CNN: Why would anyone trust Brexit Britain again? Just seven months after singing its praises, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is attempting to rewrite the Brexit deal he signed with the European Union.

CNN: Why would anyone trust Brexit Britain again? Just seven months after singing its praises, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is attempting to rewrite the Brexit deal he signed with the European Union.


The oven-ready deal is done, baked off and eaten off. No going back BoJo, these are the “teething” problems to get through. Go to Gov.uk, download the forms like you say. Off we go wooo


Imagine being the DUP, first getting the £1B and then realize you shafted yourself in a position so intractable that _rioting_ is used as leveridge by UK. "The deal i said was great is actually v bad leading to riots, now change it". Who in their right mind thinks this is good politics?


I call this Whack-A-Mole politics, dealing with each disaster as it pops up and always being one step behind.


Aka: incompetence


Can’t say that buddy, nor can you call a liar, a liar.


Yes you can. You just have to accept you may be suspended from the House of Commons.


Only in parliament. Outside of that he's a bald faced lier and should suffer the consequences the same as in his other jobs.


So, none then?


In Borisland it's always 'nonezees'. 'Ooooo, nonezees, no consequences for me!' '' Hey, did you know the earth is flat? 'I'm King of the moooooon!'


I think you're supposed to describe it as OODA loops. Calling it whack-a-mole just makes it sound like a ridiculous, incompetent shitshow...


OODA loops are proactive, not reactive.


Cummings literally said that in his interview. Something like "we were trying to deal with the problems in the order that we could" (also [Boris] "doesn't have a plan, he doesn't know how to be prime minister and we only got him in there because we had to solve a certain problem not because he was the right person to be running the country")


this is what pisses me off about the DUP & BoJo - the reality warping fuckwittery of their current stance. BoJo and the ERG slated May's backstop - used that to oust her - went to the polls with an "oven ready deal" and now complain and blame the EU that the EU want to implement it - the deal they proclaimed was great & the UK having the cake and eating it, was now somehow a dirty EU trick when the reality is for NI the backstop was a much better option ​ The DUP are screeching constantly ever since & literally met with terrorists to incite rioting here is a quote from DUP leader when they "won" brexit vote "We campaigned to leave the EU. This is the democratic decision of the people of the UK. This is a UK-wide decision and every vote is equal within the UK. I am proud of the fact that this decision was taken by the people." [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-36614443](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-36614443) ​ well actions have consequences & Brexit was always problematic for NI -NI voted REMAIN but the DUP didnt give a fuck about the majority of NI wishes - they are so deluded they never considered the possibility of a sea border rather than a land border even though it was pointed out by John Major and Tony Blair as a likely outcome and they dismissed it as "project Fear" - now its happened its throw the toys out of the pram they dont accept it with no viable alternative offered. And the Tories for their own motives are indulging these eejits ....


The DUP selected a Young Earth Creationist as leader. They have at best a loose connection to evidence based reasoning.


true enough - the party ousted him too but think thats more to do with their own toxicity rather than his extreme religious beliefs . ​ also the amount they harp on about this sea border being against the Good Friday Agreement - you'd think they weren't opposed to the GFA as they actually were & that the alternative, a land border, would be far more damaging to the GFA than a sea border


And you wouldn't hear a word from them about damaging the GFA if the land border option was implemented


That's clearly what they were hoping would happen


They actually opposed it when it was being agreed. You can see Ruth Pattersons reaction here. This is why it's hilarious they champion it now, when it benefits them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEq3c0nbkkg


It has zero to do with his beliefs. A lot of the DUP are Paisley Free Presbyterians. It was because he said he'd implement stuff that had *already been agreed*. Specifically, the Irish Language stuff. Much like Johnson, they believe agreements are made to be broken whenever it suits. Last time they fucked around, they ended up with gay marriage and abortion.


and as is worth noting, the UK gov effectively agreed the ILA in 1972,1973, 1992, 1998, 2005, and again just a few years ago.


> this is what pisses me off about the DUP & BoJo You being pissed off is the sole purpose of their politics. That's what their voters want. It's why they voted for them. They hate you, and they want to make your life a misery. That's why incompetence and irrationality makes their popularity go up. Their supporters don't give a shit about those things, but they do care about annoying you. You are horrified by the irrationality and incompetence, so that's mission accomplished. I'm not sure what the lesson is, other than to stop rising to their obvious bait. It's pointless to get angry. I think we need to keep focussing on how poor policymaking will make their supporters' lives worse. They think they are invulnerable, they think politics has no more impact on their lives than a game of football, that belief enables their whole toxic shit-show. The more they believe they are in fact vulnerable, the more they are forced to admit that politics does actually change things... that's when we might start peeling off some of the less crazy ones from the pack.


The lesson here is, if someone gives you a billion quid for nothing in return, there’s something suspicious.


Plucked from the famous magic money tree too no less.


… aaaand fuck the DUP/UVF.


Aaaand it’s gone (I wish)


The dup deal was by Theresa may. Borris was the one that "got Brexit done" but now all those that where "sick of hearing about it " can start hearing about it again .


One of the many, many hilarious bits is that they never even got the £1B.


Tell me more.


