I fervently hope than Johnson is defeated as a prelude to his American buddy suffering the same fate.
96
The article fails to mention the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Corbyn is a radical left 1970s demagogue (anti-America, anti-Europe, anti-capitalism, comfortable with anti-semitism, pro-Chavez, pro-Castro, etc) who has long been in favour of Brexit as the only way on constructing agro-socialism in one nation. You can't make sense of what is going on in the UK without understanding the mistake Labour has made in choosing one of the remaining looney left as its leader.
The Lib Dems, the only sensible party in the race, will be getting my vote this time.
48
Mr. Johnson provides a tragic example of what can happen when simplistic thinking is applied to complex situations.
65
What goes around comes around, Britain as we know it will pay for its imperialist and colonial brutality.
16
I say, don't the British have a custom of keeping a court fool? Perhaps, having exhausted other options, they might call the fool in to whip Parliament into some kind of shape.
Oh, I see. They've already done that?
14
Don't forget Cameron: He dangled Brexit to get an election. All conservatives are outfoxed by their own cunning.
27
The incompetence of our world leaders reminds me of the chaos leading up to WW1.
37
End of the British Empire and Great Britain.
About time too. I have no tears for the country who ruined every place they touched. Middle East, India, Pakistan, you name it.
If I were Scottish, I would get out as quickly as I can. No love lost there either.
The Queen can start a Circus to pay for her upkeep. Clowns.
16
The "merry-go-round" will only stop when the effete, liberal leadership of Britain finally quashes the will of the people as expressed by the Brexit referendum. Sad, but I doubt it will ever happen now.
2
"Brexit delayed, again, new elections called, again. When does this merry-go-round stop?"
The answer is simple -- When Labour gets its act together.
I can recall when Tony Blair was the leader of the Labour Party. He argued ideas, not party. He hedged his positions such that he didn't come across as "having a fixed mindset."
Labour, after Tony Blair, reminds me of what is happening with Democrats on our side. We have an election next year and on stage we still have about 12 candidates. Talk about flunking Mathematics, and most of all, "common sense." You are frustrating our base. You are giving them little reason to take you seriously.
The Tory Party can afford to keep passing the baton to other Tory names each time they deliberately flunk going ahead with Brexit because they know Labour's rigidity in simply opposing the other side just isn't enough.
By the way, you'll notice that I said "deliberately flunk going ahead with Brexit." And that's because they know it's something they, and the rest of Europe, cannot afford. At least not as currently spelt out.
As a result, just as the Tory Party will stretch Brexit, so will the EU. You'll hear the EU say; "That's final" only to walk back. And that's because both sides know that in today's world, it's simply not in their favor.
7
"Brexit delayed, again, new elections called, again. When does this merry-go-round stop?"
The answer is simple -- When Labour gets its act together.
I can recall when Tony Blair was the leader of the Labour Party. He argued ideas, not party. He hedged his positions such that he didn't come across as "having a fixed mindset."
Labour, after Tony Blair, reminds me of what is happening with Democrats on our side. We have an election next year and on stage we still have about 12 candidates. Talk about flunking Mathematics, and most of all, "common sense." You are frustrating our base. You are giving them little reason to take you seriously.
The Tory Party can afford to keep passing the baton to other Tory names each time they deliberately flunk going ahead with Brexit because they know Labour's rigidity in simply opposing the other side just isn't enough.
By the way, you'll notice that I said "deliberately flunk going ahead with Brexit." And that's because they know it's something they, and the rest of Europe, cannot afford. At least not as currently spelt out.
As a result, just as the Tory Party will stretch Brexit, so will the EU. You'll hear the EU say; "That's final" only to walk back. And that's because both sides know that in today's world, it's simply not in their favor.
1
A commenter from Scotland earlier today, “Zoe,” provided very useful insight:
"The Conservative party is ...funded, in the main, by businesses and individuals who do not want to submit themselves to EU financial scrutiny...”
So, Brits who want to vote for Conservatives because they still find Brexit appealing should be enlightened about the U.S. experience with deregulation. It leads to oligarchy.
Zoe continues that the opportunists selling Brexit are “those who would gain from the UK shifting towards a more US style of financial involvement by the state - the privatisation of public services. Prisons, medical care, refuse collection, policing, fire services - if you can name it, they'll sell it."
So, Brexiters would do well to understand what privatization has done to the U.S.
“The EU is rightly worried about the possible erosion of workers' rights and wages in the UK creating a super-competitive, low tax, low rights state right on their borders - 'Singapore-on-the-Thames' is the go-to phrase at the moment...”
So, Brexiters should be educated about Trumpism, the Republican suckering of workers, and contempt for public goods.
Zoe’s comments, by the way, were in response to my comments earlier about Brexit ( https://nyti.ms/2pj7pBr#permid=103400851 ). I’m honored to have my comments deemed “Well said” by a Scot. THANK you, Zoe!
30
It doesn't matter if Johnson is wrong, the only thing matters is, that to many people still believe in him. And the only way to convince these people of brexit being a very stupid idea, is to get the brexit done.
So get it done.
But i am just curious how Nigel Farage, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Dominic Cummings handle the misery of the aftermath.
5
The obvious solution is to haul down the Union Jack and let each of the nations of Great Britain go their own way: Scotland, a United Ireland, Wales, London and East Anglia will stay in the EU. The “English” can have the Midlands and Yorkshire.
9
Stops when the Queen says “ off with his head”!
Great Britain seems stuck in an “ Alice in Wonderland” chapter and verse.
1
Brexit's disinformation propaganda was orchestrated by Putin with the help of some useful idiots.
Brexit will ensure the demise and breakup of Great Britain, rather than allow it to remain a leading figure in the largest economic bloc on the planet.
Putin has ben attempting to break up NATO, with Trump's treasonous help, for years.
But Trump was caught red-handed holding up Congressionally appropriated military assistance to the Ukraine for personal political gain.
As Russia is attacking the Ukraine because it seeks to join NATO, Trump was again proving his allegiance to Putin.
May Congress throw Trump's corrupt corpus out of the White House.
Great Britain need not take Putin's bait. They need another referendum on such a serious issue, particularly given Russia's disinformation propaganda.
Boris Johnson and Donald Trump are clownish and dangerous.
The free democratic world needs to stick together, rebuild and strengthen our alliances, and stop the dictators launching a hot war on the civilized world.
26
I am hoping for Boris to get his wish: a no deal Brexit. If only those masked young thugs in Hong Kong waving the Union Jack know anything about Brexit and democracy.
When does this merry-go-round stop?
When the educated elite, that has stymied the vote of the people for 3 years accepts what the Brits voted for. 52:48
In a Democracy, voters have the right to make decisions that the educated consider wrong. Sorry about it
"Elections belong to the people. It's their decision. If they decide to turn their back on the fire and burn their behinds, then they will just have to sit on their blisters."
Abraham Lincoln
1
The Editorial Board is right in its economic analysis, but the crucial underlying issues are social, and they are very grave. The health service is a shambles, education is in crisis (meaning children and youths are in crisis -- the very future is in crisis), affordable housing has been destroyed ever since Margaret Thatcher's ill-fated day, and transportation requires huge investment and reorganization. But the nub of the drama in the long run is that the serious foundations of culture -- e.g. public libraries, art education in schools along with activities like drama and photography; as well as sports -- have been underfunded for years now. It is as if Boris Johnson and his cronies (inside and outside the country) were hell-bent on destroying the United Kingdom. They are crass beyond belief. It really is now up to the people and how we vote. Voters have to throw the bums out. There is no saving the country unless this election does that.
Thing is, people have become lethargic, descended from being citizens to being consumers and from there to becoming couch potatoes. It is less dramatic than the crisis the United States faces with its entirely unsuitable president. But it can have terrible consequences. The fish rots from the head down. If the United States and the United Kingdom cease being the bastions of liberalism and justice that they have been, imperialist warts and all, that will doom the world to barren, ignorant, and very painful national extremism.
23
From the article: About the only motion to consistently pass in Parliament has been against allowing a no-deal Brexit, which almost everybody believes would be catastrophic. (Mr. Johnson disagrees.)
But Mr. Johnson is a blithering idiot. I think that settles the matter.
13
Folks need to realise three points:
1) Teresa May and the current Parliament have done zero in 3 years+. This has wielded huge respect to Boris, as he is solidly seen as getting on with the voters wishes. As a result, the Conservative party is up between 13-23% in the polls over Labour.
2) Labour is an anti-semantic party that continues to self-destruct, and appears to hate itself. Corbyn has as much respect as a trash can and the backlash will be painful.
3) Alternative parties are a gimmick; many view the LibDem self-proclaimed "leader" as nothing more than a train horn. They are totally ineffective, as shown in the David Cameron/Nick Clugg years.
Thus the Conservatives will win, and win big.
4
Never underestimate the gullibility of the voting public. They were lied into voting for Brexit, and, like the US, seem to be fine with a demagogue as leader.
19
Extremism breeds chaos. Every time. Johnson and Trump are both standard-bearers and pall bearers for the policies they advocate and effect.
12
Corbryn was a fool to agree to the election. All over Europe labor/left parties are losing voters in droves.
I agree that Labor has a strong position in turning back the austerity of that the Conservatives placed on Britain but Cobryn tends to muddle Labor's message pledging a reurn to the 50s.
The most interesting group may be the Liberals and Independents that will campaign on staying.
But the most likely scenario is a small Conservative majority pledged to leave. What happens after that is anyone's guess.
2
You have overlooked the fact that the only thing that's propped up the Conservative's current minority government has been a quasai-alliance with Unionists(i.e. DUP) MP's from Northern Ireland.
But they are now spitting mad at the terms agreed to by Johnson with respect to the present version of the Brexit agreement with the EU.
If the DUP holds onto its seats in the December election it will likely exact a price from Johnson if they once again hold the leverage of power of a possible Tory minority government.
Johnson's maneuver is a huge electoral gamble befitting his personality. But it may backfire in ways that will leave Britain in even a more muddled mess than it currently finds itself.
