Support NeoGAF

[sohois]

I'm sure most people here are probably tired of reading yet more articles explaining why Brexit happened and how it was all because of this one factor and nothing else.

You should still probably read this (extremely long) breakdown by Dominic Cummings, who was one of the key Vote Leave guys - the article itself avoids any partisan prodding, though.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/dominic-cummings-brexit-referendum-won/

A few quotes:

Much political analysis revolves around competing simple stories based on one big factor such that, in retrospect, ‘it was always clear that immigration would trump economic interest / Cameron’s negotiation was never going to be enough / there is an unstoppable populist tide’, and so on. Alternatives are quickly thought to have been impossible (even if X argued the exact opposite repeatedly). The big event must have had an equally big single cause. Confirmation bias kicks in and evidence seeming to suggest that what actually happened would happen looms larger. People who are quite wrong quickly persuade themselves they were ‘mostly right’ and ‘had a strong feeling’ unlike, of course, the blind fools around them. Soon our actual history seems like the only way things could have played out. Brexit had to happen. Trump had to win.

‘The big why?’ is psychologically appealing but it is a mistake. In general terms it is the wrong way to look at history and it is specifically wrong about the referendum. If it were accurate we would have won by much more than we did given millions who were not ‘happy with the way things are’ and would like to be out of the EU reluctantly voted IN out of fear. Such stories oversimplify and limit thinking about the much richer reality of branching histories.

The cold reality of the referendum is no clear story, no ‘one big causal factor’, and no inevitability – it was ‘men going at it blind’. The result was an emergent property of many individual actions playing out amid a combination of three big forces (see below). Many of these actions were profoundly nonlinear and interdependent and the result that we actually witnessed was very close. If about 600,000 people – just over 1% of registered voters – had decided differently, IN would have won. This is a small enough margin that it could easily have happened if quite a few specific events and decisions had turned out differently. If just one person had behaved differently the dominant story now would be ‘the economy was always going to trump a revolt against the elites, the status quo and “the economy stupid” always win’ – which is what the overwhelming majority of pundits said before 23 June and in some cases had drafted for their columns after the vote.

Anybody who says ‘I always knew X would win’ is fooling themselves. What actually happened was one of many branching histories and in many other branches of this network – branches that almost happened and still seem almost real to me – we lost.

Many pundits who described themselves as ‘modernisers’ wrote columns over the years arguing that immigration was an issue because Cameron was making foolish promises about it and the media therefore paid more attention to it. This is wrong. Cameron’s foolish promises certainly made his situation worse but it is wrong to think that public interest in an issue is proportional to the attention paid by politicians and newspapers in SW1. The public only pays attention to a tiny subset of issues that politicians and the media bang on about. It is largely impossible to predict which things will catch fire and which will not, though process stories and ‘scandals’ almost always have zero effect and insiders repeatedly get this wrong

2. If Cameron/Osborne had had a top notch person like David Plouffe running their campaign and they did as they were told then they would have won (>95% confidence), all else being equal. They were warned many times by their closest friends about Oliver and Llewellyn, including by Gove, but would not listen.

Connected to this idea is that the great rationalists Cameron and Osborne – they of Project Fear and their comic ’emergency budget’ and in 2015 the pictures of Salmond picking pockets designed successfully to persuade the English that the Scots would steal their money – were undone by a great surge of ’emotion’. Osborne is taking this delusion so far he is writing a book titled ludicrously ‘The age of unreason’. When you lose and you blame it on millions of people being overtaken by ‘unreason’ – after previously winning by exploiting nationalist hostility – it’s a sure sign that you are the one not reasoning straight and able to face your errors. For the likes of Osborne it is ‘irrational’ to reject the views of people like him. For most of us, people like Osborne are not experts to be trusted – they are charlatans not to be taken seriously.

...

Cameron, Osborne, Mandelson, Campbell and Clegg spent much of the last 20 years lying through their teeth to further their own interests and prestige. Now they whine about ‘lies’. They deserved worse than they got – and reasonable Remain-ers deserved better leadership.