At first I read that as £18 but in real terms per person that's much more relatable. Got an extra £18 in my pocket that's not going to the filthy EU and all it costs me is £36. Job well done /s


The word is "leverage", derived from "lever". (I don't know if you find this helpful but I would appreciate if someone pointed out when I misspelled a word.)


Oven ready deal is still frozen. Kitchen's on fire. Chef's topped themselves.


Chef's ran off with the staff's wages


And someone's wife.


She's run up a £20,000 bill for a sofa.


And wants to redo the wallpaper


You were supposed to remove the plastic before putting it into the oven, damnit!


Bullshit, Boris himself said "prick the lid, gas mark 4".


You could have done that if it came in the aluminium tray that May wanted! I mean, he came up with the new plastic wrapping in the first place, and people warned him that it can't take any heat. He signed off on the new package design that said to remove it, in bold letters, right there in the instructions.


All the money in the picture on the front was just a 'serving suggestion'


It's been thrown in a wicker cage that's supposed to be an end table. And Wilfred is also in it.


Can we put his dad in a wicker cage and hand him over to Scotland..


We have had enough of experts!


Wait are these the same instructions as the ones they sneak in through the back door at No. 11?


The oven ready deal was based on the turkey dinner the Royale Family ate had in the Christmas special...


*Royle :)


Someone's barricaded themself in the walk-in refrigeration unit.


The political equivalent of Nailed It.


It's like buying an oven ready meal, eating it raw, shitting your pants and then trying to bring the turd back to the shop to get your money back.


Firstly - to get it out of the way - in the subject of NI, if I’ve said it once I’ve said it 1,000 times. There are 3 facets to this deal: - No checks on GB-NI/Ni-GB trade - No checks on NI-RoI/RoI-NI trade - (the ability for) regulatory divergence between the U.K. and EU that necessitates the need for checks (there are no countries currently that have zero border checks that aren’t in regulatory alignment). You can only have 2 of them. Having all 3 leaves a dirty great hole in both the EU single market and U.K. market to the detriment of all involved. But, actually, what’s going on doesn’t really have anything to do with Brexit. Whether you voted leave or remain doesn’t really matter. What matters is that Boris and this government are dragging our name through the dirt. I’ll admit this stuff is super complicated and I don’t know the full ins and outs of the deal with the EU. Maybe it is a bad deal. Maybe it has sections and clauses that we should never have agreed to, but the fact is we did agree to it. The fact is that we are trying to alter and renegade in a major international deal mere months after we signed it. It doesn’t matter whether Boris hailed it as a great deal or not. This makes us look incompetent at best and deceitful at worst. Either we didn’t know what we were signing up for in the first place; or we did and planned to renegade on it all along. Either way looks bad. And what must the rest of the world think looking at this debacle. We’ve got a deal in principle with Australia. Surely they must be looking back at it now and wondering if they can even trust us to honour it, and which bits we’re going to change our minds on in a years time.


>I’ll admit this stuff is super complicated and I don’t know the full ins and outs of the deal with the EU. I don't know, i actually feel in terms of the NI protocol it's actually really straight forward as you outlined in the start of your comment. We either check goods between NI and Eire, we check them between NI and the rest of the UK, or we don't check goods at all. The latter is a no-go not just because the EU doesn't want it but because we can't unilaterally decide not to check goods from the EU without a two way agreement otherwise we breach WTO rules. If we check goods at the border between NI and Eire then we spark the Troubles all over again as the Nationalists feel they are being cut off from "their" country. If we check the goods between NI and rest of the UK we spark the Troubles again as the Unionists feel they are being cut off from "their" country. This was always what was going to happen since the moment the results were announced in 2016, it's just that Leave and the government said it wouldn't and Brexiteers believed them.


> We either check goods between NI and Eire, we check them between NI and the rest of the UK, or we don't check goods at all. Pretty spot on in terms of the analysis but on a minor note if you're referring to Ireland in Irish (which is weirdly common only in the UK for some reason) then it's "Éire", not "Eire". I know the accent may not seem terribly important from an English speaking perspective (because there aren't accents in English) but it's as much a misspelling as "the Untied Kingdom" would be. Although the recommended usage is to use the English name (Ireland) when writing in English anyway. Or "Republic of Ireland" if you need to emphasise you mean the country and not the island.


> Leave and the government said it wouldn't and Brexiteers believed them. They know that their attitude requires an exercise of power to assert their supremacy, which will end up being force. They want to bully others, not be part of a community. They’re currently having to pretend that they engage in the mechanisms for a healthy community in good faith, sot hat they can wreck them. They are the perfidious part of Albion, and we’re fools for taking them on trust and letting them scream unfair to get their way.


Tories do not understand the concept of negotiation. They never have done. As far as they're concerned, "everyone's going to do as I say" is negotiation. They're just fine with the idea of a monarch with absolute power, and they only put up with democracy because past experience has shown that sometimes it's necessary to throw the monarch out and replace them - and democracy is a rather less messy way to do it. That's why it took a Labour government to negotiate the GFA - and that's why it's a Tory government that took us out of the EU. That's why they were so against AV.


I've got a 4th option. Check goods between NI and rUK AND check goods between NI and ROI. What could possibly go wrong.....