3
The only thing that might halt this assisted suicide of a nation is for every former prime minister to unite to say "stop - this is crazy."
This would be hard for Cameron, May and others, but the future of a nation is at risk.
4
Reverse Brexit and rejoin Europe. Otherwise the UK will fall apart both economically and politically.
There is no other realistic choice. The Labor Party and the Liberal Party must unequivocally support reversing Brexit and rejoining Europe and they must win to end this self induced destructive nightmare.
9
It is stunning to me that given how unpopular the Conservative party should be, why the Labour Party insists on sticking with the only politician who is less popular than Johnson, Jeremy Corbyn. Are Labour Party members that blind? You have alternatives, the best one being a return on the Milibands, this time the one that should have led the party, David Miliband
7
Time will tell if Boris will make something of Brexit where Cameron and May have failed. But so far Brexit is clearly the destroyer of politicians. We should bottle it - as the old bugs bunny cartoon says “there’s got to be a market for that”
1
If, as is most likely to happen, the conservatives win the election and Johnson's Brexit goes through, there will be two factors responsible. Both are failures of democracy.
Factor one is the apathy and tiredness of the British electorate who are supposedly exhausted of seeing Brexit in the headlines, and so are prepared to accept even the United Kingdom destroying terrible bill of serial liar Johnson just to "get it done." Doing something "just to get it done" is a terrible abdication of the basic responsibility of the electorate and leaves the door open for bad actors - much as the US public's supposed "tiredness for bad conflicts" in the middle East convinced Obama not to fight the good fight in Ukraine.
Factor two is that the British "first past the post" electoral system does not capture the people's will on Brexit. In this case, Conservatives are the beneficiaries. The Liberal Democrats, traditionally Britain's 3rd party, are often the losers: in 2001 they received 18.3 percent of the votes but this translated to only 7% of the parliamentary seats. A similar calculus may emerge now. The system is rigged which is why Johnson insisted on a general election rather than a confirmatory referendum which would directly measure the will of the people.
There has only been one party which has consistently been honest and realistic throughout the Brexit process: the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP). I will wish them well when Scotland justifiably leaves the UK.
6
Too bad one option not on the table is to put Cameron back into number 10 and let him sort out the disaster he created. His incompetence may be the antidote to the madness that is Brexit. The two negatives added together equal a positive theory?
2
If Boris Johnson remain the prime minister for the next five years, the United Kingdom will be much more chaotic and poor than it is today. Not only he is as incompetent as Donald Trump, but he can be many times more destructive and error prone than DJT.
The Labour should not agree to an early general election unless it is coupled with a new referendum on Brexit. All the lies that Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage were telling the Brits about Brexit in the last referendum have been already exposed. To rout the Conservatives on Brexit, the Labour just needs to remind the Brits that Brexit also means half of the Premier League's players will be leaving for Europe.
2
A younger, well educated version of Trump.
Best wishes.
7
Curious that the Labour Party hasn't dumped Corbyn.
Surely there are people there who are also aware that he is a liability, not just NYT readers.
2
Wild-hair Boris Johnson has been pursuing the wrong agenda, apparently provoked by tabloid sensationalism and sincerely cynical isolationists.
The United Kingdom voters deserve a much better choice, and hopefully shall get it.
The voters apparently do have rational second thoughts, and apparently their courts have cleared the London legal fog for a corrective referendum this coming December/whenever.
Make Britain great and strong as possible again, please don’t be self-weakened by emotional reaction against desperate immigrants.
Joe Biden, in a recent talk, put it very sucinctly. Responding to a question on Russia, Biden explained that while the Soviet Union was an empire driven by ideology, Russia is a diminished kleptocracy struggling to hang on. A united and prosperous West will outcompete Russia in every aspect, so Putin's only strategy is to sow dissent and try to weaken the West.
First by bankrolling UKIP and the Leave campaign, and launching a disinformation social media campaign, Russia succeeded in Brexit, greatly weakening the UK, and sowing division in the EU.
Then, by promoting Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton, Putin successfully put an incompetent administration in the White House, eroding America's global leadership and economic strength. (Imagine what America's economy would be without Trump's trade war, attempts to pick winners and losers in the energy sector, and record deficits...).
Not a bad outcome for Putin - for a minimal investment in hacked e-mails, troll farms, and a few million dollars to bankroll shady British Euroskeptics, Putin foisted Trump and Johnson on the US and the UK, sowing division internally and chaos across the globe.
8
Brexit is likely to lead to the end of the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, and Wales and the resumption of hostilities between Dublin and Belfast.
2
Quote from articel:
" Yet in an impasse without any obvious or easy way out, a general election may well be the best of a dismal set of options. The current Parliament has exhausted its possibilities, and asking the public to choose a new one is how a parliamentary democracy is meant to deal with political deadlock. "
The editorial lacks imagination. Many in Britianare talking about a referendum. This articles does not mention it.
A confirmatory refereendum is differnet from an "advisory refenedum" whichy is what the last one was.
. 3 Conservative Prime Ministers and two elctions have fialed to deliver what they promised. Yet, NY TImes ediitorial board Board thinks that an election will solve everything. It is clear that elected officials in the US and in Britain and the world over are being exposed for their "lack of public service" . Look at Israel is you thinlk elections are the silver buillet for all problems. Dialogue and good intetions and self less service should define a "PUBLIC SERVANT".
The dollar democracy, is not doing much better in terms of faith in our elected leaders.
Quantum leaps in technology suggest that there will be big changes in the way we govern ourselves soon. One doesnt need to "go to Washington" and smoke cigars in a back room while the constituents are in the dark because it is a 3 day buggy ride to the constituency.
I take no pleasure watching my former country's pathetic inability to govern itself. The place cries out for a leader à la Churchill 1940 but there is nobody remotely close. On one side, Boris - a man of no particular convictions but a massive ego; he hitched his wagon to Brexit not because he believed in it but because he thought he could ride it to advance his politcal career. On the other side Jeremy - who opposes Boris with one-third of all his might because because he is very lukewarm about remaining in the EU. Both men must surely understand now, if they didn't before, what a disaster Brexit would be, yet neither is leader enough to tell the truth.
Perhaps by some miracle, the pro-remain Liberal Democrat and Scottish National parties may emerge strong enough to bury Brexit once and for all. Not that the national nightmare will be over; the fallout from just the threat of Brexit will take years to disappear.
00:25 EDT, 10/31
5
It would be a fitting end of this whole manufactured crisis if the conservatives lost in a landslide. Brexit was sold to voters with a pack of lies and a mouthful of illogical xenophobia to wash it down. It was always an unreasonable and reactionary plan that would damage what remains of the UK's standing and send the country into an economic slump. That much is now clear. The question is, have voters realized it yet.
5
Boris Johnson, a hard core exhibitionist, campaigned on Brexit to garner name recognition. It’s well accepted that he never expected the majority pro Brexit results. He outmaneuver PM May, because there’s no real clean way to break away fro the E.U. He knows having lost votes on every initiative in Parliament; he even lost the majority support of his own Tory members. The elections were inevitable, though didn’t think it would happen in December. The outcome depends on how the country monitors social media and prevents Putin from causing mischief -ditto, Facebook-, and how Labor’s Jeremy Corbyn manages the election. He’s been unfairly accused of antisemitism for his support for a Palestinian homeland . This is, of course, a canard, and presents a challenge to him, though he can overcome if he’s able to coalesce public opinion, including with the Liberal Democrats, based on the truth: Brexit will be a debacle for the UK’s economy and security, not to mention the E.U.
1
I was going to carve a Brexit pumpkin, then make an X-mas ornament, so now a Valentines'?
1
Wrong circus. Brexit may well be a poor policy choice, misguided administration or economic stupidity (to which we also subscribe), but there is a qualitative difference between that and practicing unconstitutional government (our constitution) and abandoning the rule of law.
Our democracy and its three independent branches of government have been hijacked by those dealing in deceptive, false and traitorous behavior. promoting reckless policy and legislation. They promote the inequality of wealth, power, capital, healthcare, education and nutrition. They advocate discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin.
We ought be wary of any agenda that diverts taxpayer and borrowed monies and other resources toward the building of walls, the ruination of free trade, the hindering of a free press or the editing and withholding of documents for the public record.
I sometimes wish that Brexit was our biggest problem.
2
Johnson, had always been in internationalist. His siblings still are and are quite vocal about it.
Donald Trump had always been a sort of Democrat.
Both saw political opportunities for themselves as right wing populists, neither out of any real conviction to do good for the their nations.
Both are in it for themselves, for their own egos.
Both are bombastic liars.
Both are too lazy to learn the details of policies.
Both will promise everything in elections and deliver nothing.
Both, cheat on their wives.
Both cheat on their taxes.
Both are entertaining con men who get the working class to vote for them by coming off as strong decisive leaders.
The GOP, starting with St. Ronnie, has done its best to dismantle the good that FDR did.
The Tories, starting with Thatcher, has done its best to dismantle the good that Clement Atlee did.
Now we have the two clowns, BoJo and Trump running countries that once had leaders the entire world looked up to.
How much lower is the prestige of the UK and the US going to go?
Maybe we should ask Putin. His global game plan has been working brilliantly for three years now.
6
The election is not a scheme - its the only option left to bring Brexit to a conclusion. Why do the Remainers complain about the people going to the polls? If remain is so broadly the view now, certainly the LibDems and Labour will rout the Tories, won't they?
time for little england to find its place in the world - and to finally allow europeans to move on to more pressing problems! the english always had only one foot in the european project anyway, and most nations in the union will breathe a sigh of relief when they finally crash out - with or without consequences for the unified economy.
britain, goodbye tapas, hello marmite on toast!
6
My feeling is that Brexit will be reversed. The reason Leave won the last referendum was because *many* Remainers did not bother to vote, thinking that the outcome of the referendum would surely be Remain. Well, this is their second chance that they have been longing for. Are they going to sit back and not vote, again? No way. And also there are people who have awakened to the negative or nasty consequences of Brexit following the drama for the last three years, it is not hard to guess how they will vote.
