Information icon.svg

Campaigning for the RationalMedia Foundation 2020 board of trustees election is underway!


From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon politics UK.svg

This British politics related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This page is automatically archived by Archiver

Jacob Rees-Mogg[edit]

Throughout the article, he's mis-spelled as "Jacob Reese-Mogg" -- I can't edit the article, can someone lop off the superfluous 'e' from 'Reese' so the links all work right? Ta! AndyLandy (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. Yer welcome. Ithaca8 (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


Is this page a work in progress? I can see it saying that brexit arguments are bollocks, but i cant seem to see why such arguments. Also, would it not be better to have an article on the referendum, covering both sides rather than just brexit, or has this decided for me on who to vote for? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I Just assumed that Rationalwiki would take the pro-Europe perspective because it appears to have this position in other articles but I'm new to writing for rationalwiki so please correct me if I'm wrong Threadnaught (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
its been my understanding that there is no official line on the referendum, and that the site is neither left or right. Certainly most folk seem to be left leaning, but there are few active editors on the right of things. It shouldnt really matter though, if the facts are left leaning, good, if not, then so be it. Beyond all that, i cant give much advice on article creation. Picking at the work of others is all i can do. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

And dont give me any shit about the balance fallacy[edit]

This article is weak. It does present an accurate view of the brexit arguments and ignores the arguments about the unaccountability and poor governance of the eu, while the economic case, whether remain or leave, is no way near as black and white as it is presented here, and immigration are entirely misrepresented and seem not to be understood. It reduces all brexit supporters to ignorant racists, which is just false. Sure, there are plenty of patently bullshit arguments coming from the brexiters and so much wishful thinking, but there are just as many bullshit arguments coming from the remain camp. The very fact that this is the only article looking atthe referendum is partisan in itself. In my view this article should be rewritten to cover both sides of the debate, should cover the bipartisan support each side has, should cover the nuance of the actual arguments being made and not just the loud rhetoric from each side. As it stands, this article should be deleted. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

As I've written on this talk page before, I just assumed that rationalwiki's point of view would be more eurocentrist than europhobic, because it appears to have this position in other articles on the EU. Even if this article is currently too biased, there is nothing stopping this article from debunking eurocentrist view points in addition to the eurosceptic ones it does now, to balance it out.Threadnaught (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Yep. As usual, batshit crazy is a friend of both sides of the aisle. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 12:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I can't find it right at the moment but I could've swore I read somewhere that Corbyn wanted to leave the EU at one point. There is a lot of good leftist critcism of the EU (just look at Grexit) and the lack of economics info makes the article lacking. If I get some time I know that the Economist has some good info on Brexit.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC) 15:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
he was and his current support is tempered with the very problems that the eu has. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Well I know he wants to nationalize the railway and somehow the EU prevents this. From what I understand, though, he supports the EU currently for its regulatory body but would support Brexit if it means a stronger welfare state can be created.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC) 17:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

"Arguments" against[edit]

Migrant crisis

"Many eurosceptics make claims about how leaving the EU is the only way to control The UK's borders from the oncoming horde of (mostly Islamic) migrants sure to wash over us if we stay in the EU." Pro-Brexit point.

"This ignores a the fact that many economists [2] believe that Europe is in need of more migrants, rather than less." This doesn't address the point.

"This is in addition to the moral issue of leaving tens to hundreds of thousands of refugees in camps." This doesn't address the point.

"The anti-migrant hysteria often also seems to emphasize the fact that the migrants are largely Arabic Muslims, perhaps trying to attach itself to the Islamophobic and racist elements of British society, or perhaps merely trying to create a dichotomy with which they sell how different and therefore untrustworthy the migrants are." This also doesn't address the point.


"One point that the eurosceptics frequently make is that British 'sovereignty' could be 'reclaimed' if we left the EU." Pro-Brexit point.

"Eurosceptics talk about how EU courts override British courts despite the fact that you can't have an international court if a local court can overrule it, and that's kind of the point." This agrees with the point.

"The UK has already been granted exceptions to EU rules in many categories like participation Schengen Area and the Eurozone." This doesn't address the point.

"While "claiming back our sovereignty" may make a good soundbite, it doesn't really mean anything." Except for its meaning in international relations.

"The fear of Europeans having a say in how the UK is governed may also have some roots in europhobia." This also doesn't address the point.