Not even the government has managed to think of a way to mess things up quite as badly as that yet, you've outdone yourself


I feel so very BRITISH. Thank you old chap for the spiffing feedback.


You could also do that, then agree to maintain regulatory alignment anyway, for the full trifecta.


Nice try, Liz Truss...


Why not have checks to Scotland too? And maybe Wales while we're at it. The Tories told me trade barriers are good? Well let's really go for it and level up our trade barriers!


>If we check goods at the border between NI and Eire then we spark the Troubles all over again as the Nationalists feel they are being cut off from "their" country. Also, and kind of importantly, no country or authority could 'check goods' at every RoI/NI border crossing. Partly because there's a fuck load of road but also there are fields, air and rivers, and also the people on either side would not have it.


Well said. Exactly this. Our reputation around the world is in tatters. we’re completely untrustworthy and a total joke.


Look at Boris Johnson's life. I don't think he's ever learned that his bad faith actions have negative consequences. So he will continue to wing it, even on a geopolitical scale. He's consistently moved onwards and upwards in the world despite doing bad things and hurting people. Sadly he probably won't even learn from this experience, such is his sense of exceptionalism, but the rest of the country will.


Said it for yeara hes failed upwards his whole life


I agree, however despite his many failings, the British public gave him the most powerful position in the country. This entire mess says just as much about modern Britain as Boris himself.


Yup, Democracy doesn't always work


Probably says more about our broken political system rather than the people; most people don't have the time, energy or brains needed to protect themselves from being games by the system, and that's probably true of all countries. It's just that some have better systems in place that are harder to exploit.


This is it, this is why he's 'worse Trump'. Trump was terrible, sometimes deliberately, sometimes just pure incompetence, but bold-faced about it but says it's all great and everything he does is awesome and eventually enough of the people he's fooled slowly realise it's not true because direct evidence. Boris does very similar, but his response is 'oops lol I suck at this sorrryyy' and all his voters take it as charming and oh isn't he trying his best, and let him keep going...


Actually I don’t know if this is true. Trump still has the second largest amount of votes casted for any president in US history. So I don’t actually think Trump voters changed their mind on him at all. If anything he became more popular even after the shitshow that was his 4 years of presidency


He also became more hated by a lot of people and that's why he lost


Sadly that hate will not be sustained and an "improved"-conservative candidate will likely win the next election.


I honestly wouldnt put it past the Republicans to bring back Trump for 2024.


If he’s alive and decides to run, he’ll demand that there won’t even be a primary. He’ll likely get it too, they’re that afraid to stand up to him. Hopefully he’ll be in prison long before then, frankly along with most of the Republicans planning on trying to run in 2024. They all deserve it, either for their support for the coup attempt or their actions around covid that amount to mass murder.


That is just a factor of population increase and a more politicized society. He got killed his second time out. Sure 35-40% of voting Americans are fucking lost but trump got less popular. We won seats in GA for example, because of trump.


> largest Because the population keeps growing. Others have had a larger *proportion* of the vote than Trump. *edit: Look at [this map of Richard Nixon's win in 1972](https://www.electoralmap.net/PastElections/past_elections.php?year=1972)


But he still lost - that's the scary part, just forging ahead anyway doing whatever seems to work for both and reinforce the core supporters, just the final dressing is different, blatant vs token appeasement, which seems to affect the fringe fence-sitters.


>But he still lost - He lost because the rest of the country united around a singular party and candidate to defeat him and the Republicans. The UK could learn a lesson from that, but we wont. That would involve compromise and accepting that you cant get everything you want.


>Boris does very similar, but his response is 'oops lol I suck at this sorrryyy' and all his voters take it as charming Boris Johnson, the Hugh Grant RomCom of politics? Blergh.


> I don't think he's ever learned that his bad faith actions have negative consequences Because for him they literally don't. Fired for lying? Made Mayor of London. Caught lying again? Made Prime Minister. Cheated on wife? Got another one. And another. Affair exposed? Con +4. Former SpAd exposes his secrets? Landslide election win. At this point if he straight up murders a child on live television he'll get made honorary PM for life rather than face any punishment.


When he was at Eton, one of the teachers gave a report on him, saying he was incredibly entitled and narcissistic. How entitled and narcissistic do you have to be, for a **teacher at Eton** to say that about you. To the people paying the fees.




Forever twirling, twirling towards success!


I’m inclined to believe that he knows full well what he’s doing. I don’t believe he’s as much of the idiot as he makes himself out to be


I don't think he's an idiot, necessarily. Just someone who's never been chastened and so believes he's untouchable. So he probably fully intended to renege on this deal even when he was agreeing it. And I don't think he has a purpose, other than to rule for the sake of it and get to next week. So he agrees things like this to put off dealing with intractable problems. Fully believe Cummings on this.




We know he fully intended to reneg. The proof is the way the ERG all turned from hating to supporting the deal overnight back in Oct 19. He promised them all the things they hated would never be implemented.


He's not an idiot but everything his done he's got through by blagging and not paying attention to details. For example he apperently didn't write essays at uni as the teacher would get him to read them out loud so he'd just make stuff up on the spot. So he's just saying what he thinks people wants to hear and just assuming saying it will be fine.