7
The economics of Brexit is in the eye of the beholder. Britain will "save" the billions of Euros paid to the EU in order to bolster the NHS as surely as Mexico will pay for the wall through Colorado.
22
I think the real but unspoken reason people support Brexit are EU rules that block member states from limiting migration. It is equivalent to the politics of refugees and migration in the US.
10
" ... and his Labour opponent, Jeremy Corbyn, is unpopular."
Jeremy Corbyn is not unpopular with youth or a large mass of the British Electorate - as demonstrated by the last General Election. He has built the British Labour Party into the largest Political Party in Europe. :)
10
The best way out of this mess is a new referendum, which would certainly nix Brexit. But if Brexit were reversed in a new vote, the EU would have to set conditions for the restoration of sanity that would follow. This entire fiasco has been difficult for the EU, which has been trying to cope with the profound economic and political uncertainties attendant upon Brexit, while the British government keeps revising its concept of the conditions under which Brexit would be consummated. Some provision for an extended relief from any recurrence of this nonsense would have to be included if Brexit were to be abandoned.
6
@Jon Gordon In fact, support for Brexit is higher in the polls now than it was leading up to the Referendum.
And in a 2nd referendum, the Government would be campaigning for Leave. At the last referendum, the Government, the Opposition (Labour), the Lib Dems, SNP, Greens etc all campaigned for Remain, and it still lost by more than a million votes. This was despite the Government mailing every household in the country advising them to vote Remain. Boris Johnson also has a record of winning difficult campaigns (twice being elected mayor in a city where Conservative support is week, and then leading the Leave campaign which everyone expected to lose). He would win a 2nd Leave campaign too, especially since Labour is in disarray over Europe.
The Leave campaign also relied heavily on fear - that a vote to Leave would immediately cause a recession, a jump in unemployment, cuts to public spending etc. None of that happened, and people know that now - the UK economy has grown, unemployment is down, employment is up (to record levels), real wages are rising healthily (fastest since before the 2008 crash), there is no sign of businesses relocating from the UK in significant numbers (e.g. finance employment in London has grown, when it was predicted firms would have moved by now). So the fear weapon has been blunted.
3
@Jon Gordon
So if that is true voters should vote for pro remain parties who will make sure there is a second referendum. IF you can win the second referendum, should have no problem winning the General. So, no need now for another referendum. Just have the General, win it with a pro remain majority and Viola, Second Referendum. Can't do that? Why not?
1
@Edmund Langdown
No poll in the last 8 months has shown anything other than a minority for Leaving.
The rest of your post regarding 'Project Fear' is equally untruthful. The UK economy has shrunk and then ceased to recover - next quarter's figures will almost certainly confirm the onset of recession. Practically every other pressimistic prediction has proved CORRECT. How's Sterling doing? $1.50 pre-vote, about $1,20 now. Some roaring economy, eh?
There are NO upsides to Brexit. For sure.
Anyway, if you're so sure the UK is doing so well and support for Leaving is so strong, put it to another vote. You've nothing to lose...
Brexiters have a variety of explanations as to why another vote is undemocratic and not needed. I expect you'll wheel them out.
18
A little fact checking on this article:
"The institute said the economy has already shrunk by about 2.5 percent since Britain voted to leave the bloc, and that will only worsen."
Entirely untrue. The UK economy has grown by around 4.5% since it voted to leave the bloc. The employment rate has also reached an all-time record high, unemployment has fallen to its lowest rate in 44 years, and real wages are presently rising at their fastest rate in more than a decade. Unemployment in the UK is at just half the level in the Eurozone.
"About the only motion to consistently pass in Parliament has been against allowing a no-deal Brexit, which almost everybody believes would be catastrophic."
In fact, no deal Brexit is consistently supported by at least 25% of the population, and numerous polls have suggested that in a straight Remain or No Deal referendum, No Deal could win.
The piece also fails to give credit to the Prime Minister for achieving what the EU long said was impossible - reopening the withdrawl agreement and getting the EU to agree the UK could leave the customs union while not having a border with Ireland. All the UK, including NI, will be able to agree its own trade deals, rather than access to the UK being traded by the EU to third countries, as was the case previously. He has also successfully found a deal which both the EU and the right-wing of the Conservative Party can agree upon - no mean feat, and achieved in a very short period of time.
1
@Edmund Langdown
Johnson's deal is nothing more than a watered down Theresa May deal - more concessions to the EU with UK employment and environment protections stripped out. It's no achievement. Of course the EU were happy for Johnson to give more away. Why wouldn't they re-open negotiations when Johnson was willing to humiliate the UK further?
Johnson is weak, now. A loser. he promised 'do or die', 'dead in a ditch' that we'd be leaving today. He's FAILED. Now there's a frantic campaign to try to salvage his tattered reputation.
Perhaps he should have been more honest. Like 'We're leaving on 31st October - er, unless anyone prevents that'.
Happily, the election he so craved will have this chancer and fraud out.
@Edmund Langdown Are you relying on facedook for your information?l
1
I think the UK joined the EU in the first place was because of the economic benefits. They are trying to leave the EU despite the loss of those benefits. Leave politicians do not want to say this out loud, like all salesmen, they want to focus on the positive. Unfortunately for those politicians, buyer's remorse is going to be inevitable.
7
@Glenn I think remorse is very unlikely, because, as you've identified, this isn't about money.
The remorse is having joined what people believed to be a trading relationship, but which has become a political union with ever-expanding powers, a development which had not been put to a public vote before the referendum. When people were asked, they said no.
In any case, UK growth rates didn't increase after joining the EU, and the share of the UK's trade that is with the EU is lower today than it was with those countries before it joined. It's also lower than for some non-EU countries. The UK also runs a vast structural trade deficit with the EU, while it is almost in balance of the rest of the world. And it pays billions a year (the EU's 2nd largest net contributor since joining) for the privilege of maintaining this relationship.
The EU is the world's slowest growing economic region - declining structurally both economically and demographically. European companies are largest absent from the sectors of the future - there are not any European tech giants for example, and London is Europe's tech capital. It may well prove to make sense for the UK to reorient itself towards the wider world, with much of which it has deep links of language, culture and history.
@Edmund Langdown '
'The remorse is having joined what people believed to be a trading relationship, but which has become a political union with ever-expanding powers...'
Except of course it wasn't. The goals of political, economic and financial union were already clear in 1975 when we voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Communities. No? Try reading the Daily Mail editorial 23 June 1975 - even the Right applauded the direction of the project.
This 'we were tricked into EU membership' schtick is so 2016. And untrue.
I vote in 1975. The country knew what it was getting...
'
8
The conservatives are going to win the December election and the Labour will be routed. The problem is that Johnson has managed to re-defined the Tories as the pro-Brexit party, while the Labour is still floundering and has not defined itself as the anti-Brexit party. The Labour is not exactly anti-Brexit, and not exactly pro-Brexit either, and has not given the voters a clear reason to vote for them. Worse, Corbyn is so ideologically extreme and unpopular that the public dislikes him even more than Johnson. Under these circumstances, a Tory landslide electoral victory is almost inevitable.
2
@Berto Collins
Yes, it is amazing how unpopular Corbyn is and that he still remains the head of Labour. What I think could change the dynamic is if the other non-Tory parties for a united front during the election campaign and present a seemingly more reasonable alternative to the other side. We will see.
1
I agree that the election campaign is causing MP's from the three major parties to campaign on different themes ... but that is true of every parliamentary election. It may not even matter that the Tories want Johnson's deal, the Lib Dems want a referendum, and Labour wants to renegotiate a deal followed by parliamentary approval, and then followed by a referendum.
The greatest likelihood seems to be that the Tories will form a new government with Lib Dems, that Johnson will be the PM, that Parliament will be asked to vote once again before January 31, and everyone willl hold their breath once more.
This doesn't look like a catastrophe at even the level of the US Congress's refusal to pass a budget for several years running.
The bugaboo about the border was seriously diminished in the latest round of deal-making, and fears that Scots are becoming more desirous of independence don't seem to be based on any actual evidence.
No matter what happens, Great Britain is cooked due to the entrenched polarization among the citizens. The result will be economic decline no matter who wins. Great Britain has long fought far above its weight class by virtue of its support of globalization and the EU. Give the populists their "island until themselves" back, close the chunnel and let them decline into penury. Then, after the populists have aged out, responsible people can begin to rebuild the economy.
11
Perhaps the biggest take-away in all of this Brexit battle is the failure of democracy itself as a governing principle. Maybe certain questions and certain decisions are just too big to be dealt with by a simple yes or no vote. There are so many moving parts and serious implications to the Brexit decision that maybe a simple decision won by a simple majority is the wrong way to approach the problem. It would be as if this question could be put on our national election ballot: Should the U.S. Constitution be scrapped in order to form a more streamlined and up-to-date version? (Yes or No) What if the ultimate outcome would be decided by a heavily gerrymandered form of governance? The final outcome to what would appear to be a simple yes or no decision might be a civil war.
In short, I believe that any momentous decision such as Brexit should only be implemented by a super-majority (say 60% approval).
9
The real issue at stake now is the union between Scotland, Nothern-Island and England. If Brexit throws the economy of the UK under the wheels, then it is probably unavoidable that the Irish and the Scots will express their will to return to the EU and in that case, the UK will fall apart!
It is inconceivable today - imagine a world without Great-Britain - but the box of Pandora has been opened by the Brexit-referendum and everything has been spinning out of control since.
5
I have read about this Brexit circus for years and have come to two conclusions besides the rather obvious, to me, observation that in terms of the overall bargain, the citizens of the UK are better off in the EU than not.
My first conclusions is that the main people driving on the Brexit campaign, like Johnson and Farage, are the kinds of people who would not be able to rise to the top or stand out under normal circumstances - they need calamity and big changes in order to get to where they want to be. Somewhat analogous to the aspiring yet unqualified firefighter who sets a fire only to try to be a hero putting it out. That does not end well in most cases.