There is more that can be said about the parts that actually address the Brexit position, but this should be an unambiguous start. I will say that for those interested in advocating the pro-EU position, the apparent inability of pro-EU proponents (in media and elsewhere) to legitimately address pro-Brexit concerns is, I think, a big contributor to the popular backlash against the EU. Facile deflections only serve to make the pro-EU position look silly or deceptive. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't have enough time to do a point by point now but I'll just say that a distrust of the EU and its intentions make the points the article makes look invalid (all confirmation bias stylie). The point of the 'sovereignty' section wasn't to say that anything they were saying was inherently wrong (the UK does give some power to the EU in exchange for its membership), but rather to say that the interpretations and implications that were being drawn from the facts they were saying were wrong (for example, the implication that the UK cannot say no the EU on any matter). I'm not sure if that came across clearly in the article, though, to be fair. Threadnaught (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
You have to remember that the average Brit has been fed bullshit stories about "evil unelected Eurocrats" and their machinations to outlaw Pudding for almost four decades now, so many Brits really seem to believe the EU is out to get them... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 23:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not a Brit, but from what I've read I think I'd prefer Britain to stay. The EU has been doing pretty well minus the economic crash, and those issues would have influenced Britain even if it weren't an EU member. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
That doesn't address the points. Bullshit stories or not, the counterpoints I pasted above don't actually argue against the pro-Brexit points. And presupposing trust in the EU (or any political entity) as a basis for formulating advocacy on a contentious issue strikes me as a dubious proposition unless the goal is just to preach to the choir. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 11:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I am not presupposing trust, rather presupposing neutrality. My point wasn't that you need to like the EU for the article to make sense, only that the points would make a neutral person more likely to agree with staying in the EU. Like all arguments, someone sufficiently invested in the other side can use any argument to justify their own position. In addition, the second point in the migrant crisis section isn't to say that immigrants wouldn't come, but this wouldn't be a bad thing. Like I said, it assumes that you are willing to listen to what the article says rather than having a knee-jerk "everything is on fire" reaction. This does not constitute preaching to the choir, just that the arguments won't work if you are already invested in Euroscepticism. I do not believe that there is much that could be said to dissuade a committed leave advocate in a way that would satisfy what you are asking for here. Threadnaught (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
"Presupposing neutrality" A neutral position is a skeptical one. That is, a neutral person will typically not support Position X without being presented with reasons to support X. As such, counter-Brexit points need to stand on their own if they are to be presented as reasons that Brexit is wrong/undesirable/whatever (as statements of pro-EU positions, they wouldn't need to stand on their own, but that's not what the article is doing with them).
"more likely to agree" I don't know about you, but when I see someone making blatantly fallacious arguments to advocate an unfamiliar political position, I regard that position with suspicion because, if there were legitimate reasons to support that position, the advocate could have mentioned them. So if pro-Brexit people say that the only way to control immigration is to leave the EU, and pro-EU people respond that immigration is good (because bankers who stand to make a bundle if immigration triggers a debt crisis say so), the response is a red herring because it doesn't address the point that, regardless of how desirable immigration is (and people disagree on that), EU membership limits the UK's ability to control immigration to the UK, which is something that people are capable of caring about on its own.
If you think that pro-EU arguments are useless if you initially disagree with the position, doesn't that strike you as a glaring weakness of pro-EU (or at least your understanding of it)? What I am asking for is that arguments used in the article actually address the point they are being used to address. In case you missed it, I think that a big reason for things like this is that pro-EU advocates tend to not legitimately address what pro-Brexit advocates say. Like in this article. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 10:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Britain is a has been empire that just can't get over not being relevant any more. Hating on Europe's more mature countries is part of that childish process... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Let me guess, you're from Belgium. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
<sarcasm>The problem with staying in the EU is that it means more Polish people moving to Britain, what with their filthy whiteness, their Christianity, their disgustingly strong work ethic, their deplorable family values, and their eagerness to soil the sanctity of the Noble English Language by speaking it "properly".</sarcasm> 5 years ago, the big fear was PolesSmall text CorruptUser (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
When has fear of foreigners ever been rational? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
with britain in austerity for some years now, a housing crisis for some years now, the nhs and education in financial crisis now, why shouldnt the locals be concerned with immigration and the resulting competition for housing, benefits and jobs? Oh they are just racists. We can ignore their concerns. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Immigration has nothing to do with any of this. Thinking "The furriners are taking our stuff away" is childish and stupid and most of all it is wrong. One of th biggest reasons for the things you describe is a policy of tax cuts to the richest of the rich. But talking about that is not opportune for the right wing, so they talk about foreigners instead. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Increased taxation has little to do with immigration, since it does not 1) build houses (think of the space theytake, in cities like London) 2) create doctors for the NHS 3) create new jobs while technology advances (yep, this is a problem for lower-IQ people that cannot participate in new tech). If you tax the superrich too much, they'll go away -- quite similar to businesses. Look at France right now:
Have you ever heard of social housing? No? Oh dear... And you know how can become NHS doctors? Immigrants! A lot of Polish nurses and doctors are immigrating to the UK thanks to the EU. But apparently you don't like that, because they are... White and Catholic? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The point here is that increased taxation will make the super-rich (mostly in finance) relocate. You can't milk that cow many times. Immigration is an issue, not by itself, but because it is uncontrolled. While straw-manning by pointing to Poles/Chinese is great rhetoric, it does not address the incentives given to uneducated people from around the world who will have no reason to climb the welfare cliff.
Taxes used to be much higher. People did not flee then. Most tax havens are actually UK oversees territories. Are you telling me the British government has no way of shutting the Cayman Islands down? Are you telling me Panama with its zero soldiers is gonna stop the mighty British Empire if it comes to collect its taxes? Are you telling me the great British industrialists can just pack up and leave? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
You can't abolish supply and demand. Tax havens can't be shut down. Switzerland has secured the assets of dubious criminals from around the world for decades at least, and despite pressure remains in its position.

Governments will always complain about low tax rates for rich investors elsewhere, but are happy to use the idea themselves. Unless there is interplanetary war, the world won't agree on one policy. Rich people can and will easily convince the top rank politicians (and lawyers) to give them a better deal. And they would not even have to live in these havens, but could jet-set around the world. So I'm merely a realist.

You know who could pass higher taxes on a wider scale? Some supernational institution coordinating the policies of several state... Maybe across Europe... Some sort of European Union or something like that. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 07:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Such a powerful EU government will never exist barring a huge external threat and it had (at least now) to be undemocratic.
Name a precedent for such a large and voluntary union.
In the Greco-Persian, Axis-Allies and even Muslim-Christian conflicts, there were always several states that sided with the "bad" guy, switched or exploited both sides.
Right now when the EU cannot agree on a list of tax havens (more than 80! countries are proposed) after the Panama affair.
Lost of small countries would be powerless compared to big countries like France or Germany if an EU government treated them proportionally to population size or GDP.
This is why representation by population sqrt was introduced. Malta has one representative for 70k, France for >800k people.
Oh, and most people in Europe still think of their nations first which means tribalism would hamper democratic government.


This article completely ignores the following:

  • Britain (like pretty much any other country) needs (skilled) workers, not immigrants. Open borders and welfare combined encourage low-skilled workers to live off the state rather than learn a new language, learn a new culture, train several years and lose most of their free time in exchange for a job that would only give them a tiny econocimic improvement (the welfare cliff).

Germany will lose a trillion dollar due to the refugee crisis[1].

  • Experience with immigrants has been mixed, to put it mildly. Some groups (Chinese) vastly outperform the native population, while others (and sadly most) vastly underperform.

Membership allows millions of Balkan inhabitants to immigrate, though their track record (unemployment and crime) is poor.

  • Britain would still be in the Commonwealth if it ceased its EU membership.
  • While deportation of declined asylum application may be legal, it is in practice not enforced. For example if people "forgot" their passports.
  • The economic benefits of staying in the EU… Where are they ? People will want to buy the same British products (e.g. an Oxford education) and British people will want to buy the same stuff (e.g. German cars).

Finances of several states are in a terrible state[2] and the Euro has not lived up to expectations. Why be part of the upcoming financial turmoil?