Link for him not bothering to write essays etc? Would love to read.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/85fc694c-9222-11e9-b7ea-60e35ef678d2 I just reread and it wasn't actually Johnson, The relevant section is "One thing you learnt at Oxford (even if you weren’t in the Union) was how to speak without much knowledge. Underprepared students would spend much of a tutorial talking their way around the holes in their essay. Cherwell praised Simon Stevens (a Union president in 1987) as “Oxford’s most talented off-the-cuff tutorial faker”: “Recently Simes read out almost half of an essay to his tutor before his partner revealed that he was ‘reading’ from a blank piece of paper.” Stevens is now chief executive of the National Health Service, appointed in 2013 under health secretary Jeremy Hunt, his Oxford contemporary. Johnson just missed his First. His tutor Jonathan Barnes recalls, “If you’re intelligent enough, you can rub along in philosophy on a couple of hours a week. Boris rubbed along on no hours a week, and it wasn’t quite good enough.” Johnson’s sister Rachel said that it later fell to her to “break the terrible news” to Boris that their brother Jo had got a First. (Rachel, Jo and Boris’s first wife Allegra Mostyn-Owen all edited the Oxford magazine Isis.)"


Yeah but the difficulty being in charge of a country is a little beyond the capabilities of 'not an idiot'.


Absolutely, people laugh at goofy and it makes it easier to control people who don't think they can be controlled by an idiot. The irony.


Of course, if he were truly smart then he wouldn't need to resort to such a stupid trick in the first place.


It's a double bluff, he's not as thick as his buffoonish persona might make him appear but he's also not as smart as someone might believe he is based on how successfully he's promoted that persona. He's obviously nowhere near as clever as he thinks he is but that's to be expected given his background. What I really don't get is the people who say "he's doing his best" as if that's in some way uplifting rather than utterly terrifying.


The idiot is a very effective front that allows him to get away with a lot


He's in that really dangerous position where he's not as stupid as he makes himself out to be but also not as smart as he thinks he is.


>but the rest of the country will. Will it? We'll all be paying the price for his games but I'd imagine those who've supported him until now will never accept he is bad. The blame will end up with 'remoaners' for being negative, the EU, Corbyn...there is a long list Johnson & co can divert attention to and enough people will buy it. We could be rioting, starving to death, the whole country on fire, marauding gangs of madmax type characters taking over the motorways and a-roads and French sentries in the channel tunnel to ensure we can't infect them but plenty of people will be content in believing that some evil force that isn't them is behind it all. Boris has been issued a blank cheque by too many people and he is going to write all sorts of crazy numbers on it. If people actually do learn then the tories, Boris, the Murdoch empire and others in the media like him would be sent packing and never been heard from again. But that will never happen, the country will never learn, and this will get worse and worse. And even if things somehow do get better and Britain can be redeemed and brought back from the brink, it will happen again.


If only the promises of "Norway Plus Plus" model were actually meant to be delivered. Q: When do Brexit-supporting politicians lie? A: When they open their mouth. Edit, typo


Object oriented fjords?


There's a programming joke there but I'm in a solid Whoosh. ELI5 please.


There's an object oriented version of the programming language C that is called C++


They do it a lot on paper too.


And on the sides of buses…


>Norway Plus Plus "What's wrong with it? It's stone dead, that's what's wrong with it."


Truss didn't even manage a better Norway deal with Norway.


Norway is for all intents and purposes an EU member state. The EEA agreement integrates the Norwegian economy into the EU Single Market, which includes all the freedom of movements. But it leaves Norway without any of the influence in the EU legislative process. Also, Norway is not part of the EU Customs Union so there is also border friction. I don't understand why a Brexit proponent would want a Norway type relationship with the EU


Because they made things up as the went. Trust a Brexiteer to bother with things like detail and rules.


Tbf, If you lie about the Norway deal then you can make it sound pretty good.


That's what will end up happening. It will get so bad they will say how great rejoining the single market is with some Boris bluster and the tory media behind them the 52% probably won't care. They just need to sell it as a victory.


I’ll think that’s what the 52% want. They just want a “win” and they’re not even too concerned if it’s real or imagined. Their leader declaring a victory is as good as actually getting one.


Yep... and then fat nige from the pub said Boris said we won!!! Engerland Engerland. And we all lived happily ever after.


* 37.5 (51.89*72.21)


I mean they were using it to show a country of large area could also have an active border with the EU. Ofc they usually failed to metion that while the Norway-Sweden border is 1300km long, there's only 40 roads crossing it. Compare that to the british border in Ireland, which is about 500km in length and has arond 210 border crossings. To put that even further into context, there are only 137 land crossings on the entire 3,720 mile frontier that separates the EU from Belarus, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine. When trying to push the Norway thing it was to show how easy Norway and Sweden could manage their border, so why couldn't the same happen with the UK and Ireland? Ofc they failed to mention the number of border crossings, how integrated communities are actually arond the border, the importance of easy crossing of the border for peace and goods. It was mainly just a smoke screen so they didn't have to actually talk about the main issues surrounding it, not that the Torys give a fuck what happens in Ireland anyway.


One other small issue - many of those RoI - NI crossings are tiny, insignificant roads. Quite a few have houses bang on the border - you're literally leaving the country if you turn left leaving your house. Implement border checks, and you'd need your passport to take your dog for a walk.