My second conclusion is that someone like Johnson will do well on the campaign trail - all carnival, quick wit, backslapping, etc. While it may be an amusing spectacle and productive in gaining popularity, it is most likely not a good recipe for future governance of the UK. After all, once the circus is over, you do not want to have the clown run your government.
21
@Anders Your first conclusion is interesting - and insightful. Yes, they are catastrophe-merchants (just like eminence grise Dominic Cummings, pulling the strings in the background).
To most thinking people, Conservative or Labour, Farage is astonishingly awful, but although he gets loads of media coverage, he has repeatedly failed in his attempts to become an MP - surely because people can see his limitations and know that he is just pandering to bigoted, resentful, ignorant people. He is an MEP because people think that doesn't matter (it should, of course, but.....).
As for Johnson, he is lazy. He doesn't want to actually do the work, the job of PM- he just wants attention and adulation. He was a lazy Mayor of London and a lazy Foreign Secretary. He will come unstuck during the campaign. Many people fall for his schtick, find him amusing, but they also know perfectly well that he is an unprincipled liar and a coward.
He has already shown he is not up to the job, that he is actually hopeless under pressure. He knows this - he has avoided questions and scrutiny in parliament more than any other prime minister in the last 100 years, and he can't even keep his lies straight when he has actually been there. Petulant bluster. On the campaign trail, the pressure will be exponentially worse. He'll be outside the Westminster bubble and his shortcomings will be more and more evident. So I suspect your second conclusion is wrong.
I really really hope so.
3
Anderson - exactly, as can be witnessed here in the States, where we elected a clown and now have a circus. What on earth are people expecting?
2
Any one who knows the extent and depth of the divisions that Brexit has caused in the UK, and is aware of the 'little England' mentality which has sprung up so strongly in the past three years, will also be doubtful that a general election can solve the Brexit divide or heal the deep rift that has opened up in British society.
6
This will sound elitist, but the wisdom of the popular vote is more ideal than reality. The Electoral College was created to avoid popular vote errors, which the founders expected to occur. Once the free male landholders mistakenly picked the wrong candidate, the College, a group of educated, informed males, would swoop in and correct the mistake. Best laid plans. In today’s electoral world awash with misinformation and ill informed voters, not to mention partisan divides throughout the world, a rational outcome is unlikely. In Spain, the lagging conservative PP, is running a voter suppression campaign, and relying on fear. Will the elections in GB rise to a higher standard?
4
The Electoral College had all the knowledge it needed about the two candidates. One being a known fraudster, multiple-bankrupt, serial sexual assaulter, reality show host, with zero political experience, and rumours of connections with a hostile foreign power. The other one a reasonably comptetent, if somewhat drab, woman with long government experience and cool under fire, only she had used a private e-mail account and server while in office (cleared of any wrongdoing). The woman won the popular vote by some 3mn, the widest margin in history. Still the Electoral College in its infinite wisdom plumped for the other candidate.
@DO5 Yep, why let those nasty people choose their own future? Better leave that to those who "know best", right?
1
Watching the UK figure out how to diminish themselves is sixty years into the making. Boris is however especially gifted as he is so unplugged as to misunderstand the simply fact that Britain started the wheels of globalization only to miss or ignore the brass ring over 300 years. It is likely that by 2025, the "City of London" will be razed and made into a low income housing enclave. Boris might take his compatriot cabinet members and visit the new airport in Bejing or observe Singaporean self driving car experimentation.
3
If the UK chooses to leave the European Union knowing the result is a smaller, less prosperous, so what as long as that is what they choose. The problem with a snap election, which isn't the best of a dismal set of options, is that it doesn't put the leave question to the population. It is, at best, an indirect measure of what the people want.
When the UK voted three years ago the vote was asymmetric: the meaning of Stay was fully understood but Leave meant what?
Today there are three options: Stay, Leave with the agreement Boris Johnson negotiated, or a No-Deal Brexit. The best option, which is not dismal in any way, would be to put those options to a vote.
With a fully informed decision on Brexit in hand, if Johnson still wanted to call for a SNAP election, he could do it and that campaign would be undiluted by Brexit -- a straight referendum on the government and policies (NIH, education, foreign policy, etc) the people want, something the 12 December election can't resolve.
7
The problem with implementing Brexit is that any vote to leave should have required say a 65% mandate.
It is TOO BIG a shift in the destiny of the nation to do on a cutthroat - just over 50% - win.
It was an ill-conceived vote to begin with.
16
@EC
The problem is: The referendum had been simply a legally non-binding poll held by government. Nothing else. Have you ever seen a poll requiring a two-third majority? That´s nonsense. The result couln´t be anything but a declaration of a certain intention. So the wording was no mistake. The result supported by a narrow majority only simply said: "Alright, we should leave. Let´s try it."
It became an unstoppable disaster only by subsequent stubborn declarations of Mr. Cameron and Ms. May who haven´t seen this outcome as what it is but who deliberately redefined the result to a quasi-constitutional bill providing an absolute imperative to leave in all cases at all costs that is unchangeable for eternity just by pretending this was "democracy" based on an understanding UK could do this at their sole discretion by it´s own rules.
Fantastic "remainers". (Eton)-Oxbridge at work.
Because the last three years have shown that the dominant political class in Britain is not compatible with EU structures and is not integrable to the European system. In fact they want to stay outside. Because UK isn´t able to change this political system that is producing this kind of dominant elite playing their narrow-minded games of wrangling and obstruction in foreseeable future there are no major objection against a timely Brexit in Europe any more.
So BoJo has got his re-negotiation and the changes of the withdrawal agreement avoiding the tricky backstop in the end.
5
@ws
I have seen many polls or votes requiring a two third majority.
One very pertinent case is the impeachment hearing once it moves to the US Senate for removing Trump from office. A two thirds majority vote is required.
4
@EC
Votes: Yes.
Poll: No. Never.
(This is "a poll":
"a study in which people are asked for their opinions about a subject or person."
This is clearly meant in my comment and this is what "the referendum" was proclaimed.
You might mean "the polls":
"the places where people vote in a political election"
For "the polls" you are undeniably right.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/poll
A clear majority of Britons want to wholly repudiate Brexit. But it's not on the ballot. They know that with Boris Johnson as PM, they get to repudiate Brexit a lot, as many times as needed until it, somehow, goes away.
3
@Bob T The truth is we really do not know how the vote would go today. There are “remainers” who feel that a lot of damage has been done since the vote, and even if, in the end, we remain in the EU, we will be so diminished as a member that we’d have been better off leaving and being free to form our own trade deals. I also know people who voted to leave, who wish they hadn’t. Add to this Labour voters who won’t vote for Corbyn, and Tory voters who want to remain in the EU who will likely vote for the Lib Dem’s. This is why the outcome of this general election is so hard to predict.
12
@TS
At the 2017 election Corbyn had more people voting for Labour than Tony Blair ever did.
1
I continue to wonder why the EU would negotiate a deal to let Britain go. I can certainly understand why individual nations would want to trade with a post-exit Britain. Bilateral and multi-lateral trade agreements have flourished for several centuries. But I wish someone would explain what interest the EU as an organization to negotiate an exit with a nation that wishes to leave and go it alone.
1
@lhc
' I can certainly understand why individual nations would want to trade with a post-exit Britain.'
A 'deal' and 'trading' aren't the same thing.
Virtually no individual countries have individual trade deals with other individual countries - Blocs like the EU, NAFTA, Mercosur set the framework. Individual EU countries won't be able to have trade arrangements with the UK.
The advantage of trade blocs is obvious. The EU, being the biggest, is able to deal effectively with entities like the US and China, The UK won't be.
Only three countries in the world depend exclusively on WTO trade frameworks - Mauritania, Liberia and North Korea.
4
Is there no one in Labor more popular than Corbyn? Hard to understand why he would want to continue in a position from which he cannot win.
2
@HM Labour members (not MPs) include too many idealists who prefer to their purity to the messy compromises of actually being in power. You have a few (some think) Actually your Dems are centre-left in reality.
@HM It's his brand, a sour loser iconoclast. If he were actually in power, he's have to get something done. So he avoids it.
1
I think new elections are a mistake. There were elections two years ago, little changed and politics only got worse. Furthermore, they give Mr Johnson, who is only good at winning elections, a chance to purge his party of opponents and regain a majority to push his bad deal through Parliament.
Referendums are the way to go. Ideally two consecutive referendums; the first one about Johnson's deal: accept or reject, then if needed a second one about leave with no-deal or remain.
Brexiteers, who love to talk about respecting the people's will in the last referendum, are however too afraid to ask people about their plans and be rejected.
6
@SJP Will not happen. Second best, to keep on opposing Johnson. With him as PM, that can go on for a long time.
"The greater question is whether an election will end the convulsions of Brexit."
Why on earth would BoJo want to end the convulsions of Brexit? The convulsions have been very good to him, made him Prime Minister in fact. He would still be a grumpy backbencher without them.
An early election before Brexit is settled is BoJo's best shot at staying in office. Stoking the feverish coals of imperialist nostalgia remains a viable and effective strategy only so long as the ultimate question remains undecided. As the poet said, Brexit is in the eye of the beholder. It is whatever you want it to be -- until it isn't. The threat of Farage out-Brexiting him is BoJo's only real worry under the early election scenario.
What likely is best for the country (and for Labour) would be to have a second referendum choosing between BoJo's Brexit plan and remaining in the EU, then do the parliamentary election afterward. That would take the Brexit kettle off the stove and allow the nuts and bolts of implementing the referendum decision to shape the electoral debate. That would be so very tame and sensible, just like Britain used to be. Ah, there's that nostalgia thing again!
10
@woofer Absolutely correct - oh I AM nostalgic for the days we had statesmen, even those I disagreed with. :-(
5
The last paragraph of this editorial makes it crystal clear why the British Parliamentary System is so superior to the charade on this side of the pond. Why ? Because one of them is a flexible system that has been evolving and adapting since 1215, whereas the other is a fossil stuck in a time and a place very different from today, when it was beyond imagining that a crime boss and his henchmen would ever occupy the White House, and the enablers of said criminal will do everything in their power to keep the fossil from changing.
