the economy and the people. As the "anti status quo" side of the talks, it was up to the Brexiteers to have an initial draft of their position ready on referendum day, including a realistic appreciation of likely EU27 red lines and possible tradeoffs. – o.m. Sep 16 '19 at 15:55
  • 1
    @MSalters, I'm not saying that the German automotive companies control Berlin. I'm saying that the Brexiteer position seems to have been based on this assumption. – o.m. Sep 16 '19 at 15:56
  • @MSalters BMW's $8M fine is laughable compared to e.g. Chrysler's $800M fine, so your argument sounds a bit like cherry-picking. – Dmitry Grigoryev Sep 18 '19 at 08:15
20

Because the choice was put to public referendum, and the British people voted "Leave".

It's just that simple. The David Cameron government put the question to popular vote in a high-stakes public referendum. Those in power thought the people would vote Remain and that would allow any popular resistance to complete integration into the EU, and to the change from a British national identity to a European identity, to be more effectively de-legitimized.

But much to the surprise of nearly everyone in power in the UK, Leave won. So now the UK needs to leave. What would it mean if the government refused to respect the referendum, because most people in power didn't like the result?

The government must go through with it now. If they don't follow through with the referendum result on such a visible and important issue, it will mean that the government does not actually respect the democratic process at all.

wberry
  • 2,061
  • 13
  • 18
  • 14
    In other words, Democracy means never being able to change your mind? – Harry Johnston Sep 15 '19 at 19:46
  • 15
    In this case, 'changing your mind' would properly be in the form of having another referendum after some amount of time, after the Leave vote is faithfully followed and implemented. Not as some would apparently have it here, to keep voting until the public 'gets it right'. – wberry Sep 16 '19 at 01:32
  • 11
    So you're happy to have another referendum, so long as it is already too late for it to make any difference? (Seriously, why would it be improper to hold another referendum now that the public knows what they are actually voting for?) – Harry Johnston Sep 16 '19 at 02:26
  • 3
    ... I mean, if Parliament had asked for a new referendum immediately after the first one, I'd see your point. But it has been more than three years. – Harry Johnston Sep 16 '19 at 02:29
  • 2
    Democracy is being used as a weasel-word in many cases. The UK is a representative democracy, not a direct one. Referenda do not fit into the scheme. This referendum was hijacked by populisten with agendas of their own. Chaos ensued. – RedSonja Sep 16 '19 at 07:16
  • 2
    @RedSonja Considering that UK is "Unitary Parliamentary Constitutional Monarchy" without written constitution and upper chamber of parliament which is undemocratic no matter how you look at it, I'd say that UK's relationship with democracy is very strenuous already. – M i ech Sep 16 '19 at 07:55
  • 4
    @RedSonja - I agree with you, however, whether or not you like the idea of a referendum becomes irrelevant if you've already held one. – komodosp Sep 16 '19 at 08:19
  • 12
    It's hard to understand why a "Are you sure?" check on the detail before taking a final, irrevocable step is undemocratic. – jcupitt Sep 16 '19 at 08:41
  • 3
    Or for that matter - a second vote once the substance of the matter has become clear. I mean, there was a very broad spread of promises in the Leave campaign manifesto, and some of which have turned out to be impossible. – Sobrique Sep 16 '19 at 09:27
  • 1
    Additionally, if you can ignore/rerun the Brexit referendum, then do you do the same for IndyRef? It strengthens the case for scottish independence. – Phil Sep 16 '19 at 11:17
  • 4
    @jcupitt Because you're moving the goalposts. If this was part of the referendum from the beginning, there would be nothing wrong with that. The referendum was poorly designed, but that was the thing that was put forward, and must be adhered to. You can get people to "direct vote" for anything if you don't have restrictions on things like when can be another referendum on the same topic etc. Especially if all you need is the agreement of 50% of people who actually come to vote (which, of course, is one of the ways the referendum was poorly designed!). – Luaan Sep 16 '19 at 11:39
  • British people voted bad and on bad information... unfortunately you do not see the benefits of something until you do not have it any more... – albanx Sep 16 '19 at 12:57
  • 1
    @Luaan A choice between a government which disrespects the vote of the people and a government which lets the people vote on the promises it can't fulfil is a tough one. – Dmitry Grigoryev Sep 16 '19 at 13:34
  • 2
    @HarryJohnston the 2016 referendum was the 2nd referendum. The first one was in 1973. Maybe in 2059 we'll have another. – gbjbaanb Sep 16 '19 at 14:52
  • 3