But you know, remainers should obviously have been fighting for this worst of all worlds solution instead of opposing Brexit outright, right. /s


Norway is rich so the deal must be good!


They didn't. It was just another bait and switch used to convince any fence sitters that everything would just work itself out.


Hey your talking about brexit, how dare you admit a mistake and correct it! Thats not how its done. You should re write the dictionary instead!


This is the way. The Eton way.


This is the mess. The Eton mess.


Well while we're at it... *You're


Brexit was the biggest fuck up the UK ever did. I have watched a myriad of subs where the Brexiteer was vocal about how beautiful it was going to be in the future. I have watched their numbers dwindle over time as the harsh reality set in, as one by one their arguments were beaten down by fact after fact. It's only going to get worse too, more people need to wake up that no one else in the world thinks unicorn theory will prevale.


Does anyone still think Brexit is a good idea? Like can you reasonably still even have that debate? Maybe I’m biased but I can’t see it


Yes. I don't agree with Brexit myself, but I think it could be an intellectually reasonable position. The argument would be: a) We put it to a referendum and there was clearly a majority in favour. As democratic people, we ought to deliver something that matches that label. b) The EU is both a trade and a political project and those who wanted out of the political side are allowed to do so. c) Free movement comes with a number of benefits, but it does also tend to change the places immigrants move into. Those living in such places are allowed to not be happy if those changes feel negative to them. d) Climate change is probably going to create a flood of refugees in the coming years. Having freedom of movement connected to a landmass with an enormous sea border along the north coast of Africa is going to be challenging. It's easier to nope out. My problem isn't the existance of brexiteers. They're allowed opinions. My problem is when the debate becomes full of lies. When the government signs up for a deal putting a border in the Irish sea, then pretends it hasn't. When the government says it'll restore the European Health card, but replaces it with one that isn't as good. Likewise the 350million debate, etc. I don't mind a Brexit argument that goes 'we lost X but gained Y and to me it's worth it.' I really mind a Brexit argument that goes 'this thing you saw with your own eyes and we all talked about for ages isn't true and you ought to change your view of history now it's inconvienient.' tl;dr = my argument against Brexit is the destruction of public discourse, not the actual Brexit. If you want independence while making us all poorer I'll argue against it. But you're allowed to want it. You're not allowed to pretend we're not poorer, though.


Re d), it should be noted that free movement of people in the EU does not apply to refugees (see the Dublin convention).


Plus since d) is going to happen anyway, we are noping out of the cost and hoping someone else deals with it.


Plus we could have restricted and controlled illegal immigration, but weren't capable of, or willing to, implement the powers built in to the system to guard against it. Same story with most of brexit, the dream they sold was one the infrastructure and standing of the UK could never have made a reality


> d) Climate change is probably going to create a flood of refugees in the coming years. Having freedom of movement connected to a landmass with an enormous sea border along the north coast of Africa is going to be challenging. It's easier to nope out. I really think this is a huge emotional reason why England voted for Brexit. We see this issue continue with Pritti's Ascension plans. We know Brexit was all about immigration, legal or otherwise. It's also why Trump's Build the Wall won him the 2016 election. It is hilarious to see that changing our legal framework with the EU does not do anything about ILLEGAL immigration lol.


It’s also quite interesting to see how much our system relied on legal immigrants. Economic migrants tend to be pretty motivated workers. Turns out it’s not a great idea to jettison a huge chunk of the workforce. In some respects immigration is a zero sum game. If a person trains to be a doctor in another country and we get them to move here we are gaining a skilled worker that we spent zero resources on. If ours move to the EU we are losing one. We used to have a surplus on skilled migrants. Now we have a deficit.


Re A: just because a bunch of people want something doesn't mean it's good to carry it through. Most people are absolutely clueless, and I'm sure 80-95% of the people who voted for Brexit had no clue how EU functions or the nuances of the UK's relationship with the EU. And they certainly did not know what they voted for. Think of it like this, if you get cancer would you rather be treated by what a popular vote deems to be effective, or would you rather visit an oncology department at a well renowned hospital and have them carve out a course of action?


I tend to agree. But you're making an argument for: a) Not having a referendum, or b) Having a better informed and less open-ended one. Drop me back in time and I'd be happy with either of those two options. But, having had a referendum, and having a Leave majority, I think we're in a different position.


I guess I'm making an argument against having a referendum at all, simply because I don't think people are able to obtain information, accurately weigh the pro's and con's, and make an informed decision/vote.


Nicely put. Like you, I don’t agree with Brexit. But I think your point overall that there is a rational way to justify it (these pros, these cons, overall I value the pros more) holds up even if people might disagree with the specific reasons you’ve chosen. You could’ve said “the arguments could be, for example” and your point would still stand up.


I know these aren't your actual opinions but the only one I'd remotely agree is even close to being reasonable is b. a) I think the 48% would find it difficult to accept that a 2% majority being labelled a "clear majority". Also perhaps the biggest thing is that people didn't even know *what* they were voting *for*. As you've already said, the Leave Campaign was full of so many empty promises and blatant lies. No one knew what Brexit would look 2016, so it was inevitable that no party would be able to deliver Brexit, because there was no precedent for it. b) I would say this is the only reasonable position. I could be wrong. c) We're suffering now because we don't have free movement. And it's not just affected people but affected goods. d) Was climate change even part of the Brexit debate? I don't actually recall it being a big deal. One of the most fascinating things I find about politics and voting is that people will vote for something that's clearly detrimental to them without even knowing until it.