18
The central prediction in most forcasts is for another hung parliament in which no single party has a majority. The Tories start the election effectively down 30 seats, with the SNP likely to take most of the seats in Scotland won by the Tories in 2017; south of the border, the Liberal Democrats are poised to take something like 20 plus sets from the Tories in the south of England. Having been thoroughly shafted by Johnson in a deal far worse than the one negotiated by May, it also is very unlikely that the Ulster Unionists, DUP, will go into coalition with a minority Tory government as they did after the 2017 election. So, Johnson needs to win something like 50 seats in the in the midlands and north of England. And, I can assure you, it won't happen. Leave voters many of them may be, but to vote Tory, the architects of ten years of cuts and austerity, is expecting a lot. By contrast, there are something like 6 - 7 million voters who over the last three years have signed petitions and marched in opposition to Brexit; they loathe Johnson and everything he stands for; they are motivated; and they will vote tactically in favour of whichever party is best placed to defeat the Tory candidate in each constituency.
With luck, come December 12, there will be a Parliament with a majority to call for a second referendum, which is the only way out of this mess.
26
@Phil Garbett
There's not a one that MPs like best
Is it Jerry or Jo who's repugiest?
1
Isn't part of what's driving/funding the whole Brexit con a post Panama Papers angst among the 1% about tighter EU controls on taxes?
7
@sue denim YES! The Brexit leaders weren't really fired up until that particular "penny" dropped.
@sue denim
Yes that is exactly what it is. What I do not understand is why the opposition Labour party does not exploit this fact. Ask the likes of Jacob Rees Mogg and Boris Johnson what they personally will gain from Brexit. -Less or no tax to pay on their considerable off shore wealth stashes!!
1
Between Trump’s tariffs and Boris’ Brexit, it will be a miracle if we don’t wind up in a worldwide recession I have sold my small cap global mutual fund in anticipation.
Boris Johnson was able to cut a deal with the EU that passed Parliament. This was something that everyone thought was impossible. Then Labor in a fit of partisan spite refused to support fast tracking the deal to meet the deadline, forcing another extension. Yes, the situation is fraught with turmoil and farce, but Johnson has been more successful at dealing with Brexit than anyone else, and he has been more successful than anyone thought possible.
2
@Charles Except it didn't pass parliament. This is a spin by the Tories. Parliament simply allowed it to go on to be debated and scrutinized at which point Johnson churlishly pulled it; knowing that it wouldn't withstand any real scrutiny. Also, the "deadline" you mention was purely of Johnson's own making - why would a responsible parliament (it wasn't just Labour) allow the most important and potentially damaging piece of legislation since WWII be passed in a couple of days? It would have been thoroughly irresponsible. Johnson hasn't been successful at dealing with Brexit, no-one will make a "success" of Brexit, because Brexit can't survive any contact with objective reality.
20
@Charles
Speaking of partisan spite:
There would be custom checks between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. This is why the DUP rejects Johnson's deal as it would mean a de facto break-up of the UK.
However, the break-up of the UK was decried as unthinkable by Theresa May and Boris Johnson when it suited them. No longer it seems.
6
The problem is Jeremy Corbyn. He can’t put his dislike of the EU behind him to prevent the fiscal pariah nation Britain would inevitably become after Brexit (how else will it compete with the EU?).
5
The greatest gift anyone could have given PM Johnson was an opposition leader hated worse than Johnson. With all the drains around Johnson, all he has to do to is step back from attention for a minute and let Labour leader Corbyn speak for a moment and Johnson's ratings goes up double digits.
A Second Referendum is probably best but Corbyn ruined nearly every chance of that with his dragging feet. Good luck GB. We do wish U well but don't think it will happen. It seems that most of the thoughts on the US side of the ocean is that lots of pain is headed to the UK soon.
7
The real problem is, of course, that the UK's Conservative Party has been taken over by people who think vandalizing public institutions is amusing.
But ... if you take that as given ... then "the real problem" becomes the fact that the Labor Party's leader also favors Brexit, so long as he can blame it on someone else. There's no adult in the room.
16
The election is equivalent to a US House election but with more districts. However, there are multiple viable parties in most districts rather than two, as in the US. People are likely to vote tactically, for the party whose Brexit policy most agrees with their own view. So the election is essentially another referendum but given tactical voting and possible "non aggression" agreements between parties anything could happen.
3
When democracies descend into the chaos and confusion, it hurts is all by diminishing our certainty, our faith in our government and therefore never send to ask for whom the bell tolls ...
4
@Gerard Tragically true. A huge number of uninformed voters hate those MP smart enough to see the calamity for what it was and try to ameliorate it. Even though it was (and is) impossible. It's looking to have shades of Weimar in the 30s... feeling pessimistic.
Britain had a great deal. Along with the French and Germans, they bossed around the rest of the EU countries. Plus, they were given an exception to anything they didn't like (e.g., Euro, Schengen). This was in addition to all the great trade advantages and benefits that many UK workers depend upon for their livelihood.
And let's not forget peace in Europe. The EU made possible a borderless Ireland, which facilitated the Good Friday Agreement and peace on that island. Plus they haven't had to fight the Germans (or French) every few decades as was usual before the EU came into existence. How the Brits forgot that nearly 25,000 British servicemen were killed in action on the first day of the Battle of the Somme in WWI I'll never be able to figure out.
Let's hope Bojo is turned out by the British electorate and a second referendum is held and the UK turns away from the cliff's edge. Otherwise, we are probably looking at a very isolated and impotent rump-UK, with the end of Northern Ireland and an independent Scotland. A sad end to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
98
@Mark B
I agree with most of what you said. However, I want to dispute the view that the UK, France and Germany "bossed around the rest of the EU countries":
Countries have Veto powers, even Malta and Luxembourg. In other cases a qualified majority of states and population sizes is necessary.
Whenever the French and Germans pushed through with their political agenda, it was because the Germans convinced northern and eastern Europe and the French southern Europe beforehand. This division of labour was coined the "Franco-German engine".
Without it nothing works in the EU, not because these two countries would be sufficient, but because their positions generally reflect all of the EU countries.
Unfortunately, in many EU countries politicians conveniently blame Brussels or the Germans for unpopular decisions, which they themselves agreed to.
10
Boris’ hero is supposed to be Churchill. Boris believes Churchill to be a genius. The country’s greatest leader, with an unmatched wisdom never since repeated. That Churchill believed a United States of Europe was the continents greatest chance of a prolonged peace seems lost on Boris. But Boris, he cares not. Churchill was right. An “ever closer union” has integrated 27 countries economic interests to such an extent that war between European nations would be a kind of Mutually Assured Destruction. It provides balance of power within the international community, whilst simultaneously allowing a redistribution of wealth within the EU that acts as a tide to lift all boats. Economically deprived areas of our nation have benefitted enormously from grants and aid from Liverpool becoming the Capital of Culture (& all the long term economic benefit that encouraged), to creating the level playing field of laws and regs that protects the environ, business and workers.
Its never made sense to me that any working class people ever voted to leave. The benefits of the working time directive means we need only work a max of 40 hours a week, we get 20 days paid holiday (plus national holidays), health and safety regs mean people no longer risk death by going to work, paid maternity & paternity leave, 6 months statutory sick pay once you exhaust your contracted sick leave, flexible hours, minimum wage. Boris somehow convinced them the EU was making their work life worse. Wanker
8
The wording "the economy has already shrunk by about 2.5 percent since Britain voted to leave the bloc" is unfortunate. UK GDP has not "shrunk"; the economy has not been in recession since 2016, although there was negative growth in one quarter. What the writer means to convey is that the economy has achieved 2.5% less growth in GDP than it would have achieved had the vote to leave not occurred.
14
Wouldn't it be cleaner and simpler to hold another referendum, this time with an actual proposal for Brexit? That way, the election result would clearly be about Brexit. With the election as I understand it now, all the usual considerations and reasons for voting for one candidate over the other will come into play and Brexit might not be the primary factor.
10
@Sarah D. That's precisely why Boris Johnson wants a general election. He knows that if another referendum were held, voters would choose to remain this time (as recent polls have shown). So he is throwing the dice hoping that what you call "all the usual considerations and reasons for voting for one candidate over the other" will turn out in his favor. And given the current political fragementation in the UK, his gamble may well pay off.
14
The only reason why Boris Johnson is still in business is because Jeremy Corbyn is . . . not exactly a great alternative. I think the big winner will be the Liberal Democrats because at least that party is headed by a leader who has presented a very clear alternative to the public.
19
@blondiegoodlooks
Precisely
BREXIT is another manifestation of the belief that there is a simple solution to complicated problems. A slogan is not a strategy. You have such populist politics in your country as well. At a time when pessimism is so important many jump behind the loudest voice. As long ago as the 1890s the logician Frege described that phrases without reference can be used by demagogues. The example he cited was the phrase 'The will of the people'. Something that does not exist.
33
It's keeping illegal, disruptive, migrants out of Britain which is at the heart of Brexit and the ascendency of Boris Johnson.
I would imagine that if Britain could avail itself of the economic benefits of EU membership, without getting stuck with EU rules as to immigrants and border control, that they'd enthusiastically go along with that.
I don't blame a country for wanting to exercise border and immigration control so as to preserve its national identity and not have to deal with incompatible migrants who would dilute the prevailing culture. As it is Britain already is home to people who have origins in far off places which have various connections with Britain. But that is Britain's choice.
Britain is not the polyglot USA. The nation-state Britain is for the British and those certain select foreigners whom they choose, in their sole discretion, to offer residency and eventually citizenship to. This is not something that should be forced down their throats by Germany and Merkel, who allowed a million migrants onto the continent, as a condition of EU membership.
Germany already messed up Europe twice.
Here we go again.
1
@MIKEinNYC Brexit supporters constantly (and perhaps purposely) confuse EU Freedom of movement with immigration. FoM only applies to EU citizens and even those citizens can be returned home if they cannot support themselves (the UK never availed of this aspect of FoM). No-one is forcing the UK to accept "a million migrants" (thanks for the hard-right imagery there), and painting it as a condition to EU membership is either ignorant or mischevious.
