Brexit


#102

Is this
BRELAYED
or
BRILAYED?!


#103

Question: during situations such as Brexit how can we ensure that those we trust in power remain objective.

This is inspired by this news article: https://metro.co.uk/2019/03/11/jacob-rees-mogg-earned-7000000-investments-since-brexit-8884678/

Now obviously i am not privy to the facts and i personally have no insight into Mr Rees-Mogg or his business, but it does raise the question in my mind, should we somehow prevent those who are making these decisions from profiting from them? e.g. asset freezing or strict controls on what they can invest in. Otherwise how can we trust our ‘leaders’?


#104

AFAIK you can’t. This is a fundamental problem in Economics and Philosophy of Economics and spawns in situations where there’s information asymmetry between two actors. It’s called the Principal-Agent Problem.

A politician is always considered to have an information premium over a civilian for a multitude of reasons (expert advising, access to secret state level information, etc). It can be argued that his actions are (at least) executed to maximise your own benefit regardless of your own perception, in light of that information premium. Proving that though is impossible.

To make the above a little bit more explicit, JRM might claim that what he’s doing is to his knowledge and information the best for you and England. Proving that he is doing that and that he’s not screwing you to his own benefit is impossible (well, at least without Law Enforcement engaging, or under the light of history several years later).

For a more well reasoned take on this, see this Reddit post.


(Emma) #105

3 more months of this :sob:

image


#106

I’m tired

PS: please ignore this PS. I need 20 characters


#107

Won’t get any better. Bercow needs to allow MV3 happen, so May can have another crack at passing. :man_facepalming: Or EU needs to back down on MPs agreeing to the deal before the short extension.

Doesn’t look good. Unless May triggers a new general election, or a “meaningful” people’s vote, which should convince the EU to give a longer extension. But then it will return to this carnage in a few months. :man_shrugging:

Weirdly they all swear they are upholding what the people want :thinking:


(Emma) #108

It gives the trust I work for another 3 months to issue even more ‘Brexit emergency contingency plan’ emails. I’m going to have to create a Brexit sub inbox at this rate :woman_facepalming:


(Vladislav Kozub) #109

I agree with @saf. Bercow won’t go against Erskine May hence MV3 is unlikely. Extension will only be possible in case of GE or Referendum. Other than that, it currently looks like a no deal and further GBP devaluation :popcorn:


(Aris David) #110

(Stu) #111

Not sure it will make a scrap of difference but this petition is gaining pace. It’s a bit of a lose-lose situation though. I voted remain, and as much as I’d like to see the decision reversed I can understand how betrayed the people who voted leave would feel. It just needs to be over :unamused:

Revoke Article 50 Petition


(Aris David) #112

Anyone doing business with the EU must have received this letter today.


(Stu) #113

Nope, no letter received here and we have both clients and suppliers in the EU


(Emma) #114

Something to look forward to then. Just like Christmas. Or rabies


(Stu) #115

I think catching Rabies might be preferable at the moment :rat:


#116

Meanwhile Bremainers are not dead

Back in 2016 David Cameron announced a referendum to decide if the UK would remain or leave the EU

making good on a promise he made in 2013

Brexit won the referendum by popular vote in June 2016

After 9 months of gestation Article 50 is invoked in March 2017

The negotiations start and a deal is reached in late 2018

The deal is voted on parliament twice and gets rejected. Twice.

Now what??/

Now we still are in what I can gently call a gigantic mess.

It seems to me there are 5 so-called options on the table at this stage:

  1. Leave with no deal;

  2. Leave with the current deal;

  3. Delay the decision on Brexit;

  4. Revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU;

  5. Call for a second referendum.

Let me say this upfront. I support Remain. And I support the idea of a non-federal EU. But I also support the rule of popular vote. A referendum was called and those who supported Leave won. That has to be respected.

The government was mandated, by popular vote, to negotiate with the EU in order to reach a deal. That milestone has been achieved. Parliament voted on it and rejected it twice. It also rejected the no deal scenario.

It would seem we are now trapped in a dead end. And the way out doesn’t look easy. Whatever the outcome a large chunk of the population will be unhappy.

An unsatisfactory way to get out of it would be to ask, in a second referendum, which of these options people want:

Do you want to:

  1. Leave with no deal;

  2. Leave with the current deal;

  3. Delay the decision on Brexit;

  4. Revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU.

The options are not to be voted individually with a Yes or No question like we’ve seen so far. It’s a single question with 4 options. Choose one and get on with it. (Edit:) Or, the two most voted options would then be submitted for a third vote. Do we really have time for this?!

In case a second referendum were to take place I think the question would have to address the process we’ve been through. I don’t think it’s acceptable nor wise to ask the same question or some variation of it till the right result is achieved. I find that notion appalling. Hence the question should include remain, leave with the deal we reached, delay or leave without a deal. To simply ask Yes or No again may contribute to enhance conflict and resentment. And would set what I believe would be a dangerous precedent.

Even if there’s no second referendum and the matter is voted in parliament only, I believe there’s no more room for Yes or No questions. I think parliament should vote on the question:

Do you want to:

  1. Leave with no deal;

  2. Leave with the current deal;

  3. Delay the decision on Brexit;

  4. Revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU;

  5. Call for a second referendum.

The options are not to be voted individually with a Yes or No question like we’ve seen so far. It’s a single question with 5 options. Choose one and get on with it. (Edit:) Or, the two most voted options would then be submitted for a third vote. Do we really have time for this?!
I’m tired

Meanwhile, just out of curiosity, David Cameron


(Alex Sherwood) #117

Thanks for sharing that timeline Raul. The BBC story that you shared included this summary of what’ll happen next:


#118

Thanks Alex
Lovely flowchart


(Aris David) #119

Checkout this breakdown. :open_mouth:


#120

It’s a shame that this breakdown doesn’t list which party represents the constituency.

Here is another interesting breakdown of the referendum,

By Votes
17.4m Leave vs 16.1m Remain

By Constituency
406 Leave vs 242 Remain

Constituency By Party
LAB: 148 Leave vs 84 Remain
CON: 247 Leave vs 80 Remain

By Region
9 Leave vs 3 Remain

By MP
160 Leave vs 486 Remain

This shows a very clear disconnect between the politicians and the citizens.


(Emma) #121

We have the wonderful thing of not having and representation in Parliament because Sinn Fein won’t take their seats :woman_facepalming:

I’m sure if your MP voted differently than the constituency it’s annoying but I’d take that over MP and Constituency agreeing but it being utterly meaningless