    @HarryJohnston To have a further referendum after faithfully implementing Brexit would be too late to interrupt the Brexit mandate - elections have consequences - but I doubt it will ever be too late to rejoin the EU. I'm sure the EU would love to reacquire the UK as a territory^Wmember state any time. – wberry Sep 18 '19 at 11:45
  • [My initial reaction was, in retrospect, off-topic here; I've deleted it. Apologies, and I'll get back to you when I've got time to respond more thoughtfully.] – Harry Johnston Sep 18 '19 at 18:12
  • 2
    @HarryJohnston I think the point here is that there are people who will answer "should we leave the EU?" with "no", but simultaneously answer "given that we have already voted to leave the EU, should we leave the EU?" with "yes". – Allure Sep 19 '19 at 04:49
  • 1
    @Allure, I'm sure there are, but it isn't a particularly sensible position IMO. – Harry Johnston Sep 19 '19 at 09:58
  • 2
    @HarryJohnston It's a perfectly sensible position, because it is the most democratic position. Such a person might disagree with the outcome, but wants the democratic outcome to be respected. That's the truly democratic spirit! – Sjoerd Sep 19 '19 at 19:09
  • 1
    @Sjoerd, how is it democratic to ignore the wishes of the people now in favour of the wishes of the people three years ago? – Harry Johnston Sep 19 '19 at 21:22
  • wberry, OK, let me try this again. Firstly, I have considerable sympathy for Brexiteers who want to regain Britain's autonomy and protect Britain's cultural values, and if you think this is worth the economic damage and other risks of a no-deal Brexit, that's a judgement call and I'm not going to try to argue about it. And if 50%+ of the British people agreed with you, then that's OK (1) but I don't think this is true. The risks of Brexit aren't mitigated in any meaningful way by the proposition that Britain could in principle rejoin at some point in the future, so that's irrelevant. – Harry Johnston Sep 19 '19 at 21:26
  • ... to argue that Britain can't change its mind, and you have to go ahead with Brexit no matter what because "elections have consequences" seems neither democratic nor logically or ethically sound. (Footnote 1: well, it raises issues about the nature of the Union; probably the criteria should be 50%+ in each of the four countries, but that's a quibble.) – Harry Johnston Sep 19 '19 at 21:30
  • 1
    @HarryJohnston how is it democratic to ignore the wishes of the people now in favour of the wishes of the people three years ago - this actually happens all the time in democracies everywhere, e.g. when a party wins an election, it forms the government for the next ~5 years, not until opinion polls indicates that it will lose an election if one were called right now. In other words, we ignore the wishes of the people now in favour of the wishes of the people when the elections were conducted. – Allure Sep 23 '19 at 06:54
  • @Allure, for practical reasons, and because as a general rule the government doesn't do anything the next government couldn't undo if it wanted to. Not the same thing as a potentially irreversible major constitutional change. – Harry Johnston Sep 23 '19 at 06:56
  • @HarryJohnston First, I don't consider this irreversible - the UK could always apply to rejoin the EU after leaving it. Second, even these potentially irreversible processes happen all the time and countries abide by them, e.g. South Sudan independence referendum was planned in 2010, conducted in 2011, and today's South Sudan abides by the democratic choices of the people who voted 8 years ago. – Allure Sep 23 '19 at 07:13
  • 2
    @Allure, are you seriously comparing 98.8% "yes" vote with 97.6% turnout to Brexit's 52% "leave" vote with 70% turnout? Because one of these things is not like the other - only a tad over a quarter of the British people actually voted Leave. – Harry Johnston Sep 23 '19 at 10:52
  • ... plus, of course, unlike the South Sudanese independence referendum, the Brexit referendum was supposed to be non-binding. – Harry Johnston Sep 23 '19 at 10:58
  • 1
    @HarryJohnston Yes, I'm seriously comparing the two; the turnout and vote count has nothing to do with the principle. If you dislike this example, you can take your pick of many other referendums in history, e.g. the 1948 referendums for Newfoundland to join Canada. The people of Newfoundland today abide by the democratic choices of the people who voted 71 years ago. – Allure Sep 23 '19 at 11:36
  • @Allure, of course the turnout and vote count matter, and if the people of Newfoundland wanted independence from Canada I'm sure the Canadian government would allow them to hold a referendum to reverse their previous decision. But more to the point, nobody disagrees that Parliament have the right to dismiss the government and call early elections, so by your own analogy they should also have the right to hold another referendum. Other democracies do this differently, but there is almost always some recall method. We're allowed to change our minds. Otherwise it isn't really democracy. – Harry Johnston Sep 23 '19 at 18:15
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – Allure Sep 23 '19 at 22:13
12