  • Contracts (like a debt ceiling) are unenforcable within the EU and policies (like at the Iraq war) still differ a lot by country. Thus the union is unreliable.
  • Morality (as in "we have a moral duty to do X") is not a rational idea.
  2. (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm extremely cynical of good or bad quantitative predictions of loss or gain due to the fact that they so many large and relatively unpredictable factors. If people say a specific number in a prediction with this many variables, you can be pretty sure they aren't an economist. You can only do what has a higher chance of success than failure.
  • A small fraction of EU immigrants claim benefits (see first bullet point for source)
  • Trading with countries like India makes little sense because WE HAVE EUROPE AND THE REST OF ASIA IN THE WAY. Also good luck trying trading with them when we won't give back their diamond.
  • The economic benefits of the EU are more subtle than its costs. Being in the EU makes lots of things about running a business easier. It's not that it makes exporting and importing from Europe possible, it's that the EU makes it easier. Have you ever tried to buy anything from China? There's all sorts of taxes and tariffs that don't apply moving things around in Europe, and this allows companies to expand across the larger market much more easily. If you only need to comply with European Standards instead of twenty different sets of standards, don't you think that would make developing a product for use in Europe rather than one country easier? There are economies of scale that apply across Europe that just don't apply to Britain on its own.
We. Are. Not. In. The. Eurozone. While We do contribute to bailouts, It is important to remember that even though numbers in the news sound impressive 100 million pounds is only 1 pound 50 per person in the UK. It is a lot, but it nowhere near being able to plug any type of budget shortfall from conservative austerity. We are more insulated from the bad economies of Europe than people think.
  • The union is always changing and is not perfect, but can be made bigger and better to the benefit of britain.
  • I'll concede you that morality isn't rational... if you Drink
Threadnaught (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
If Britain wants free trade with Europe, it will have to accept the vast majority of EU regulations. Currently, Britain has a say in those regulations. Once they're out, they won't. Britain currently has several "opt-outs" (Schengen and the Euro for instance) that have not been granted to newer members of the EU and if Britain ever decided to get back in, it is likely those opt-outs would not be granted again. Norway, Iceland and Switzerland pay EU membership dues without being members, in order to get some of the benefits (e.g. free movement of goods and capital). Britain currently receives a huge rebate on its dues dating from the Thatcher days when the EU spent most of its money on agriculture. This rebate will be gone if Britain leaves. But please, pretend you are still relevant and try it on your own. Let's see how you like a Farage/Johnson coalition... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Wait, how would Britain lose these rights if they left the EU but stayed in the EEC? If that still exists. StickySock (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
There's the European Free Trade Association, which is basically the "deal" Norway and Iceland got: Pay the dues, get no say, follow the rules, get an opt-out on fisheries. It only works for them because they are rather small countries that car about fisheries. Britain, not so much. But why am I even arguing this? Just look at John Oliver explaining it. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Being in the EEC but not the EU means paying for access to the common market while having no say within it. It also almost definitely means continuing to allow free movement of EU/EEA citizens. Since immigration has been a key platform of the Brexit lobby, it's probably not going to be much of an option if we do leave the EU. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
So what's it gonna be? Barbed wire in the Channel Tunnel? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

It's tomorrow...[edit]

I've tried clicking my heels three times. I've tried saying 'there's no place like home', but it looks like we really are trusting the general population of the UK to make economic decisions they neither have the qualifications to make or even the slightest inkling of the potential implications of their actions. Well, the UK was fun while it lasted. PS: I would totally vote to leave the UK ( (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

They're voting today, I hope the remain side wins. Then the rest of Europe should vote to kick them out. I'm joking. Mostly. (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Wow thats some saltThreadnaught (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Straw man?[edit]

Many of the arguments are stupid, and, sadly, used, but what I've seen the most complain about is the byrocracy and pointless regulations, not adressed here. The page seems to need a big rework to avoid this semi-strawman position. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 22:30, 23 June 2016‎

What are these pointless regulations? Do they pertain to the shape of bananas? WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
If you want to have a modern industrialized society you got to have standards. Even for such arbitrary things as the distance between the pins of the electrical outlets. And especially for standards which are (almost) entirely arbitrary it makes no sense to have every county (sic!) set its own standards. So it's entirely rational for the EU to set standards. And if you don't like it, you can try selling something to the EU that doesn't comply with its standards. Good luck with that. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
My car gets forty rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it! --Ymir (talk) 08:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


So, anyone else find it funny that Scotland overwhelmingly voted to stay, while it looks like (so far) a slight majority of non-Scotts want out, yet most people outside of Scottland were opposed to Scottish Independence? CorruptUser (talk) 03:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Northern Ireland also mostly voted stay. I don't know about the exact numbers for Gibraltar, but I cannot imagine them voting leave... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 07:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
IIRC 96% of Gibraltar voted "Stay". That's a pretty solid majority, if you'd ask me.--JorisEnter (talk) 07:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
So we're gonna see very interesting developments on the fringes of what used to be the British Empire. I don't think Gibraltar wants to be part of Spain (they had several referenda on that all with similarly clear results), but if Scotland manages to leave the UK and gain access to the EU, they might wish to join Scotland instead. In Northern Ireland we could in the worst case scenario see a return of the Troubles over the question of whether Northern Ireland goes it alone (and joins the EU as the kingdom/Republic of Northern Ireland), joins Scotland or joins the Republic of Ireland. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 07:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
What is surprising is that 4% of Gibraltar has voted to leave. Gibraltar economy is going to be hit hard if some agreement isn't reached fast. (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we will see any change in any of the three areas motioned.
Gibraltar - they may like the EU but they dislike Spain a lot more than they like the EU.
N Ireland - the same really. The Loyalist majority may like the EU - but they dislike the idea of joining Southern Ireland more then they like the EU.
Scotland - a bit tougher. 80% Scottish trade is with the rest of the UK and only about 20% with the EU. Which economic group do you want to be a part of? The UK or the EU? And what currency will you use? And you'll need a border to stop those nasty immigrants getting another way into the rump UK. I don't see it.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

EU citizens[edit]