The UK has problems, like all countries; but Brexit is the wrong answer. They need to look in the mirror, but it's easier to scapegoat what the English have always charmingly referred to as "foreigners".
20
You clearly show a very limited understanding of the situation. And only reverberate the demagoguery that lead to Brexit. Germany has not mandated anything for europe. These topics are decided by majority vore by all european leaders with equal voting. And having the benefits of the EU without the burdens is exactly what everybody wants but nobody can get. As it would spell the end of the EU leaving everybody worse off.
And let’s not forget Brexit was based on many false presumtions and promises. Britain is paying a lot less than its fair share to the EU. As negotiated by miss Tatcher. And the promise of a certain mr. Johnson that the European controbutiom would allow him to put 550 million a week in the NHS has been proven total and utterly false. And there was no mention that Cambridge (or Oxford) gets more money annually from the EU than the country of Romania. Yet the campaign touted all the money spend on helping the poorest of EU member states as a reason for EU excesses.
Many people in the UK didn’t bother to vote in the referendum as they could not conceive the possibility of leave. Creating a false sense of the “will of the people”. And many people who voted to leave, did not realise that a big part of their livelihood depends on the largess of the EU (as well documented in this newspaper). It is part of the English who did this to themsleves and to their UK countrymen who do not want this. Its time they sort themselves out. And stop blaming others.
4
@MIKE - the ones that really worry them are NOT the EU citizens. Peter has it right.
2
the british wrangle over brexit, and the conservative fears of "deep state," raise a peculiar and fascinating question: is democracy compatible with bureaucracy?
2
@drollere
"is democracy compatible with bureaucracy?"
I think a better question is: do right wing politicians such as Johnson and Trump even want democracy?
The UK has a parliamentary democracy, but Johnson has tried every trick to avoid the parliamentary process to get his way. Trump does the same thing on a regular basis. A democracy whereby you have a referendum on every issue will not work. If a government was able to operate on the basis that it has a mandate for all its policies, parliament would be rendered redundant. All that is left is a government doing whatever it wants without accountability or concern for what the people want.
Parliament is the final decision-maker and appoints the bureaucracy, so the presence of a so-called "deep state" is irrelevant except for those who want to find excuses for their failures.
10
"That might nudge hard-core Brexiteers away from the Conservatives and toward Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party. Then there’s Mr. Johnson himself, whose dubious integrity will surely be exploited by his opponents."
And Farage isn't of "dubious integrity"? Didn't they both lie to the English voters?
37
The bottom line is that the EU is introducing new tax laws, so the fearless in the UK have decided to jump ship. There was no planning, and "success" will be at best a reduced economy and a total lack of coherence. After 40+ years in a much better economic position, returning to Little Britain is a farcical idea, only possible for the most insular. Polarizing the country, that fabulous conservative innovation, won't help. Labour has been inarticulate and lost in its own bizarre stupor for years. The other parties can't govern. So the future will be a mess, whatever happens.
25
@Paul Wallis
Actually the EU is just enforcing existing laws that are designed to prevent the wealthy hiding their wealth in tax havens. These wealthy people, reinforced by the wealthy media owners, such as Murdock, strongly represented by the Tories, are trying to turn the UK into their own little tax haven. To the cost of the average worker. That is the 99%.
The media polls are biased and Corbyn and the Labour Party are much more popular than the media report.
The net of it is that is that Bogus Johnson and Nigel Fromage have brought the UK to it's knees by lying like Trump backed by the GOP. In fact there has been significant interaction between the Tories and the GOP and not just at the Executive level.
A vote for Corbyn and his party is a vote for the many, not the few.
20
@Paul Wallis :: Yes, this end of tax avoidance (Panama Papers etc.) is the read motivator for people like Johnson, Rees-Mogg, Davis, Fox and their media cronies and masters. For less wealthy people, the 2016 referendum was simply the opportunity to kick Cameron and the Conservatives and establishment in general. No one expected it to win. In this sense, it closely resembled the victory of Trump, and the reasons for voting for Trump were similar to voting for Brexit.
13
@Philip
“A vote for Corbyn and his party is a vote “for the many, not the few.”” Yes, this is the Labour Party's slogan. However, terrorist loving Corbyn would like to turn us into Venezuela. I believe ”the many” there are suffering greatly.
2
I guess the one good thing about this Brexit is that, after centuries of oppression, Scotland will become free of the English yoke and Ireland, finally, will become united. Even cities like Liverpool (city of my birth) are talking about becoming an old European style 'free port ' , dependent as they are on international maritime trade.
Brexit is a disaster for the United Kingdom - but for Scotland and Ireland, and maybe even Wales and parts of England never comfortable with Westminster domination - for these, Brexit may very well be the liberation dreamt of by countless generations.
Bring it on!
23
@Ian Crowbar
The Scots had an independence referendum in 2015. It was their opportunity to right the 'centuries of oppression' and finally be free of the 'English yoke'. They decided to keep the union with England.
2
@Philip They voted to remain in the UK on the basis that they would remain in the EU, Scotland voted 60/40 to remain in the referendum. Which is why they now feel that it would be preferable to leave the UK and remain in the EU!
8
@Philip And the money! (I'm half Scot)
2
Britain's long history of self-immolation is sure to continue for another five years. Johnson will likely win the general election with a standalone majority, there will be a no-deal Brexit and the resulting economic woes will bring the country to its knees.
And then starts the regeneration. Or will it ? Can a country that could not keep any part of a global empire be expected to hold its internal organs together? I half suspect the Brits will argue away half their country. Those of us who grew up in colonized countries can only wish Britain a speedy exit from itself. Godspeed Britain. Go be yourself.
4
Theresa May lost the snap election for the same reason anyone who has lost a campaign loses - she was a poor campaigner with an unappealing message. There’s no evidence that Johnson is like her in those respects. Johnson also has a more diverse and idiosyncratic base - he is (maybe pretending to be) a hard Brexiteer, which will secure him a sizable chunk of the UKIP vote, while having genuinely pro-immigration views, that would appeal to many metropolitan liberals. In addition, he seeks to increase spending on public services, insulating him from potent attacks from the left re fiscal issues.
Theresa May was a largely anti-immigration politician with a rather sparse record on other issues, meaning that she could only run on divisive issues with the charisma of driftwood. You can tell that a politician is in trouble if s/he tries to ape another party (as May tries aping UKIP in 2017). Johnson, if anything, is actively ignoring UKIP and it’s successors.
1
@Pacific It's not difficult to make the argument that he is ignoring UKIP et al because he has taken their policies.
8
@Melbourne Town
Their policy (and messaging) on Brexit - little else. UKIP and its successors are a motley crew of retrograde bigots and misogynists who pretend to be concerned with Brexit when their primary concern is nonwhite immigration.
The irony of this whole episode is that anyone who has captured the hearts of working class Old Labour Brexiteers can redefine Brexit in any image. Johnson, unlike UKIP et. al., has already demonstrated that he envisions an immigration-friendly Britain post-Brexit with recently announced policy changes. The idea of a points-based system may horrify a lot of pro-immigration people, but it’s only cover for anti-immigration policies if the system is designed to restrictive. There’s no evidence that Johnson wants to take the Tom Cotton approach to immigration and polls for the past two years show majority support for increased immigration (hardly a desirable outcome for UKIP). As for other policy overlaps, they aren’t uniquely UKIP policies.
2
@Pacific
" In addition, he seeks to increase spending on public services, insulating him from potent attacks from the left re fiscal issues."
The Tory party has made a hard turn to the right. Moderate Tories who have not been kicked out of the party are now jumping ship. The intent is to shrink public services even more than they have done already, and serious deregulation across the board. How else will they get a trade deal with the US?
Boris lies almost reflexively. If you (or anyone) really believes he would spend on public services I have a nice bridge I would like to sell you.
15
Leaving was supposed to be the easy part according to the lies of the Brexiteers. Negotiating a future relationship with the EU will be tedious and exhausting with a few options for the U.K. The EU holds most of the cards and will make sure that the U.K. adheres to most rules and standards. In addition North Ireland remains de facto and Scotland wants to remain de jure what means leaving the U.K. eventually.
Sooner or later Britain will find out that it can’t leave at all. It will remain part of Europe which now is synonymous with the EU. Only it will find its role diminished: obeying the rules but no say over making them.
17
To the pessimist, of course, there is plenty that could go wrong. Corbyn could become PM and Trump be voted in for another four years. On the other hand however ... as the Monty Python song goes "Always look on the bright side of life".
To those who want another referendum, or harp on about the 'small' 4% vote differential (it was very close with 52-48% in favor), then think about what would happen if the Brits voted yet again to leave the EU. What then would be their stance - yet another referendum?
In all likelihood, Boris will get a working majority and Brexit will get passed. On the US side of the pond, it is likely that Trump will disappear, albeit complaining about a 'rigged vote'!
@Tom T I would suggest that it is far from likely that Trump will disappear. There is plenty of unbiased well-researched analysis that suggests that, far from being in trouble, Mr Trump should actually be considered favorite to win the election. Remember, he doesn't have to win the vote, just the Electoral College.
6
@Tom Allow me to say IF we still voted to leave accepting all the proven lies - OK, I would accept it (too old and too comfortable to be affected anyway) I would loathe it for my grandchildren though.
The issue is neither political “side” cares what the outcome is. all that matters is that they move their position nearer to whatever they think is achievable so that when this is resolved (however that may be) they can be on the winning side. And when it all turns to worms, they will blame any deficiencies on compromises forced by others.
5
Many, many Brexit supporters are in deep deep denial about the UK's reduced role in the world. They look back longingly 150 years and have convinced themselves that Brexit is the first step to reclaiming that nations's former leading role. They or, more accurately, their children stand to learn the lesson that that is just plain wrong - as the center of world power continues to move east over the next century.
49
To an outsider, the strategy of Parliament seems to be to just keep asking for extensions.
It appears that the European Union will continue to grant these extensions, for the rest of eternity.