Besides the (oft repeated) argument of implementing the will of the people from the referendum, in more realpolitik terms, Boris Johnson has hitched his wagon to the "do [Brexit] or die" slogan. And he said it pretty often. It's hard to take back something like that.

After the EU election of this summer, in which the Conservative party came 5th, it has recovered substantially in voting intention (for a general election) following Johnson's election to the Conservative leadership, who campaigned on the aforementioned platform.

A number of Conservative commentators are egging Johnson to take Farage's offer of a pact, which entails Johnson endorsing no-deal Brexit in return for the Brexit Party not contesting the seats the Conservatives are likely to win. For now Johnson, at least publicly, still sticks to his line that he will likely get a last-minute deal, on more favorable terms than what Theresa May got from the EU. (Actually, two days ago, Johnson has even publicly rejected, through his spokesperson, Farage's offer.)

the gods from engineering
  • 158,594
  • 27
  • 390
  • 806
7

TL;DR: Because that’s what the result of the referendum was, and the main parties promised to honour this.

Below I delve more into the content of this question as it was when I posted this answer.

The only reason, politically, I can conceive is to allow the Tory party to square off the Brexit Party and siphon off all their votes

The Tory party are not the only ones still backing Brexit. The leader of the opposition is a long-term Brexit advocate (until recently), and only this week did the Liberal Democrat’s even start considering moving away from honouring Brexit entirely.

The Brexit party, obviously, support Brexit, as does UKIP.

I think the main reason, politically, to support Brexit, is because the main parties promised they would honour the result of the referendum.

Labour — seek to unite the country around a Brexit deal that works for every community in Britain.

Conservative — We will honour the referendum result and leave the EU.

The reasons they did this are: - because lots of their voters (and members) supported Brexit in the initial referendum - because lots of their voters (and members) still support Brexit today - because a referendum is the essence of asking people. The MPs ignoring the opinion of the voters is not a good look.

support for Scottish Independence has gone up

I agree, that’s bad.

Welsh Independence has a sharp increase in support

Also bad, although, for many reasons, much, much less likely than Scottish independence.

the Yellowhammer Papers outline near-paralysis on the imports of Medicine and Food

This is one of the most misleading statements I’ve seen regarding the Yellowhammer papers. Let me quote the relevant sections. Regarding food:

these two factors will not cause an overall shortage of food in the U.K.

And from the section on medical supplies:

unmitigated this will have an impact on the supply of medicines

But just one paragraph later:

DHSC is developing a multi-layered approach to mitigate these risks.

That’s not a near paralysis, at all. I’m not sure what part of that sounds like a near paralysis!

it even states that people that are under the most financial strain will more disadvantaged than the rest of the citizenry

I can’t see where it says this, can you point out which paragraph it is?

the NI/ROI border issue hasn't been solved

Probably the biggest reason against Brexit right now.

there is a high possibility to a recession brought on by the US-China trade war as well as the uncertainty brought on by Brexit (and no deal).

Recessions happen pretty regularly, every 10 years. Perhaps Brexit brought this recession forward by 2 years, perhaps it didn’t. Uncertainty around Brexit is an excellent reason to get on with exiting, rather than delay upon delay.

As the Government is pressing on with what looks like the only Brexit the UK is getting, a no-deal Brexit

Notably, this wasn’t cited, because the government has repeatedly and consistently expressed their strong aversion to no deal. Perhaps that’s what’s going to happen, but I think it’s fairly safe to say this is not the government’s aim:

I've made it absolutely clear I don't want no deal and that we've got to get rid of the backstop from the treaty
— Boris Johnson

The disadvantages outweigh the advantages previously stated in the 2016 referendum

You’ve not listed a single advantage in your question - I’m not sure how you can conclude that they are outweighed (or how anyone could - how does one quantitatively measures the value of sovereignty, or an open NI/RoI border?).

and all but no deal has been thrown out of the window

See the point above about the governments attitude towards no deal.