Well, U.K. is out of the EU now. Does anyone have any ideas how this will affect EU citizens currently living in the U.K.?--WMS (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Nope, nobody has a clue. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I imagined that'd be the case. We can only hope everything will be alright.--WMS (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Wow... so there really is no plan for the alternative to the well-negotiated and established EU membership? It's just... kind of a legal blank right now for tons of things? :/ Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, shit. -MasterofLogic (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
It's almost like no one actually thought this out in any way and just screamed "muh sovereignty" and promised people money that they are now admitting won't exist. (talk)
Seems like you're spot on. Time will only tell if this was a good or bad idea :/--WMS (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
All I can tell you is what I got in my work email this morning. We're going to reduce the workforce in our UK offices by 20%. If Scotland secedes, we'll move operations there; if not, we'll be reducing the UK offices to a skeleton and focus all of our business in the EU countries. *shrugs* No plans yet to move British employees to EU offices. Probably won't be any. --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
In short, nothing is changing until a treaty is signed. This may take years, and no one knows what this treaty will look like. Personally, I would not be surprised if Britain would somehow remain part of the EU after all (not the most likely outcome, but certainly not impossible). Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
The Lisbon treaty (the first EU document to officially allow for leaving the EU) establishes a two year time-frame for negotiations. It will be very interesting what the negotiations will look like and what their result will be. But this is probably the biggest news since 9/11 or maybe the election of Obama. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm rather hoping for the EU to say, "Here's the negotiation. YOU'RE OUT. No trade agreements. No special anything. And if you want to deal with one of us, get used to asking the permission of the rest of us. Oh, and Spain will be landing troops on Gibraltar at the end of the two year period." --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Note that the two years start *after* Britain formally invokes it. It could be a year or more before it does (then again, it could also be next week. The "Brexit" people really know what they voted for). Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I live in the European country with more British residents after Britain itself (and we also have a little bit of Britain attached to our southern regions). My town has many living here and most of them are senior citizens, and right now they don't know what is going to happen to their healthcare rights. (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

If UK stays in the EEA (like Norway and Iceland) are, then the practical implications won't be huge. In the EEA, you still have to obey a large chunk of the EU's laws, although there are some major exceptions (agriculture and fisheries). EEA citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EEA will have mostly the same rights as they do now. All those Brexiteers who thought they were voting for less immigration from other states of the EU will be shocked to see it able to continue unabated. But, the UK will no longer have any say in the making of those laws, their choice will be either to accept them or leave the EEA–which is the same choice Norway and Iceland (and tiny Liechtenstein) have today. Oh, and the UK just handed Spain a major win – unless the UK goes down the very unpalatable route of withdrawing under article 50 without any agreement, and essentially defaulting to (rather weak) WTO rules, then every EU country must unanimously agree to any new relationship between the EU and the UK, and Spain can hold that hostage to concessions on the Gibraltar issue. Brexit is good news for Spanish irredentism. (((Zack Martin))) 01:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It's inspiring for the Catalan independence movement & all the more so if Scotland gains its independence soon. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Is this our final draft?[edit]

I mean I understand racism and fear of "big government" were reasons to leave but there were plenty of left-wing reasons to leave as well. There is no mention of the TTIP or TiSA which are trade agreements that the US and EU have been negotiating for several years now; just like the TTP, they are secret and will likely allow corporations to sue governments over any loss of future profits due to regulations. The EU has also treated refugees terrible by allowing members to put them in camps and deport them en masse to Turkey. The austerity has also been horrific which was why Greece floated Grexit as an idea just last year. It just seems weird that we are subscribing to one narrow view when it comes to Brexit.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC) 01:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

We "subscribe to one narrow view" in most political articles. Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
And articles that don't do that get deported to the Essay space or deleted!--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 05:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC) 05:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Well sure we tend to look at an issue with a left-wing perspective but this article solely concentrates on why the right-wing left. By not giving any legitimacy to Brexit, we risk alienating rational people who wanted to leave.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC) 06:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I can live with that. These arguments didn't play a substantial role in the Leave campaign, & (for all the EU's flaws) leaving is likely to be disastrous for Britain's economy & international relations. Plus anyone who voted Leave for "left wing reasons" has chosen, in doing so, to ally themselves with the xenophobic hard right. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
That's a rather loose conception of alliance there. Do you base your policy positions on your own values or on the opposite of what people you don't like think? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 08:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
When voting on something as important as this, I base my decision on my own values and how the likely outcomes will resonate with them. If anyone (left or right wing) thought voting Leave would provide Britain with better trade deals, better workers' rights, better austerity measures & a better policy towards refugees, they've been extremely naive. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Pretty sure the reasons that had substantive electoral weight were substantially the right-wing ones, with the left-wing ones mere "hey, us too!" passing curiosities. I mean, sure, list them, but I think it'd be incorrect to say they played any substantive role in the numbers. I can't find any surveys to this effect, which actually surprises me - David Gerard (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I am not saying that we should change the tone of our article only that we should explain why any leftist would've wanted to leave. We can still point out the dangerous economic ramifications of this decision as well as the xenophobia attached to this decision. I think we would have a stronger article if we pointed out the few left-wing advantages to Brexit.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC) 02:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I've always found the euroskeptic left to be rather crummy. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Was there any of it above the blog post level? - David Gerard (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the slow response but what I have found is that the UK will now not have to deal with the ramifications of CETA and the TTIP. The UK will also avoid having to deal with the threat of austerity from the ECB and may create more favorable trade deals. Theoretically, they could have more open borders than the EU but that is doubtful with the current strength of the nativist right; the UK may also be able to improve their environmental, human rights, and labor laws without interference from the EU.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC) 23:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
The ECB ... you were paying enough attention to know that at no point has the UK used the Euro? - David Gerard (talk) 12:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I know that the UK uses the pound and not the Euro but doesn't the UK have some ties to the ECB through the EU?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC) 00:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
No. Only members of the Euro or countries on the path towards the Euro have any say in ECB decisions. Cameron wanted to change that in his "renegotiation" but failed. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I see. Well then how would the EU impose austerity on the UK, or was that another lie from Brexit?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC) 20:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Quite frankly I don't see any way they could if Britain were governed by a government clearly opposed to such measures. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


What happened to my humorously obnoxious titles with a "br" in front of everything? Can I add them back in or does everyone else hate them? CorruptUser (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I found them funny so I don't see why not.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC) 22:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
You can have "Brexternal links". The others don't work. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I think it's funnier this way. "Bresult" is funny, but the others Plutoniumboss (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Some were pushing it, but can I please add "Brimmigrants" back in, since it's actually relevant "we are filled to the brim!"? Half the joke was that "Brexit" was an obnoxious name to begin with. CorruptUser (talk) 05:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
its half of an already weak half joke. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Sanders' stance on Brexit[edit]