So I don't imagine that this matter will ever be resolved.
Parliament will continue to yell and scream for months and months, and then ask for another extension right before the deadline.
And the E.U. will say "sure".
I guess it's the U.K.'s version of "Ground Hog Day".
11
One of the major obstacles to resolution of the Brexit issue is Jeremy Corbyn. He has so waffled that few even within the Labour party trust him. If he really cared about the welfare of the United Kingdom and staying in the EU, he would step down and let someone with a clear and consistent voice represent his party.
20
@kingfisher1950
Jeremy Corbyn was consistent throughout. He would have kept the UK inside the customs union and maintained workers rights and environmental standards. This would have solved the border problem in Ireland and achieved a positive vote in the Commons.
11
@Philip
Corbyn should have stepped aside for a government of national unity and a caretaker pm to see things through until there was a referendum and the next election. This would have allowed a vote of no confidence in Johnson and brought his government down.
I put the blame for this bit of the chaos squarely on him.
3
@Philip
Could have, should have. I remember when he gave a speech with adoring students in attendance. Then he completely stabbed them in the back by refusing to talk about Brexit. He walked right by his young supporters and couldn’t look at them. What a disappointment.
1
The basic problem is not Parliament or Johnson, it's the British public. It is impossibly divided. The best hope is another referendum. Now that the consequences of Brexit have become more clear, perhaps some fraction of erstwhile leavers will change their minds.
42
@Michael Lusk
"It is impossibly divided."
Thanks to the Russians on Facebook. It is quite incredible how successful they have been on both sides of the Atlantic. And long after Trump is gone and Brexit is resolved, Brits will hate Brits and Americans will hate Americans. Oh how we've been played!
As some commenters have pointed out, this analysis ignores the SNP and the Lib Dems, as well as the other independent groups. It also mostly ignores the EU, which is many times larger than the UK. I think this second omission is the most important, and has always been the primary reason that this stalemate goes on and on.
For some reason, the UK decided to invoke Article 50 of the basic EU governing treaty. This has the advantage that the current government of any EU state can invoke it unilaterally at any time. The wording of Article 50 is pretty clear, to a non-lawyer. Invocation starts a process of divorce. The negotiation will take exactly two years. At the end, the invoking nation will be out of the EU. The only issue is whether or not an exit agreement has been ratified by all 28 member nations, including the invoking nation.
Clearly, Article 50 was poorly conceived and not written explicitly enough. As both the US and the UK have shown recently, extremists can take over the government of a nation for a while. It should take more than a single formal letter to trigger something so major as exit from the EU. Actually it made a lot of sense to also have a fixed time for negotiation, but the EU has found ways to circumvent both.
If you are too self-centered, you might miss statements others make that don't seem to relate to you. People in the UK need to think about why the EU just stipulated that the UK could rescind its invocation at any time.
8
Confusing sentence on Scotland and union. There are two unions. The EU and the UK. Scotland is pro EU and voted to remain in the EU. They are less enthusiastic about being a member of the United Kingdom union of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.
15
When a country elects a Trump look-alike comedian to head its government in the midst of one of its greatest existential crises, what could possibly go wrong?
Let's watch Ukraine too. At least Schwarzenneger and Ventura had legitimate day jobs beforehand. Not so for Trump.
19
I don't pretend to know all of the rules of a parliamentary system but it seems to me that if they can have three elections and three Prime Ministers in three years due to an unclear mandate on Brexit, it might have been easier to hold another referendum on the proposal now that the true difficulties of leaving have been made abundantly clear. The fact that the major dissembler of false information is favored to win just shows how dysfunctional the whole process has been.
121
@Rick Gage
That is what many people want: a second referendum on accepting the current deal or staying in the EU.
No third option of delaying a decision and try to negotiate a better deal. Too many want that - and it will only drag out the pain.
4
@Rick Gage
Referenda are one of those things - perhaps, a little like Brexit itself - that SEEM to be one thing, DEMOCRATIC ... while actually ... largely SUBVERTING DEMOCRACY.
Many countries and institutions have "indicative votes," something that doesn't have the same legal consequences as an actual bill, say, but go quite a bit beyond some kind of poll in taking the temperature of the constituents as a whole.
Yes, it's plagued by things like much higher participation rates in the older half of quarter of the electorate than the younger portions, but the big problem is that - as with polls - HOW YOU PHRASE the question becomes all-important.
"Motherhood and apple pie" would - I think - still poll or achieve a vote that would be impressive, but "the devil is in the details." Pie every day? A la mode? Who pays for it? ... Things like that!
Obviously, Brexit - ever so much more consequential - ALSO might have been a different vote if either the campaigners or the voters focused (or were honest - in the campaigners' case) on "Who's gonna pay for it?"
In fairness, sometimes an up-or-down vote - a la old-school "town meetings" - is a great idea. Should our town allow cannabis vending or not? ... But the Brexit vote was like AIDS. An election MIGHT be the "cure."
2
@Rick Gage ,
You have to understand that, whereas, e.g. the US was created by (a metaphorical) We the People, the English Monarchy (dominating force in the Isles) was created either directly by God ("By the Grace of God, Queen ... ") sometime in the (distant) past or by the (ancient, unwritten, traditional) Law of Conquest by William the Conqueror in 1066.
Any referendum (since forever) is, by definition, contrary to the (non-existent) Preamble to the (unwritten) Constitution of the English Monarchy, under which what was (and kinda like still is) "The Crown" is what elsewhere is called "The State."
Historically, English "Sovereignty" has been transferred from The Monarch to Parliament (an ancient institution, predating Wm the C/1066, sorta like implied in Magna Charta, changed time and time again) over the last almost 954 years.
"The People," even as a metaphor, have essentially nothing to do with the powers of Parliament (including the H of Lords) except electing Members of the H of Commons every so often.
Everywhere, referendums are complicated; in the UK, they are a contradiction-in-terms.
I don’t consider NY Times reporting on Brexit to be balanced. It’s more like that of the Guardian (hard left).
If anything, I think what the past 3 years have shown is how well the British parliamentary system works. Brexit was indeed “the will of the people,” but this has been a period of testing, probing, examining and preparing.
What the Times misses is WHY it was the will of more than half of voters in the referendum. Europe as it is serves moneyed types well. They swan from one rich-man’s-playground capital city to another. It’s nice! (I’ve done some of that swanning myself). But Britain’s deplorables didn’t see a future.
Sound familiar? If the Times can move beyond schaudenfreude on this subject, it may also help heal what ails us here in the USA.
10
@PHS Good to know that 47% of UK voters are moneyed types swanning from one rich-man's playground to another. I didn't think that the economy was that good, but I'm happy to stand corrected. Surely, unfulfillable promises of billions of pounds being repatriated to fix the NHS etc. etc. had nothing to do with the result of the referendum. Good luck with the testing, probing and preparing, though from afar, the preparing at least seems to be in rather scarce supply...
46
@PHS
Actually I think it is more plausible that Britain's "deplorables" (your word not mine) didn't see a WHITE future, as apparently the US's "deplorables" (Clinton's word not mine) didn't. Inequality has been growing for the past couple of decades, mostly due, ironically, to conservative policies. When people feel left behind, they get angry if they think newcomers are getting ahead of them. A big part of this was about immigration and all those Russian ads on Facebook added fuel to the fire.
16
@PHS
Actually I thought this article and most of the more recent ones were well researched and balanced. Some of the earlier articles on brexit didn't get the politics quite right in my opinion.
(I will admit to being a Guardian reader however.)
9
I was in the UK the three weeks in June 1916 before the Brecit vote. To call that result "the will of the people" is a total sham.
The amount of misinformation, exaggeration, and outright lies
filling the airwaves and the pubs--primarily but not exclusively from those urging the Leave position--was palpable. On such a momentous decision, getting it right is crucial for generations to come. A second referendum must be held before anyone can
claim to represent "the will of the people."
101
@dreamweaver
51% isn’t the will of the people. If they really cared about the will of the people they would win over that 49% as best as possible. Just saying the will of the people helps no one.
19
@dreamweaver
Oh my, it has been 103 years already?! Time flies.
However, if it really takes 103 years to resolve this mess, and for the UK to come to its senses, then so be it.
The EU will be patient.
23
I too was in the UK in the 3 weeks leading up to the referendum, and fully agree with your assessment of the misinformation campaign, and was also shocked at the lack of and discussion of the real issues and implications.
20
I view this vote and “exit” as the last gasp of a long dead/dying empire. None of this will change the fact that the the French navy is larger than the Royal Navy; Britain would have trouble taking back the Falklands; Britain’s trade troubles are only beginning. In short, the world can function quite well with or without the United Kingdom.
The United Kingdom should take a cue from Sweden. Three hundred years ago, Sweden decided that it was too expensive trying to be a world power, Yet today, Sweden exerts more “power” across the world than any army could bring. It is an option worth considering.
15
@Mark Young Is that through self assembly furniture and cheaply made clothes? :)
10
@SouthernstarBrit Whatever it is that gives them a decent standard of living. It seems to be working.
5
I was wondering when there would be a comment on the long-gone British Empire, although a little surprised no mention of the colonies. There really hasn't been a British Empire since the late 60's, and yet there is always someone who is 60 years behind the times.
Time to give this ancient idea the order of the royal boot old man.
1
BoJo has proved to be a deft tactical politician. Everyone thought he was through, but he is still standing.
5
Referendums don't work in a Parliamentary system - Cameron should have know better. That being said the only answer to Brexit might be another referendum but this time the citizens of the UK should know exactly what the price will be.
46
@Mary Pat
"Referendums don't work in a Parliamentary system"
But they do in presidential ones? What an utterly bizarre thing to say; they're the most common precisely in parliamentary systems. Referenda work perfectly fine in my country and we have them all the time. The problem is that you need a clear choice, not a vague question about leaving. No one to this day could tell you what kind of exit the majority envisioned when they cast their vote back in 2016.
3
What next ?