Brexit will do the opposite to what was promised in the official campaign

Is Brexit going to do the opposite of what was promised?

when it will do so much damage to the UK

I’ll end on this - I’ll repeat a metaphor I used in the comments here. Conjoined twins are difficult to separate, and it can be very risky. But you still go through with those risks, and that difficulty, because the rewards for both parties are so large it’s worth the risk. We have to decide whether the risks are greater than the reward - and that’s not an easy task. That’s what the referendum was for.

Tim
  • 1,954
  • 2
  • 14
  • 24
-2

Brexit votes were motivated by Sovreignty, Immigration, Cultural and Anti-Establishment concerns. http://csi.nuff.ox.ac.uk/?p=1153

Here are some reasons for the referendum result: "The Auditors conclude that the EU commission must work more closely with the people for decisions". It isn't a priority, the headline on Europa.eu was removed after one day. EU plebiscite-aversion is the root of Brexit.

The EU commission doesn't enshrine "pilot schemes" to test laws, nor "citizen commissions/committees" to research them. The EU isn't a "direct democracy" and does not enshrine "direct plebiscite representation" as one of it's goals. It is an "politician's democracy" (archaic democracy)

The results of a commoner-averse commission:

The EURO Currency: 500 notes are a mafia dream, and mostly used for illegal trade... 500 notes were erased after 20 years of criminal use. US/UK/Japan don't have 500 notes for a reason, not even 200 notes. 500 note folly is an EU symbol of political meddling in academic planning and failed policy. https://www.euronews.com/2019/01/28/cash-out-eurozone-banks-stop-issuing-500-note-in-fight-against-crime

The Euro coins were a hurried and impatient project... no pilot schemes, no popular endorsement, like the NZ flag competition, they are locally unpopular and confusing for color blind users (5% of the population). (identical brass colors, identical round shapes. People even confuse the 1 and 2 euro coins after a long day because they look identical except for the size). https://science.slashdot.org/story/02/07/11/1352234/euro-coins-test-for-color-blindness I'll do a test on the street to see which french people say "they franc was worse! (0%).

The Common agricultural policy was improperly planned, encouraging set-aside land instead of chemical-free land. farmers were paid for growing nothing. The 30 billion spent on the CAP was highly contentius and has had many reforms. https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/environmental/b/environmentalregulation/posts/the-european-union-39-s-common-agricultural-policy

The cookie consent policy was incompletely planned, consent forms are unformatted, it risks viruses via form-fatigue. https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/192943/are-eu-cookie-consent-forms-safe

The macro-economic policy was badly policed(unlimited lending): private German banks lend Greeks, Spanish 150 billion. https://www.thelocal.de/20180621/germany-made-billions-on-greeces-debt-crisis-berlin-confirms https://actions.sumofus.org/a/goldman-made-450-million-euros-from-crashing-the-greek-economy-it-should-return-the-profits

Ebike law, a green law, rated ebikes lower than all other regions of the planet, less than Japan, India, USA, Canada, Switzerland. 250w is fine for Brussels, which is flat. Countries like Belgium have added stronger ebike legislation for S-Pedelecs, while S-Pedelecs are illegal in the French/Italian/Austrian Alps, the Pyrenees, Scotland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_bicycle_laws#Europe

Politicians have radicalized the people, by refusing to cooperate for popular consencus. The UK govt asked for unrestricted market with restricted migration, and the EU refused from the start. The rest of the negotiation was negative. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36641383

My the way, I am a centrist French and Scottish-English brexiteer: pro-single-market / anti-single-citizenship. I have respect for Ireland and their ancient border. I also respect a lot of fresh thinking that the EU has brought to the UK.

The base premise for the EURO has been mitigated by the internet: instant digital translation of language and currency-font-conversion... withdrawal using credit cards, The EURO needn't be physical. The computers can make a virtual EURO without needing a physical one! I personally loved the experience of foreign currencies, Francs, Lira, Drachma. Who would to travel everywhere without a credit card? https://www.pymnts.com/news/cross-border-commerce/2016/internet-cross-border-trade/

The military premise for the EU is obsolete, from a world of printed press with black-and-white TV, independent from NATO (1949), predating nuclear deterrence (1950), predating the internet(1995), predating digital culture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO

The EU doesn't tax chemical foods or subsidize natural foods because of lobbies. The EU doesn't tax plastic use for packaging because of lobbies. The EU doesn't tax immoral foods like foreign coffee, tea, bananas, to develop exploited nations, because of lobbies.