Apparently there is disagreement as to whether Sanders supports or opposes Brexit. Please discuss this here instead of edit warring. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, we'll never know what he really thinks. After a few words he reverts to his stump speech. Poor old ablelo can't help himself. Plutoniumboss (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Poor old what? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I think it's a vague insinuation of alcholism? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I have never heard him being accused of being an alcoholic. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I guess you have now. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Maybe Pluto meant to type 'abuelo' which is Spanish for grandpa.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC) 21:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
But the fake etymology of "abuelo" is a conspiracy clearly showing that French does not come from Latin. 21:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
That makes a looooooooooot more sense than assuming I knew the answer from a 10 second internet search. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
What are you referring to? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I gave an answer to what I thought abelo might mean based on an internet search, but someone less google-dependent gave a better answer. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Why the fuck should we care what an also ran for public office in another country thinks of brexit? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I meant abuelo. I'm on mobile. Plutoniumboss (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Sanders actually opposes Brexit, he just noted that the leave vote was a protest vote against the establishment political/economic class. Much like the majority vote for Trump in November will be. PBfreespace (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Fuck it[edit]

British politics is now Fucked. Wanna start a rationalwiki political party, anyone? :P Threadnaught (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Given that having internal debate is seen as negative in politics, I don't see such a party being very successful. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
You never know, you might be able to make politics about what is provable by science (/s) Threadnaught (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
So what does that mean on immigration or energy policy? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Let's see...immigration (+ becoming more 'global'), energy policy (esp. nuclear), environmental, prisons, drug policy, schools, GMOs, science investment, more foreign aid and investment (future trading partners), if I was in charge, I would fix everything. Threadnaught (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Some rant tangentially related with Brexit[edit]

Age and brexit[edit]

Its interesting everyone makes a big deal about how its those stoopid old peoples fault that remain lost when no one mentions that those virtuous youths who passionately love the eu and all it stands, only 36% could be bothered to vote.

It is also interesting that the only demographic that we seem interested in is age when class seems much more interesting and much more informative. [1] AMassiveGay (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Those early stats have proven to be way off. Revised estimates are 64% of 18-23 year old, only fractionally less than than the 25-55 brackets. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Time to update the article, then? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

embarrassing article[edit]

See the main article on this topic: Britain is full

Who wrote it? A looney-tunes? It fails to understand the main immigration argument against EU membership is freedom of movement of workers, not asylum seekers. The latter are only a small fraction of net immigration (between 2004 and 2015, asylum ranged from only 3% to 12% of net migration into UK [Migration Observatory, University of Oxford], see figure 2 here). The vast majority of immigration into UK is workers and most are from the EU because there is a freedom of movement. People didn't vote Brexit to stop a small numbers of refugees entering, but hundreds of thousands of eastern European workers lowing their wages or stealing their jobs, not to mention the strain this mass-immigration has on public services.Schizophrenic (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

So basically, we're talking about Schrödinger's Immigrants — they both lower wages and steal jobs and put massive strain on public services by taking ALL of the benefits. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
By the way the Visegrad 4 (I am sure I have missed a diacritic or two there) a group of eastern central European countries East of the former Iron Curtain have made crystal clear that Brexit negotiations would have to ensure a protection of the rights of their citizens working in Britain. Which is funny, considering that most of those states are also rabidly anti-immigration when it comes to domestic policy. So Ukip will have to square the circle of how foreigners are lazy bums, but the NHS cannot possibly survive if you throw out all the Polish nurses, which are also to blame for the lack of rise in wages, which Ukip actually likes because it makes Britain more competitive the rich can get even richer even faster that way. But of course the NHS can easily be saved with the eleventy billion Brexit profits that Farrage promised, right? Oh right, that money never existed in the first place. Which Farage (I can't be arsed to spell that French cunt correctly) suddenly admitted the day after the vote. Oops. If you are anti-immigration I automatically assume you are a bit mentally challenged or have malicious intentions. It has been rare to see that initial assessment superseded by subsequent observation instead of confirmed by it. I am not the Ombud's man 02:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Sectors of the UK's economy have suffered from competition with migrant labour, are you denying this? Are you also denying mass-immigration has led to overcrowded public transport and put pressure on schools? ( As for wages, a 2015 Bank of England report found mass-immigration has the greatest negative effect on low-paid/unskilled British workers, as well as "a small negative impact on average British wages." In other words mass-immigration is bad financially for the majority of British workers (excluding the high paid). "Anti-immigration" is just a straw man argument used by leftists - no one says they want to stop all immigration. The AFD party in Germany, UKIP in Britain, the Front National in France etc. call for a large reduction in terms of net immigration, not to closing their borders and not allowing a single person in. Considering UKIP's policy is 50,000 net immigration a year, this means they still will allow 350,000 immigrants into UK (since 300,000 Brits emigrate annually). Allowing 350,000 thousand people a year into a country each year is "anti-immigration"? Ok Looney-tunes whatever you say. Schizophrenic (talk) 03:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
UKIP is in no position to "allow" or disallow anything. They're not in government & never will be. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Freedom of movement allows companies to easily set up British offices or to expand by bringing in staff without a complex visa process, creating jobs for all sectors of society. A lot of British companies are staying in business and competing globally by recruiting skilled workers from abroad without having to go through long and costly visa processes (with no guarantee of success), which ensures other workers stay in jobs. (Visas also allow companies to exploit foreign workers by threatening them with deportation, so there's a moral argument against.) And not all low-paid immigrant workers are stealing jobs: they often do jobs British aren't skilled or willing to do, like agriculture or hospitality.
It's ridiculous to say UKIP is not immigration: Farage repeatedly campaigned to reduce immigration and "preserve British identity" against Muslims and foreign-speakers, and most of their supporters understand the party to be opposed to immigration. You can split hairs and say "Farage only dislikes the bad immigration" but if you spend years saying immigrants are terrorists who spread HIV, then that is not the message of the party. Annquin (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Britain has had immigration before there even was Britain. Heck, there have been black Britons before there were Anglo-Saxon Britons. If you subscribe to libertarian economic principles like free movement of goods and capital, free trade and a laissez faire approach on the part of the state you cannot possibly oppose the free movement of people. But of course right wing populists do precisely that: They want to lower taxes on the rich, they have never seen a free trade deal they did not like (rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding) yet they think they can bar shut the borders, which to be quite frank is absurd. Of course the whole purpose of this is the fact that illegal migrant workers are cheaper than legal migrant workers could ever be. Legal migrant workers have access to state run and union run legal help, they cannot be easily threatened with deportation (least of all by their employer) and they will organize and demand just payment if given half a chance. That's why the Gulf States have their "hand in your passport" laws - to exploit migrant workers. The best way to protect workers - regardless of nationality - are open borders with clear rules and regulations that above all else protect workers. And of course strong unions. Never underestimate the power of collective bargaining. Just imagine for a second all Polish nurses in the UK on strike for even a handful of days. Or all Chicken Tikkla Massala restaurants shutting down for the week. England would fall. I am not the Ombud's man 13:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't disagree with the general sentiment of the post above, but I'd like some more details surrounding the claim that "there have been black Britons before there were Anglo-Saxon Britons." If this refers to the well-established "out of Africa"-model of human origins, it's correct (if somewhat trivially true). If it refers to something else, I'd like to hear what, because, on the face of it, it sounds a little too much like the tosh peddled by Clyde Winters and the other black supremacy dingbats, but maybe I'm missing some point or misinterpreting the statement. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I am right now too lazy to dig up specific sources on that, so will have to take what I am saying now on no force of authority other than my and your general knowledge. Okay. We all know that Anglo-Saxons (somehow the Jutes are always forgotten, even though apart rom the Angles and the Saxons they were the third component of that migration) only started showing up towards the end of "Roman Britain", roughly the fifth century onwards. During Roman times, skin color was not something people often remarked upon - similar to how not every article on Charlize Theron mentions her hair color. Therefore it might be hard to find a Roman source explicitly saying "X is black", but there are many indicators that Roman culture was quite color blind and did not have the modern concept of race. Romans of course had slaves from all surrounding cultures and their own (Greeks were quite popular as teachers for instance). Unlike modern chattel slavery, Roman slavery was only inheritable to a limited degree. Usually the grandsons of slaves would be free more often than not, though there were certain subsets of slaves that were deliberately worked to death before they could have daughters or sons. So this all gives us strong hints that Romans living in Britain took their slaves there (or freedmen followed their former masters - in Roman times a freedmen was still considered part of the familia of the pater familias that used to own him), some of which undoubtedly were of what would than have been called Nubian ancestry. And as descendants of slaves or even former slaves could rise quite far in rank, there is no reason to believe there weren't free black people in good standing in Britain during the Roman time. Which does indeed predate the Anglo-Saxon invasion. I hope this was able to shed some light on the topic. If you want more background, I would have to read up on that. I am not the Ombud's man 15:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I know I'm verging on going off topic, but this reasoning possibly placing some "black Roman" in Britain before the "Anglo-Saxons" assumes that the predecessors of the "Anglo-Saxons" (i.e. the Germanic tribes on the continental North Sea coast) never took up residence in the British Isles prior to the invasion. I don't think that's a very likely prospect. Not to mention that "Anglo-Saxon" (with or without the inclusion of the Jutes) is a pretty vague category anyway. Also, I think the depiction of Roman customs with regards to race and slavery is a little too upbeat. The reason race wasn't much of a factor was that the idea of not enslaving members of the "in-group" was rather weak, hence most slaves, like most inhabitants of the Roman Empire in general were "white" (as in not black African). I think it would be far more accurate to depict freedmen as part of the their former master's client network (subject to his auctoritas) and manumission was a question of either the slave's status (Greek tutors being likely candidates for it) and/or the master's economic situation as manumission was a display of conspicuous consumption ("I can afford to forego the money I would get from selling my slaves") and the big slave labour market, the huge slave-run latifundia owned by the Roman upper crust, continued to be staffed with slaves throughout the time the Roman Empire included the province of Britannia. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not out of the question that individual Angles, Saxons or Jutes lived in Britain during Roman times, but it is not particularly likely they would have chosen that part of the Empire over any other. Neither did Britain have many Germanic speaking people (back then Celtic and Romance languages dominated Britain) nor was it a particularly important part of the Empire. It's more likely for them to have immigrated to - say - Germania or Rome itself. As to more concrete examples, I hit WP and her sources and there are these articles that suggest not only a presence of black Romans, but high status ones at that. And apparently there is evidence for peopl of relatively recent African ancestry in the last place you'd look. I am not the Ombud's man 16:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • (reset) Aren't there some people from near Hadrian's Wall who are thought on genetic analysis grounds to be descended from black Roman soldiers? (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Yorkshire is "near Hadrian's wall", so the BBC article might be what you remember. I am not the Ombud's man 16:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