One of the most misleading stories in politics is the story of ‘the centre ground’. In this story people’s views are distributed on an X-axis with ‘extreme left’ at one end, ‘extreme right’ at the other end, and ‘the centre ground’ in the middle. People in ‘the centre’ are ‘moderate’. ‘Extremists’ are always ‘lurching’ while ‘sensible moderates’ are urged to ‘occupy the centre’.

This story is one of the dominant features of political discussion and the basis for endless interviews, columns, and attempts at political ‘strategy’. The story is deeply flawed and where it is not trivially true it is deeply misleading.

..

One of the key delusions that ‘the centre ground’ caused in SW1 concerned immigration. Most people convinced themselves that ‘swing voters’ must have a ‘moderate’ and ‘centre ground’ view between Farage and Corbyn. Wrong. About 80% of the country including almost all swing voters agreed with UKIP that immigration was out of control and something like an Australian points system was a good idea. This was true across party lines.

There's too much to quote really. It's a worthwhile article regardless of your position on Brexit.

 

[RedSparrows]

He's damn right about the big cause thing. Just look at the way 'Trump and Brexit' is used as a somehow a coherent narrative that actually tells us more than 'woah, populism!'. The alt right revel in this simplicity.

 

[jelly]

Cameron, Osborne, Mandelson, Campbell and Clegg spent much of the last 20 years lying through their teeth to further their own interests and prestige. Now they whine about ‘lies’. They deserved worse than they got – and reasonable Remain-ers deserved better leadership.

Ain't that the truth. Always blaming others, lying. People were annoyed because the UK government was constantly shit and deceiving.

 

[SteveWD40]

Front pages indicate we are leaving the single market...

 

[Rush_Khan]

Front pages indicate we are leaving the single market...

Welp. Did anyone honestly expect different from Theresa May? She would set NHS hospitals on fire if it led to immigrants getting kicked out.

 

[sammex]

some new yougov polls

 

[8bit]

https://stv.tv/news/politics/1378225-theresa-may-uk-will-leave-the-single-market-with-brexit/

All eyes on Sturgeon, I guess.

 

[Maledict]

I honestly didn't think this is how it would pan out. A hard Brexit seems the most insane choice by far, and also the most divisive - it's literally expecting more than half the country to just disappear.

 

[Dougald]

Well, as someone who'd love to see the EU project succeed, I can at least take some solace in the fact that the best way for that to happen is to probably get Britain as far away from it as possible

May you live in interesting times, indeed

 

[Snarfington]

Front pages indicate we are leaving the single market...

It's like watching a house catch fire.

Except it's your house and you're in it.

Christ.

 

[Cronen]

Do we know what time the speech is?

EDIT: Internet says it'll be around 11:45am.

 

[Halph n Halph]

I honestly didn't think this is how it would pan out. A hard Brexit seems the most insane choice by far, and also the most divisive - it's literally expecting more than half the country to just disappear.

I'm not sure why . GAF in particular has been saying this is the only option if we want control over migration from the EU. Anyone who suggested otherwise was roundly dog piled.
I tried to make the point a couple of times that we already adhere to all EU product standards,consumer laws etc and surely some form of arrangements could be worked out to benefit everybody if the UK sticks to those standards.
I would then be quoted many times over as people tore the whole post apart , even down to picking over the wording like a high Court barrister might in a high stakes fraud case.

 

[Maledict]

I'm not sure why . GAF in particular has been saying this is the only option if we want control over migration from the EU. Anyone who suggested otherwise was roundly dog piled.
I tried to make the point a couple of times that we already adhere to all EU product standards,consumer laws etc and surely some form of arrangements could be worked out to benefit everybody if the UK sticks to those standards.
I would then be quoted many times over as people tore the whole post apart , even down to picking over the wording like a high Court barrister might in a high stakes fraud case.

Not entirely sure what you are trying to say here, sorry.

It's not possible to stay in the EU, or even the single market, and have 'control over our borders' in the way May wants. That's been clear since the start.

Any suggestion that we could somehow retain access but stop free movement of people is stupid and never happening. It doesn't require detailed analysis, it's just not possible.