> I think the 48% would find it difficult to accept that a 2% majority being labelled a "clear majority". On that I agree. But the rules for a referendum really need to be clear before they take place, not afterwards. I think Brexit ought to have needed a supermajority. But we are where we are. Having agreed to run the referendum, and set up the 50% pass mark, I think Cameron left the country in the state that it had to deliver something on the back of it. > Also perhaps the biggest thing is that people didn't even know what they were voting for. Yes. I completely agree. There ought to have been at least two options on the referendum - a worked out brexit and the status quo. If leave couldn't come up with a plan that would gain a majority, I think that would have been quite revealing. > We're suffering now because we don't have free movement. And it's not just affected people but affected goods. Yeah. I know :( But I also think some people can legitimately disagree with free movement. If they're poor, and would never do it themselves, it's understandable that they think the benefits are outweighed by the negatives. And, in a democracy, such people are allowed to have opinions and votes. And though I'd argue against their position, I think it's reasonable for them to do so. > Was climate change even part of the Brexit debate? I don't actually recall it being a big deal. I don't know. I have a feeling it's simmering under the surface even though it was never brought out into the open. But I've got no proof for that. It's just my suspicion based upon anecdotally having that discussion with a few leavers over the years.


>a) We put it to a referendum and there was clearly a majority in favour. As democratic people, we ought to deliver something that matches that label. I wouldn't call 51.89% a clear majority. That's a majority so unclear it could be a rounding error. Turning the entire country upside down on that tiny sliver over 50% is madness.


"There was clearly a majority" does not mean the same as "there was a clear majority" :)


> a) We put it to a referendum and there was clearly a majority in favour. As democratic people, we ought to deliver something that matches that label. This is objectively false. You cannot claim that a majority favoured Brexit, when Brexit is a vague ethereal concept. Nor can any vote based on lies be considered democratic. > b) The EU is both a trade and a political project and those who wanted out of the political side are allowed to do so. They're allowed to *want* out, but that's not an argument for Brexit, nor is it an "intellectually reasonable position". In order for that to be true, it would have to be supported by logical and rational reasoning as to *why* people "wanted out". > c) Free movement comes with a number of benefits, but it does also tend to change the places immigrants move into. Those living in such places are allowed to not be happy if those changes feel negative to them. Once again this is neither an argument for Brexit, nor is it intellectually reasonable. Because people's feeling are hurt is not a valid position, especially when the EU / Brexit, and the effect of immigrants on local areas are two completely separate issues. > d) Climate change is probably going to create a flood of refugees in the coming years. Having freedom of movement connected to a landmass with an enormous sea border along the north coast of Africa is going to be challenging. It's easier to nope out. Flat out lie. The EU Freedom of Movement does not mandate the acceptance of immigrants / "refugees" from Africa. > My problem isn't the existance of brexiteers. They're allowed opinions. They aren't allowed "opinions" based on falsehoods like those you're spreading above. > My problem is when the debate becomes full of lies. Like you're doing? > I don't mind a Brexit argument that goes 'we lost X but gained Y and to me it's worth it.' How about when "Y" is bullshit, or completely unrelated to Brexit? > tl;dr = my argument against Brexit is the destruction of public discourse, not the actual Brexit. Your actions here are reflective of the Brexiteer crowd, in that *you* are preventing public discourse. You're spreading disinformation, and behaving exactly like the people you claim to oppose.


It depends on your reasons. "I want to leave the EU because I don't feel comfortable where the EU is heading, politicaly" is in my view a valid argument for Brexit "I want to leave the Single Market because it will give us more economic levrage" is absoluty bonkers delusional. "I want more sovereignty and I am willing to pay the economic cost" is a rational/debatable position, on whether the benefits outweigh the costs. But that wasn't what was promised. The promise of Brexit was nothing but sunny uplands, which is of course completely false. There are no economic net-benefits of Brexit. Not in the short term, not in the long term. Whether the political benefait of sovereignt outweighs the downsides (5 years of political chaos, increased unrest in NI, loss of diplomatic trust,..) is a more interesting debate.


There are people who still think brexit is a good idea (and in there defence, there probably is some iteration that could potentially have some benefit) and there are even people who think brexit was handled correctly. But I don’t believe these people can be debated with on a reasonable basis because the facts will be dismissed. Some people live in alternative realities.


Agreed hypothetically but there is def no worthwhile iteration of Brexit that complies with the GFA though. That hypothetical is probably built around a very radical restructuring of the UK to be much more like a 21st century Germany in terms of its tech industries. This would take years/decades of investment, probably political restructuring to PR. It probably could have happened inside the EU anyway but you could have a decent argument that the jolt and challenges of leaving would make it more likely. This to be fair is probably what Cummings fooled himself he was creating. The current issue with the UK economy is that we’ve kind of been living off the interest of having been a great power plus the City of London. We have some good sectors but in terms of the big bucks - it’s the global companies that have been here for ages and London as a financial centre. If you were of the view that that was unsustainable or managed decline, Brexit might look like a good inflection point. Brexit has obviously massively weakened both of those, forcing us to find a new role or decline rapidly. The practical reality is that Brexit today is the ideology of the stupid so instead the best we have is increased ability for tax avoidance and strip mining of UK assets. It’s a Brexit built for a certain breed of vulture capitalists. I don’t think it’s a conspiracy to achieve that, it’s just the way it’s worked out.