And imagine the discussions if Doggerland still existed (rather than just a cricket game on a sandbank [2]) (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

My two cents[edit]

I admit I'm an euroskeptical of the soft variety -I accept that an united Europe is a very good idea, but I don't like at all the way it's being created (the errors done when introducing the euro, what has happened in Greece (especially there) and other bailed-out countries, and stuff as TTIP or TiSA among others)-, and I support Brexit as yet another well-deserved slap to the European Union, but it ends that.

As the second quote at the beginning of the article says, the referendum was basically to choose among two evils (plus the somewhat hidden neoliberal stuff mentioned here present on the "leave" camp as well, as that no EU means both the EU charter of fundamental rights -don't remember its name- and that the sentences of the European courts -ECHR and ECJ- are null), and I'm beginning to think Brexit has been a bad idea as much as Brussels deserved that. --Panzerfaust (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Have you watched the two "in a nutshell" vids? Their focus on core issues with Brexit makes them relevant to all sides of the issue. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I've noticed the possibility of Scotland breaking apart and joining the EU (seemingly difficult, as stated above) as well as Northern Ireland becoming part of the latter, and most notably how anything may happen in the future, depending of what decisions are taken in the negotiations.
My opinion is that the EU will be quite harsh with UK to show what in store to those who want to leave the EU, knowing what may happen this year in France or Germany --Panzerfaust (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Choo choo trains[edit]

If 'the government' cannot do something about the trains (strikes on the Underground and Southern, and overcrowding that would be illegal for animals) what chance will they have with Brexit?

And if there had been 'in, out, or shake the EU all about (being a different world from and many more members than when it started) there would probably have been a different result entirely.