Any suggestion that we could somehow get better deals after this is also ludicrous and ignorant - we are walking away from the worlds biggest free trade deal, with our largest markets, that uniquely offers service industry access (the majority of our economy). Any trade deal we strike with other countries like the USA, Australia etc, will not only be far smaller, it will also not replace the service industry stuff.

As of now, by best hope is that a deal can be worked out for the city, so that London can remain prospers out, and to put it bluntly - fuck the north and the Tory shires. And I say that as a northerner born and bred... :-(

 

[Halph n Halph]

Any suggestion that we could somehow retain access but stop free movement of people is stupid and never happening. It doesn't require detailed analysis, it's just not possible.

This is what I am saying . You are surprised we are leaving the single market and yet post exactly why we are more than likely leaving the single market.
I'm just surprised that you are surprised.
I'm not sure why as a northerner you would say fuck the north . I want the whole country to prosper and understand that London needs to be a world hub if the other cities are to succeed .

 

[StayDead]

It's like watching a house catch fire.

Except it's your house and you're in it.

Christ.

Yeah, I feel dread about May's speech. The pound is going to plummet by the end of market today.

The reason the markets been kinda stable is we've not actually left or officially said we're leaving yet.

 

[ittoryu]

So she is really going ahead with the insane plan of leaving the single market eh?

I really need to focus more on getting out of this country... 10 years of taxes and suddenly it's EU migrants fault and we are the cancer of this place.
So sad to see what this place has become.

 

[jelly]

Welp. Did anyone honestly expect different from Theresa May? She would set NHS hospitals on fire if it led to immigrants getting kicked out.

I don't get the immigration thing, she could control it more or less, especially people outside the EU which I bet is what riles people up the most because they look different and are a likely a different culture. So, why is she doing this, which worries me. I hate her so much.

 

[Kabouter]

Yeah, I feel dread about May's speech. The pound is going to plummet by the end of market today.

The reason the markets been kinda stable is we've not actually left or officially said we're leaving yet.

I mean, can't we say judging by movements in the pound over the past months that most of what she's likely to say has already been priced in? How large could the drop be at this point?

 

[Xando]

I mean, can't we say judging by movements in the pound over the past months that most of what she's likely to say has already been priced in? How large could the drop be at this point?

From what I've read on FT/Bloomberg the expecations are that the poung could go as low as 1.14 between now and art. 50 triggering.


Wonder how many will follow:

Apple's UK App Store prices will rise 25 percent following Brexit currency fluctuations

 

[sammex]

I don't get the immigration thing, she could control it more or less, especially people outside the EU which I bet is what riles people up the most because they look different and are a likely a different culture. So, why is she doing this, which worries me. I hate her so much.

This reminds me of a letter I saw on the guardian the other day. Like you said, she had some control and didn't even use it.

Since 2004, European Union law has allowed governments to control movements of EU citizens as follows: allow EU citizens to freely circulate only for three months and then require them (should they want to stay longer) to show they are working (employed or self-employed), a registered student or have sufficient resources (pension, savings) to support themselves and comprehensive sickness insurance eg a valid European health insurance card enabling the NHS to claim back the cost of treatment or have private health insurance. The UK is one of the few governments that has not implemented this.

For six years, Theresa May was in charge of the Home Office responsible for immigration, yet did nothing to adopt these conditions. One wonders why not and why immigration was allowed to dominate the referendum and is still being paraded as a big problem. Yet another failure of our own government and the Home Office under Theresa May is being blamed on the EU. The remedy was always in the UK’s hands.

 

[RedSparrows]

^ The above reminds me of the furore about 'votes for prisoners'. Theoretical objection? Fine. But the practical implementation was not universal, it was at the discretion of the government. But rather than do anything about it (and fudge it, say, 'votes for offenders under 3 month terms, for X crimes) they did... nothing, and the anti-EU sentiment just built and built instead. More politically useful domestically.

I disagree with the principle, as it happens, but eh, the government is not innocent. As some of our supposedly sceptical 'anti-establishment' Brexiteers love to... er, forget.

 

[Hasney]

A group of Tory MPs have tabled an urgent question to try to force Theresa May to go to Parliament rather than making do with the Brexit Secretary David Davis.