> It’s a Brexit built for a certain breed of vulture capitalists. I don’t think it’s a conspiracy to achieve that, it’s just the way it’s worked out. Nicely put. Tried making the same argument (badly) and got down voted to oblivion.


For many it's a purely emotional argument.


So, I don’t. But I can see and reasonably believe that people think Brexit is a good idea. Just… not done like this. With democratic consensus over *how* it gets done built before A50 gets implemented, with a smooth and diplomatic withdrawal process conducted in good faith that ends amicably.


> Like can you reasonably still even have that debate? It was never a debate. That implies that both sides have *some* merit. Brexiteers have had over half a decade to present an actual argument, they've utterly failed to do so. Anyone still supporting Brexit is contemptible.


I didn't agree with it but you certainly can have that debate.


Apologies in advance as it's not topical but I couldn't help notice your handle. Mars Volta reference?


[Aged like milk](https://i.imgur.com/h3uxwmP.jpg)


Frost's symphony of half truths.


In a sane world, Tory voters would see this tweet and regret their vote


The British Public: lolololol hes so silly


It is because Murdoch has a stranglehold on the minds of too much of the country.


*English. He's depised in Scotland.


But his hair! It’s so tousled! And his suit is disheveled!


Post-Brexit trade: UK having its cake and eating it, says Boris Johnson ​ and as long as is the case no need to fear about future deals needing rewriting.


There was [a story](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57908376) a day before the NI story broke about the EU wanting to move the goalposts on Gibraltar. I thought it was entertaining that Raab was criticising the EU on this one day then asking for much bigger changes on NI 24 hours later, with no sense of irony.


It's not even moving the goalposts, it's a proposal by the EU as to where the goalposts should be in the first place. Which is entirely incomparable to making an agreement, declaring it is excellent and wanting to change it some months later. I don't find such dishonesty entertaining, but to each his own.


What a laughing stock we have become. Omnishambles is a good word for it


Looks like the yanks aren’t as easily fooled by Boris as the right wing of our countries. With trump gone Boris is now the biggest embarrassment of the Anglo sphere.


Trump is anything but gone. With GQP (not a typo) sandbagging any and all legislations, Sinema and Manchin also midterms in 2022 being close I can easily see Trump in the White House in 2024. Not to mention the outlandish but equally scary idea that he's made speaker of the House in 2022 after Republican majority and something "accidentally" happening to Biden and Harris. Mad but true - you don't have to be elected to be speaker House and Democrats are trying to pass a law requiring speaker to be member of the House. Unless Cyrus Vance and Letitia James get a smoking gun and nail him. Alternatively his lifestyle catches up with him. But then there are Gregg Abbott and Ron DeSantis....


I don't think Trump will come back. His his platform, reach is hindered by social media bans. Think the current campaigning & fundraising he's doing is grift, likely a large proportion of it for incoming legal costs. The smoking gun will be Weisselberg.


I seriously hope you're right and I'm wrong.


DeSantis is the one to be really concerned about. Forcing college students to disclose their political affiliations in order to attend college - we haven't seen shite like that since McCarthy.


Probably to give the list to Eric Prince. The grandfathers of these people, who stormed the beaches of Normandy and the Pacific would be turning in their graves.


Given how surprisingly widespread the Nazis were getting in America before they entered the war I'd say a few of their grandfathers viewed D-day as a bad thing.


I read a Reddit comment on my old account a few years before trump and brexit, predicting trump and brexit. I’m not saying you’re right or wrong but this reads similar to that comment. Gonna save it just case you’re from the future like that guy was


You mean...Boris Johnson is a liar? Fine, I'll leave the house


Unpopular opinion but I actually sympathise with Johnson. You know that feeling: You go to get your ready meal out of the oven. Just before you open the door, you realise it's not the tasty horsemeat lasagne you were expecting, but some faeces you had scraped off the wall of a public toilet. We've all done it.


I also feel sorry for him. All he wanted was to be Prime Minister, he didn't expect he had to actually do any *work*!


It’s the Eton way!


[I was elected to lead, not to read.](https://i.redd.it/s8104omzbd0z.jpg)


He was hoping for a prime minister in name only deal. PONO


Think that would be PINO actually But it’s pronounced Lying Turd


He wants *to have been* PM. If you offered him a way he could skip straight to that, he'd bite your hand off.


It’s quite fascinating how many of our ex-PMs are so widely hated. Major, Brown and possibly May might get away with it somewhat due to their relatively short tenures but Cameron, Johnson, Blair & Thatcher are/were all widely vilified (Thatcher being a bit of an odd case in that she was still liked by the Right but absolutely despised by the left).