If Farage had been serious he would have quit being an MEP not UKIP the day after the referendum - and would be working his (imported) cotton socks off trying to create his brave new world... and none of the other political leaders have had any 'vision thing.' (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

This thing pretty much looks silver to me?[edit]

Thoughts? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Excess plutonium verbiage, could be half the length with no loss of content - David Gerard (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
At this rate we'll become Wikipedia, only dryer and less informative. Plutoniumboss (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Not as long as we keep contributing (and keep improving our personal writing skills) we won't. Besides, I seem to recall that a fair amount of all that you write for the site ultimately gets to stay. Indeed, I "even" think that much of what you contribute ought to stay (though not as unalterable by others) for the simple reason that at its best, it's plain good/funny (and sourced) writing.
That doesn't mean David's complaints lack all merit, however. We should take care take to observe criticism — not because we care about our opponents, but because we might have missed something that they haven't. For me personally, David's feedback has helped me learn of certain pitfalls which my writing can tend towards, and I'm thankful for that (especially in retrospect). And here's a real shocker: David has also been way off at times. This is all to be expected. The point of it all is to learn.
Regardless, your votes on what gets to stay or not are of equal weight — one for you, one for David. If I were you, I'd focus on earning support for my writing (and taking feedback to heart) instead of locking antlers with David. Just my two cents, from an editor who is the enemy of neither of you (nor of many users, really). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Scotland and the euro[edit]

I see that a comment about Scotland having to join the euro was recently removed with the comment line: "There isn't an *obligation* to join the euro to be in the EU. See Sweden - which is simply outside the ERM - and Denmark)"

There is, in fact, an obligation to join once certain criteria are met.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

You can deliberately fail to meet the criteria - that's what Sweden does. Evil Zionist (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Rowling v. Morgan — results are in![edit]

And the entire comment section agrees on the verdict, no less. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


  • The options should have been 'In', 'Out' and 'Shake it all about' (which probably would have got the majority vote).
  • The UKIP lot should have immediately started working their (imported) cotton socks off to 'make Britain great again.'
  • The relevant [Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 TUPE] requirements (and equivalents) should be brought into the discussion.
  • 'Brexit means Brexit' means nothing; 'holding cards close to the chest' is negotiating from weakness.
  • The assumption is that the Tories win the June 2017 election decisively - when I have seen 'over ten apiece' Labour and LibDem posters and leaflets, one Tory document, and a Marxist anti-Trump poster on my travels in the London area - there used to be many more displays this close to an election in the past. (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Britain's closest ally in the EU weighs in[edit]

'We hope you reconsider the vote'. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


Can the whole Brexit affair be described by the above term - or are multiple omnishambles involved (possibly with the proverbial dead fish behind the cupboard and an over-ripe durian hidden elsewhere)? (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


This article was full of left-wing remoanerisms. Luckily I have removed some. Make Britain Great Again! --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Fallout[edit] Michael O'Leary thinks Brexit may well lead to an end to flights between the UK and the EU. Which other funny things might happen? Evil Zionist (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The vote[edit]

was a close run thing and went different ways in different localities.

Why #shouldn't# there be second vote specifically on the terms and conditions that are eventually agreed upon - especially as 'if the UK were a company the conditions of Tupe would be involved. Anna Livia (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the eventual agreement should be put to a vote. But what if that vote results in a "no"? Would that mean no agreement? Or no leave? Evil Zionist (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The way things are going the 'two years' are likely to be those of Makemake the planet (and the EU will have been replaced by something completely different).
At some point somebody notable will say the Cabinet are collectively showing the intelligence and backbone of a limp mushroom and that there is no plan (when what they should have said 'the goal is a working relationship of type X - and people should understand that there will be much negotiating of details in private').
People with skills and a claim to nationality/residence elsewhere are already leaving; those 'following the harvest' are coming in smaller numbers; the streets are often filthy, and there is no culture of 'learning after leaving school and retraining' (if you are of working age for 50 years you are likely to need to change your skill set several times) - and UKIP have just elected a racist ##### rather than working their socks off to take Britain into the post Brexit world. (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I think we should seriously add more on what has happened since the vote and the (lack of a) negotiation tactic by the British government. Evil Zionist (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Trouble's a-brewin'[edit]

Vote Leave gone'n really dunnit now, I'd reckons..

If proven, this would be the biggest election scandal of modern times. The biggest overspend. (talk) 12:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Brexit and the black hole[edit]

There does seem to be some similarity - time slowing down as the event horizon is approached, the decreasing difference between the purported post-Brexit relationship and the actually existing present relationship and nobody knows what will actually happen once the singularity happens.

Is there enough text here for an archive page yet? Anna Livia (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Lord Ashcroft polls breakdown of the results contain some interesting elements[edit]

Lord Ashcroft Polls’ “How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday… and why” is quite interesting.

For instance, the correlation between those who consider themselves “English, not British” and “More English than British” and Brexiteers is striking: Among the first group, the Remain/Brexit split is 21%/79% and among the second it’s 34%/66%, indicating how much English nationalism has contributed to Brexit. By contrast, in Scotland those who either considered themselves “Scottish, not British” or “More Scottish than British” backed Reman by 55% to 45%. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I would just like to use this opportunity to grind my particular axe to point out that British expats in Europe - probably the group of people who are individually most affected by the outcome of brexit - had no chance to vote on the decision and are still not included in the stats.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, as far as I know (but I may be wrong here), British expats could vote as long as they had been registered to vote in UK general elections within the last 15 years. If this is correct, then that is a “statute of limitation” common to UK general elections and thus the Brexit referendum can hardly be considered particularly unfair in this regard. Also, other countries have even harsher rules, with Danish and Irish expats losing their voting rights far quicker, or pose de facto barriers to expats by banning voting by letter. ScepticWombat (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The actual agreement[edit]

The vote was 52% out-48% in, with a significant proportion not voting.

This will be reflected in whatever is finally negotiated - the UK being more out than in, with much undecided (and an eye on the temperature gauges in Hell to see when it freezes over). Anna Livia (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Year two section[edit]

Is there going to be a second year section added to the brexit infinity war saga on the page. — Unsigned, by: Soliy / talk / contribs

Its definitely something to look at. I'm planning on adding some stuff if/when the government is defeated in next weeks Brexit vote. --RWRW (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The event horizon[edit]

'The Brexit process and the approach to a black hole's event horizon: compare and contrast.' Anna Livia (talk) 10:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Donald Tusk quote[edit]