The MPs are angry that “Parliament is being excluded” as they see it and believe the prime minister ought to spell out her plans for Brexit to the House of Commons first rather than making today’s speech.

What a fucking farce

 

[Lagamorph]

I think Theresa May genuinely believes that the EU will panic and suddenly give her single market without freedom of movement.

 

[JonnyDBrit]

If she's trying to make anyone panic, I would say it's Parliament, and the devolved assembles. By confirming Hard Brexit as the baseline she wants achieved, she can put the impetus on everyone else to try and sway her from it. She doesn't have to spend her time pulling her hair out trying to think of how she can argue for staying in the single market and justify it to the Brexiteers; her own opponents can do that for her, and she can 'graciously' accept those suggestions that most seem viable and/or fit her preferences, while being able to later deflect the blame onto whoever suggested them.

 

[Halph n Halph]

I think Theresa May genuinely believes that the EU will panic and suddenly give her single market without freedom of movement.

Geniune question to those who are far more knowledgeable than me . If this is the case , then how United do people genuinely think Europe's leaders are . By leaders I don't mean the commission but the individual leaders. Germany , France , Sweden ,Netherlands for example can probably weather any economic storm and so are in a similar position to the UK. It may be that standing strong will cause some economic issues but they're quite willing and capable of taking the hit.
But what about Greece , Italy , Portugal and maybe even Spain ? Would they possibly break rank rather than risk even a minor hit to their precarious financial stability and push the EU to offer something?
What about Ireland, where do they sit when talking off record ,so to speak?
Are the tories looking to divide and conquer and if so , would that be an incredibly risky approach?

 

[Funky Papa]

Are the tories looking to divide and conquer and if so , would that be an incredibly risky approach?

There's no if. That has been the Tory way of doing things for a while.

The current mood in the EU seems to be that this is still posturing/May saying something while trying to figure it out and that the UK will try to be more sensible when push comes to shove. Either case, there won't be a panic. Maybe some frictions at worst, and countries like Italy, Ireland and Spain are firmly on the EU's side. The notion of the UK holding the EU hostage is ridiculous.

 

[kmag]

Geniune question to those who are far more knowledgeable than me . If this is the case , then how United do people genuinely think Europe's leaders are . By leaders I don't mean the commission but the individual leaders. Germany , France , Sweden ,Netherlands for example can probably weather any economic storm and so are in a similar position to the UK. It may be that standing strong will cause some economic issues but they're quite willing and capable of taking the hit.
But what about Greece , Italy , Portugal and maybe even Spain ? Would they possibly break rank rather than risk even a minor hit to their precarious financial stability and push the EU to offer something?
What about Ireland, where do they sit when talking off record ,so to speak?
Are the tories looking to divide and conquer and if so , would that be an incredibly risky approach?

Any country can veto.

 

[Xando]

Geniune question to those who are far more knowledgeable than me . If this is the case , then how United do people genuinely think Europe's leaders are . By leaders I don't mean the commission but the individual leaders. Germany , France , Sweden ,Netherlands for example can probably weather any economic storm and so are in a similar position to the UK. It may be that standing strong will cause some economic issues but they're quite willing and capable of taking the hit.
But what about Greece , Italy , Portugal and maybe even Spain ? Would they possibly break rank rather than risk even a minor hit to their precarious financial stability and push the EU to offer something?

I don't see what the UK has to offer to any of these countries that they would be willing to break line.


For example let's see what the maltese PM had to say last week:

“I’ve rarely been at a discussion on any other subject where the 27 member states have basically the same position,” he said.

It was Malta’s view, he said, that “we want a fair deal for the United Kingdom, but that fair deal needs to be inferior to membership.”

“So I cannot [predict] the future and say whether one country or another will then break that unity, [but] I simply don’t see it happening now,” he added.

http://europe.newsweek.com/joseph-muscat-malta-eu-presidency-member-states-brexit-541519?rm=eu
And even if they were willing to break line remember that every country can veto any UK deal.

 

[Cronen]

BBC are live reporting the speech here. Due to start very shortly.

Sky News too.

 

[oti]

Let's see.

She sounds like countries in the EU only ever talk to other EU countries.