EU institutions employ 4300 translators and 800 interpreters as full-time workers. The constitution is written in three official languages, German, French, English, which are translated for negotiation, like Chinese whispers. Imagine that US law had to to be translated from German and french to English sentence by sentence by very bored translators, and back again, only for the drafting, let alone the final result? it would be much less efficient. (This is translated from german: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/ma3.html)

The cultural ideals of the EU date from the 60's and they are controversial: multi-culture society does not simplify society. Why unrestricted society's complexity? https://www.ft.com/content/dd122a8c-8720-11e7-8bb1-5ba57d47eff7 Jews took 1800 years to avoid EU integration, resulting in Hitlers racial policy... Cultures do not assimilate, so what will be the utopia result of inviting 100 million Muslims to Europe? Are you sure that your children will not regret the decisions you make today, that their cities will feel home to them as they did to you, will your children feel alienated in their own country? perhaps, yes. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/happiness_formula/5012478.stm

The EU has relegated world development and green issues far below it's own prosperity, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969718343420 as evidenced by the lack of tax on plastic, tea, coffee, bananas, and other world-devastating goods.

Bhutan, Norway, Sweden, and isolated nations are often the kindest and most peaceful nations, like a village far from a main road... Trade-routes tend to be complicated, segregated, violent... Mohammad came from a trade-route culture, Buddha was from Nepal, nations like Syria, Guatemala, North Korea, Iran, have more border movement and are naturally more violent. Borders of military transgression, like Northern Ireland, occupy the same footing in EU law as Physical borders, like the Alps, The channel, The Pyrenees.

bandybabboon
  • 2,918
  • 1
  • 11
  • 19
  • 4
    This looks like an answer to "why did the UK vote to leave the EU in the first place", not "why is the government still going ahead with it". – F1Krazy Sep 16 '19 at 05:57
  • 7
    It's not an answer, it's a rant. Let's see some citations for all those assertions. – RedSonja Sep 16 '19 at 07:19
  • Ok thanks, it's a fair point. updated. The Yellowhammer project is tangential to the motivations of the brexit voters, which were not primarily economic... A hammer is a dangerous weapon, so the military operation code of "YellowHammer" is similar to "Weapons of Mass Destruction"... The counter arguments against Bush and Blair were the same despite their WMD project. – bandybabboon Sep 16 '19 at 09:09
  • legally, a court of appeal reviews the original evidence in light of new evidence, the new evidence being a recent treasury report which had a threatening name widely communicated by the media. – bandybabboon Sep 16 '19 at 09:28
  • re " ... , like the NZ flag competition, they are locally unpopular ..." -> The majority of us like the new NZ flag just fine thanks :-). The Auckland harbour bridge flies the old flag on one side and the new one on the other. They may swap sides occasionally. Who can tell? :-) – Russell McMahon Sep 18 '19 at 03:02
  • Precisely. . The NZ flag was based on citizen's wishes, and there is masses of information about the NZ flag. I can find no independent audit or designer information for the Euro coins. There is nearly zero information online about "who designed the euro coin"... who were the designer(s)? Were citizens involved in a pilot scheme? why are the coins used as a test for colorblindness?... I find them very frustrating to differentiate after 11 years of using them, i am still very slow at seeing euro coins and using them. 5% colorblind people means that 20 million people in the EU have the same. – bandybabboon Sep 18 '19 at 08:44
  • It's incredibly amusing to me how adamantly you are against the €500 banknotes. They are worth approximately as much as the old German DM1000 banknote and voices in Germany have been loudly in favour of them (many suspecting that this would be a first step towards eliminating cash altogether). Many Germans are blaming the EU for their abolition in a way not unlike your answer lays blame on the EU for their introduction. (Didn't vote on the answer just came across it and giggled.) – Jan May 20 '22 at 13:03
  • Yes it was a French investigation doncumentary that claimed that 75% of €500 notes are used for criminal reasons, thats why i think they are outragrous. C'est outrageant :) – bandybabboon May 20 '22 at 13:33