Made 'a very short while ago': 'I have been wondering what the special place in hell looks like for those who promoted Brexit without even a sketch of a plan to deliver it safely.' (Would the equivalent process for Hell be hexit?) Anna Livia (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I imagine so. I wonder if those wishing to leave hell have to trigger an Article 50-style process and begin a 2 year negotiation period.
It is also worth noting that Tusk's comment comes out of bitterness and fear - he knows that Brexit will be a success and is scared that other European nations will take the leap of faith also. --RWRW (talk) 09:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Well as the president of the disintegrating union, who can blame him. — Dysk (contribs) 10:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
If there had been three options - Yes, No, and 'Shake it all about' (rearrange the structure to suit the modern world) the result might have been somewhat different.
There is a case for 'some organisation that looks after cross-border aspects' - electrical equipment, course and exam equivalents, trans-national transport etc. The problems are - different geographies, different histories, 'conversations and feuds etc that have been going on for centuries' - and people wanting there to be 'places that are different'/finding a use for differentials (tax havens and other such quirks cultural and otherwise - eg Mount Athos).
Is the 'no second referendum campaign' (strangely the promoters are not against regular elections) partly motivated by fear that there would be a completely different result that does not go their way? Anna Livia (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Its possible that a second referendum would yield a different result, but the main reason for opposing is because it will irreversible damage British democracy. Its ironic, the Brexiteers accused the EU and its supporters of hating democracy and they respond showing no respect to the vote. They're proving us right everyday. --RWRW (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
There should have been 'Yes, no, renegotiate, none of the above. Anna Livia (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Will add the Guy Verhofstadt quote “Well, I doubt Lucifer would welcome them, as after what they did to Britain, they would even manage to divide hell.” Anna Livia (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Well at least May could try again if she got the chance to run hexit. :D — Dysk (contribs) 22:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
As it said on a comedy program - the Tusk comment means that there are better and worse bits of Hell. Anna Livia (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

this is not an article...[edit]

...its a live blog. the salient points are lost amidst a sea of the minutiae of irrelevant political maneuvering and procedure. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

True, but there is nothing we can really do about that until it's over. — Dysk (contribs) 14:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Which will be when? Anna Livia (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Never, I guess? Nothing ever ends, as Dr. Manhattan said. I mean, technically the 2016 Presidential election ended, but really it was just one front in the broader American culture war. Brexit will probably be the same. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Fair point. Maybe we shouldn't have an article on "brexit", but rather a set of coherent articles on it's different stages. — Dysk (contribs) 18:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Can #anyone# put the terms 'Brexit' and 'coherent article' in the same sentence? And what would 'Shetlands and Orkney Islands voting to go home (they were never paid for after all) be called? Anna Livia (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


Is John Bercow's invocation of the 400 year old precedent an example of 'the revenge of history'? Anna Livia (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

its more the incompetence and grandstanding brinksmanship of all involved has caused them to collectively shit the bed. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
We actually have a shiteton of law from centuries ago, including legislation that is actually written in Anglo-Saxon yet still in force. It seems novel that it's a 400 year old precedent, but that isn't a big deal really. — Dysk (contribs) 20:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
it wouldn't be if 'some' MPs had voted how they really intended instead grandstanding for effect with the intention of voting differently the next time round. perhaps they shouldn't be using brexit for political point scoring when this isn't a by election or even a general election. it really is the issue of a generation that has implications which will fuck us for a generation to come. fucking vermin. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
The wrong question was asked in the original referendum, and by now 'no answer is the right one' (and possibly 'no answer' is the right one).
And if you think now is bad, just consider the situation that will arise when 'whatever passes for Brexit' does actually happen and the politicians have to deal with everything they should have been dealing with.
Is it too late to start a popular referendum by setting up parliamentary petitions on various options (including 'None of the Above'(), or do a RON? Anna Livia (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Out of date - revamp after the 31st?[edit]

An ungodly and psychologically horrifying amount of bullshit has happened since Theresa announced her resignation, with Boris Johnson leading a premiership of lies and deceit, so basically business as usual for the Tories. When we (hopefully. hopefully. hopefully) get an extension after the 31st, should we take the breathing time to do some patch notes? Minish (talk) 09:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

its virtually a live blog that requires daily updates in its present incarnation. what it needs is significant gutting. most of it is still irrelevant minutiae. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
A complete rewrite, then? Minish (talk) 10:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't need a rewrite as much as drastic editing, removing things that are unimportant or irrelevant, minor decisions that were rapidly reversed, and things of little consequence. A timeline is ok for some information, but it'll also need proper analysis and an overview.
Also, the 31st isn't going to be the endpoint of the process, whether an extension is granted or not, and may not even mark a significant slowing (the process has always been start-stop). --Annanoon (talk) 11:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

"Now", "currently", present tenses[edit]

This article is a prime example of why it's not a good idea to cover ongoing stories. It's really all over the place time-wise. People should have at least put dates in when they added stuff rather than update the article like it's a news story.

But, in fact, it needs to be radically reworked, the blow-by blow details need to be removed, and it needs to focus on the issues and any conspiracy-related debunking in order to make it a RW article.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the article is poorly constructed and has very little conspiracying. I will try to rework it.Tuxer (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Brexit and Coronavirus[edit]

Scarcely a mention of Brexit since the outbreak began. Anna Livia (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

It also appears that here in the US, no one remembers that Trump was impeached. Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
The Labour Party leadership election also appears to have been forgotten. The new leader takes over next week. Corbyn had his last PMQs as leader on Wednesday and I think Boris was the only person who noticed. The Lib Dems announced over an hour ago that they're postponing their leadership election to May 2021 and I still can't see any mention of it anywhere on BBC. --RWRW (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
'Infectious diseases' know no state boundaries, have no passports and are 'illegal immigrants with malicious intent.' Anna Livia (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
dunno what you all expect. theres been not much mention of brexit because there isn't anything to mention. negotions where stalled as corona hit before they could get going. what talk there has been is how/when to proceed, and questioning of timeframes and deadlines.
none the other stories havent been forgotten nor gone unreported. its just not front page. theres been nothing 'breaking news' worthy even if it were a slow news week. there has been stuff, but maybe you missed it because its all dross about delays and how coronavirus has effected campaigns. corbyns last pmqs was otherwise unremarkable and its easy to forget someone so imminently forgettable.
aside from anything else, coronavirus is the news at the moment especially since with all kinds of events cancelled and countries on lockdown, not much newsworthy can happen if everyone stuck at home. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Indeed - it's not that there is just no mention of Brexit - there has been virtually nothing else on the news.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Brexit and coronavirus part 2[edit]

How will the 14 day quarantine process affect the Brexit negotiations? Anna Livia (talk) 11:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Probably just give another excuse for another 14 days of sweet f.a. and hoping people forget about so the tories can avoid actually having to accomplish something. BTW has anyone found what happened to russia report? McUrist (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
negotiations will go poorly regardless of pandemics. it just gave us a stay of execution. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Another boost for videoconferencing - or a good excuse for the negotiators (or others) to go AWOL for a fortnight.
Possibly the Penelope's tapestry manoeuvre - finding new and bizarre forms of delaying tactics until the EU goes into meltdown (for whatever reasons, including the loss of UK funds). Anna Livia (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)