 

[Theonik]

Geniune question to those who are far more knowledgeable than me . If this is the case , then how United do people genuinely think Europe's leaders are . By leaders I don't mean the commission but the individual leaders. Germany , France , Sweden ,Netherlands for example can probably weather any economic storm and so are in a similar position to the UK. It may be that standing strong will cause some economic issues but they're quite willing and capable of taking the hit.
But what about Greece , Italy , Portugal and maybe even Spain ? Would they possibly break rank rather than risk even a minor hit to their precarious financial stability and push the EU to offer something?
What about Ireland, where do they sit when talking off record ,so to speak?
Are the tories looking to divide and conquer and if so , would that be an incredibly risky approach?

Unanimity is needed, and without it the whole affair drops through in 2 years. So the Tories won't gain much from dividing European leaders. Ireland is most likely to seek to take the UK's side but the situation in NI basically makes a compromise on free movement completely unworkable from their perspective. Their government is already posturing on 'Fuck the UK let's focus on the continent instead' which is much more bold than continental partners like Germany. Greece doesn't care much since they don't trade with the UK in much significance and would take whatever position Germany proposes in an attempt to score points with their ongoing debt renegotiations. Spain and Portugal are likely to follow that approach.

 

[sammex]

Summary of May's speech so far

 

[Funky Papa]

Summary of May's speech so far

It's more smoke than fire so far.

Thick, dark, eye watering plumes of smoke.

 

[EmiPrime]

She's just said it.

Fucking hell.

 

[Theonik]

No shit Sherlock.

e:
BAHAHAHA.
ee: HAHAHAHA.

 

[Lagamorph]

She's just said it.

Fucking hell.

Said what? I can't watch live at the moment.

 

[Cronen]

 

[JonathanEx]

Said what? I can't watch live at the moment.

Don't want to be in Single Market.


BRING ON INDYREF2: POLITICAL BOOGALOO

 

[Theonik]

Said what? I can't watch live at the moment.

We can't remain in the single market and not accept the 4 freedoms.
She wants a new FTA.

e: She just mentioned Trump haahahahahahaha

 

[Lagamorph]

Fucks sake.
So our only hope now is that the EU offer such a shit deal that Parliament have no choice but to reject it.

 

[ittoryu]

May says full customs union membership would stop the UK being able to strike trade deals.

But she also wants Britain to have tariff-free access to EU markets.

She says she wants a customs agreement with the EU. That could mean partial membership of the customs union. How this happens in practice can be decided, she says.
(from The Guardian).

Does she want anything else? Lol

 

[Lagamorph]

Does she want anything else? Lol

A slap for starters

 

[Xando]

Fucks sake.
So our only hope now is that the EU offer such a shit deal that Parliament have no choice but to reject it.

Since May will probably give a final deal to parliament if they reject it the UK will leave without any deal

 

[Theonik]

I'm really confused. She basically is talking about all the good things in the EU and wanting to continue those but she doesn't want to remain because that would mean she'd have to abide to the rules?

LMFAO

 

[twobear]

So we've basically gone from a failed attempt by Cameron to shore up his position against UKIP and the Tory Europhobes into an attempt by May to play the ensuing Brexit as nothing more than a way to shore up Tory electoral power with an increasingly right-leaning electorate. Good stuff good stuff.

 

[Theonik]

OMG the first question. Ayyyyy
'During the referendum campaign you said that leaving the single market would leave the people of the UK poorer. Either you have changed your mind since then or as a prime minister are taking a choice that would make people poorer which is it'
THE RESPONSE AHAHAHAHA

 

[shinra-bansho]

She should ask for a unicorn while she's at it.

 

[twobear]

She really needs to stop trying to talk out of both sides of her mouth, she can't be serious about unity and coming together when her proposals are nothing short of a complete rejection of the interests of 48% of people who voted.

 

[Roberto Larcos]

Fantastic question. Twist that knife.

EDIT: Of course she doesn't answer it.

 

[Halph n Halph]

There's no if. That has been the Tory way of doing things for a while.

Any country can veto.

I don't ....

Unanimity is needed, and without it the whole affair drops through in 2 years. So the Tories won't gain much from dividing ........

Thanks for the responses.