Major was PM for 7 years. That's not a short time IMO. I think it's more to do with personality. I wonder what the current Tory view of Thatcher is. How do they justify leaving the Single Market which she was key to creating?


Wasn't he the one that scraped the shit off the wall into the microwave tray? When Johnson and friends sold it to the public the first time it was an empty tray, that they promised they'd fill with the best parts of lasagne, chicken tikka masala, and chilli con carne. Of course they don't work together, but some people like each and could say they'd voted for which ever they wanted. Then May wanted to make beef lasagne but could only got hold of horse. Her back benchers refused everything that wasn't tikka masala, the opposition were claiming they were promised a multi meal platter and whoever was leading Brexit should deliver what was promised. And that if it was any specific meal that should be able to draw enough support from microwave meal lovers to pass a vote in parliament. She couldn't do that as there was only a minority for horse lasagne, and the back benchers wouldn't pass any thing which wasn't tikka masala. There was a time when we nearly defaulted to shit masala which would have pleased the back benchers, but the opposition stopped that as it was not at all what was promised in the campaign. Then Johnson got in, filled the tray without looking and promised to cook whatever was in the tray, after all they promised a tray full. The people voted for this because they were sick of arguing about what was in the tray, and the Tories were the only one who said they'd cook the tray. The Tories very much avoided talking about what was in the tray. No sympathy. He promised the perfect tray. He then filled the tray with shit. He then promised to cook whatever was in the tray. He's got nothing he hasn't set himself up for. It probably was one of the only trays available. We could have maybe had horse lasagne if the opposition who didn't want a ready meal at all had voted for it. But after the election, those back benchers had the power to stop horsemeat lasagne and Johnson knew they'd vote for the shit hoping it was shit masala. But he was one of the main people saying we should get a ready meal in the first place and promised it would be amazing.


He put the faeces in his own lasagne then ate it anyway.


>"The British government negotiated the Northern Ireland Protocol, agreed to it, and its Parliament voted for it. Yet almost immediately after it went into effect, the British government has tried to evade its responsibilities under the protocol," he said. > >"Their latest statement and proposed changes just continues this trend and serves only to further destabilize Northern Ireland," he \[US Democratic Congressman Brendan Boyle\] said. Good summary.


http://archive.is/wLLLV Read and share this as far and wide as possible. How Boris operates and his methods to tell lies.


Well, if it isn’t the consequences of my own actions.


Surely Brexit voters are now willing to admit they voted for a fantasy promoted by billionaires and liars? Ha ha what am I talking about? Of course they won’t.


At least the USA got rid of its moron.


Boris is a liar. It's okay, I'll see myself out the door. No need to tell me.


Perhaps I can get Priti to deport you.


Priti can’t deport shit. After selected committee hearing she been proven as incompetent and no confidence in her. So whatever she does is irrelevant.


Post it on R tories and watch it dissappear in 3 seconds


Really only one way to fix it rejoin the single market.


I mean, my counterpoint would be that the Northern Ireland situation is really working for anyone so why wouldn't you want to try and find a better solution? Yes, we all know Boris was singing the praises of the deal and certainly could have approached this particular issue more diplomatically but that is beside the point of what is actually happening to a degree. This thing in politics where admitting you made a mistake/changed your mind is somehow the worst thing ever is infuriating and leads to entrenchment of ideas rather than following the evidence.


He created the Northern Ireland situation. He agreed to the terms and said they were good. He gave them his full backing and literally signed his name on them. This attempt to renegotiate is nothing but theatre to try and give gullible voters the impression it’s the EU’s fault and not his. Nothing more.


U turns are fine when the circumstances change or there is new evidence that was not available when the decision was made They are not fine when everyone pointed out the issues, the government shouts “these remoaners don’t want us to get brexit done”, and then the issues occur


NI businesses just want the U.K. govt to stop arsing around.


Alhough in general i agree about changing your mind being a good thing sometimes, you can’t go about signing international treaties and changing your mind. Its the govts job to think through the consequences and satisfy itself before signing.


Exactly this. And claiming the reason you want to change it is for reasons you couldn't possibly have foreseen, yet they were all over the papers as potential problems.


The only people who hate the protocol are loyalists. Have you noticed farmers aren't complaining? They're delighted.


There's 2 solutions. Border in the sea or Border between n.i and Ireland. That's it. He chose Border in the sea.


Or no boarder, join EU customs.


Theresa May had already rejected Single Market and Customs Union. So a border is required, it’s just a question of deciding which one of two possibilities. The Lying Turd version of PM, when he got into power, decided where it would be and once again lied to the people that there would be no paperwork/border. Either that or it had some instructions printed incorrectly on his oven-ready microwave deal.


Will still leave a border. Turkey and Switzerland have a customs union The only thing that removes borders is the Single Market. That's why it was invented in the first place.


I doubt EU wants UK rejoining any time soon. All political goodwill has been used up. The economic uplift is probably not worth knowing you have a loose cannon which can probably flip any moment. Unless UK explicitly agrees to arbitration by ECJ.


We could have easily negotiated that at the start though, before we burnt all our goodwill.


Actually a veterinary agreement would be enough to eliminate the necessity for *most* of the checks, in particular the high-profile issues that you keep hearing about. [However...](https://twitter.com/emilythornberry/status/1408156586787459072)