These are the three possibilities
1. The Brits and Scots vote unprecedented for Liberal
Democrats and the Scottish National Party -
sufficient to form a Government with the Torries that
has a majority in the Parliament
Probability : Very low
2. Labour gets a majority , or if not, sufficient votes to
form a coalition with the liberal Democrats
Probability : Would be high except for Corbyn
3. The Tories win a clear majority proceed with Brexit
Probability : High
Johnson approval rating is now higher than when he
became PM
But what ever happens, the decision is back to voters, as it ought to be in a Democracy
----
https://metro.co.uk/2019/09/17/boris-johnson-popular-now-became-pm-according-poll-10760940/
2
@John
I follow UK politics very closely. So IMHO, and, as our British "cousins" would say, "You are spot on!"
@John I think you mean English and Scots. The term Brits refers to inhabitants of Great Britain, that is English, Scots and Welsh. Likewise, the British Isles refers to the islands of Great Britain and Ireland.
I very clear about what Brexiters don't want. Immigrants. Money sent to EU (actual or imagined). Free flow of labor from EU countries.
What do they want to achieve, after they've kept others out? Great paying jobs for unqualified people with total job security in factories and offices, and the return to imperial England? I wish them well.
122
@Kalidan You're wrong. Brexiters believe that living within walking distance shoudn't automatically allow you to come and live here (and vice versa, of course). If we need people in factories, offices and to drive Ubers, we will let them in IF we so choose. It's the same system that exists where you live.
2
Please just let it be over. I hope the Conservatives lose big and the British people can leave this madness behind them.
246
@Robert ,
"This madness" will always be behind them -- the past is back there to be learnt from -- what is needed is a way to keep "this madness" from dominating the UK's future.
I rather doubt that one election will be enough to protect the future from "this madness."
10
@Robert It won't be over if the Tories lose. If Labour or a Labour majority coalition wins, there will be another referendum, and there will be another campaign where the same mud will be dredged up. If the Lib Dems win, Article 50 will be revoked. Then, the Brexiters will feel robbed. The wound is wide open.
9
It takes a 2/3 Senate vote to convict a president in an impeachment trial. Removing a president, to be replaced by a hand picked vice president, does not destroy the essential fabric of America. Not so with Brexit.
Brexit is far worse than removing a president because it affects so many tens of millions of people, not only in the UK, but the EU. It threatens the departure of Scotland and Northern Ireland from the UK, which would reduce Merry Old England to third world status. What went wrong was the decision that a simple majority vote, hardly a mandate, could unleash such disastrous potentialities. Surely there is a Greek play that shows the folly of such "wisdom."
What we have seen, however, is that enough MPs have put country over party to resist Johnson and, by extension, Brexit. That resistance may have come near the midnight hour as it usually does, but it came. The EU is unlikely to offer more than it already has. The voters in the December election have a clear choice: Brexit or no Brexit. That's the sole issue.
That enough MPs were willing to abandon party for country gives me some hope for the upcoming trial of Donald Trump.
27
Ha. Britain? When does the US merry-go-round stop?
Electing Trump gave birth to this game-show-entertainer-as-president nonsense. Our disaster has spread to our allies and adversaries alike. We’re in no position to question their actions.
18
David Cameron,what on earth were you thinking?
196
Lord Snooty,
David Cameron was thinking about himself, his party and his own weakness within that party. He used the referendum promise to keep his Prime Ministership, thinking the Brexiteers would be defeated and his own power guaranteed. He was a Remainer himself and in his arrogance thought for years he could play up and scapegoat the Eu for British political failures without consequence. But once you campaign on anger & division, you govern a fragmented country in rage. That anger and rage doesn’t just go away, it cannot be contained. A lesson Trump ought to be learning, if only he were capable of learning or course correction, but that’s only possible once failures are recognised.
I didn’t think anyone would be able to rise again to PM for a generation whilst playing such an obvious cynical game. Yet now we have Boris. A man who has never knowingly missed an opportunity for self -advancement, regardless of the cost to people, Queen or country. I imagine you guys understand our sense of frustration and humiliation. How far we’ve both fallen huh?
11
@Lord Snooty Party over Country clearly.
4
@Lord Snooty Despite being Prime Minister, the man clearly had no idea what was going on in his own country.
6
I don't know what to say. Who would have ever thought Britain would end up in this shambles? Who would have ever thought we would have our own crazy shambles? It really does matter who we elect and right now we have a bunch of morons on both sides of the Atlantic.
17
I am 76. There are cognitive limits. The British parliamentary system is about as clear to me as the rules of cricket and Brexit is taking almost as long as a match. I wish the Brits all the best, but I confess I have little hope for a country that created the rod, the yard, the foot and the inch and still drives on the wrong side of road.
106
@Richard Frank The UK went metric in 1965. Sadly that prescience seems to have departed the last 10 years.
The US has feet, inches and Trump, with a bit of luck, impeachment might fix some of that.
6
@Richard Frank
You guys drive on the right side of the road. The Brits and Oz drive on the correct side of the road.
2
@Richard Frank We drive on the correct side of the road as do the majority of the world!
4
Britain is about to have the wrong election. A Second Referendum is what's needed, and has been what's needed ever since it became obvious that Leavers were sold a bill of goods amounting to a Second British Empire, when in reality, "Little England" was what they really voted for. Brexit, if any version ever passes, will probably cost Great Britain Scotland, and maybe Northern Ireland, too. Moreover, the issue isn't so simple as saying that Tories are for Brexit, and Labour is against it. There are Leavers and Remainers in both parties. The Liberal Democrats are the only party foresquare against it, but are not a major party. All this means that an election now will further muddy the waters. I remain (if that's the right word) hopeful that any Brexit deal will be put to the voters again. Our British friends deserve the chance to clean up their mess, just as American voters get their own chance next November. I wish them well.
168
@TRA
I sat in the visitor stalls of the House of Commons in April and asked the visitors director why Parliament would not permit a second Brexit referendum given the closeness of the first vote, the lies told in the run up to that vote, and the influence exerted by Putin in the "Leave" or "Stay" campaign.
His reaction? There would be civil war in the UK if a second referendum were held. And after speaking with scores of Brits in the UK last spring, I think his assessment was correct.
Although a second referendum would be cleaner, it appears the only possible way for those opposed to Brexit to be heard now is to throw the Tories out and with them their baby Johnson.
18
@TRA
Johnson's Deal de facto already meant a break up of the UK as Northern Ireland was to stay in the EU customs union. That is why the DUP opposed it.
4
@TRA
This is what I don’t understand. Why hasn’t a second referendum been on the table? I feel like the NYT reporters covering this don’t provide the context that people who aren’t living/breathing this day and day out need.
4
The UK has an inherent problem besides the woes that a Brexit may bring. That problem is an ill-defined, alterable constitution largely based on custom, décor and written documentations seldom tested by the courts- excepting Johnson's attempted Parliament shutdown earlier this year. If the US had such a constitution while facing the misbehavior of President Trump, I am quiet sure we would get rid of Trump only upon his natural death or abdication to one of his children.
If Johnson, a populist soulmate of Trump and demonstrably equally adept at devious behavior and falsehoods, wins the December election, the UK will face a tumultuous and uncertain future, made worse potentially by a deteriorating world economic outlook under which every nation will look out for itself in the short run. For Britain on the outside no one will feel a sense of common good and loyalty. The UK could not have picked a worse time to Brexit.
44
@Rudy Ludeke
I disagree. The UK Parliamentary Democracy is impressive and mature. MPs from both sides of the aisle worked together to force the Primeminister to seek an extension after he stated that he would rather be dead in a ditch.
Name one other country where the legislative reigns supreme over the executive as naturally as in UK.
The only mistake was to think that a referendum won with a simple majority would be enough legitimization to overrule sovereign Parliament where MPs are elected with FPTP.
12
October 30, 2019
What is needed is a UK Commission to resolve the best interest for its relations to EU and having the parties give their yes or no, as well rational to sustain its party objectives for the making Britain great again -
The business of government is business relationship that give productive process to fair and just transnational governing for all domestic and internationally indeed.
1
I am not sure why none of the parties opposed to Brexit make their major campaign goal/slogan the cancelling of the referendum - which was influenced by fake news, false promises of savings,etc.
Labour may be divide to do it but the Liberals could do it. They could energize the non-Brexit vote in and around London, Scotland, by promising this issue only. If they get enough seats and be part of a coalition government, they may call a vote in Parliament to cancel Brexit and would possibly get support of a significant amount of Labour and even Tory MPs.
They won't get accused of "betraying the will of the people"(Referendum) since they would have campaigned exactly on that: to get rid of a flawed Brexit.
...
10
The Libs Dems are in fact calling for canceling Brexit. They say if they win, they will cancel Article 50.
30
There are also the Northern Irish Conservatives for Johnson to watch out for. The alliance with them was necessary for May to form her government, but Johnson threw them under the bus immediately.
5
As an Anglopihile by nature and nurture this sad state of self-inflicted stupidity is pretty disappointing and unexpected.
David Cameron's foolish submission of an advisory Brexit vote to the voters of the United Kingdom must rank as one of weakest examples of political strategy and tactics in the history of the British Isles. Leaving no-Brexit Theresa May to incredibly clean up his mess, led to the bloviating buffoonery of Brexit lover Boris Johnson.
This triumvirate makes Moe, Larry and Curly appear as Elizabeth I, Victoria and Margaret Thatcher.
My earliest known white European American ancestor was born in London in 1613. He was married in Lancaster Virginia colony in 1640 where he died in 1670.
I love Shakespeare, Dickens, Wells and Orwell. Along with Monty Python, Dr. Who, Rolling Stones and Eric Clapton. The British Museum is a beloved favorite plus the London zoo.
Alas there will be Masterpiece Theater on PBS where the sun never sets on the glory and power of the British Empire.
8
Elizabeth I was in no way akin to one of the three stooges. During her reign, the economy of England thrived, communities prospered and exploration built the foundation of the British Empire. She also led England to triumph over the Spanish Armada, with the help of winds favourable to the English. She accomplished all this and so much more while being a woman unmarried in a time when that was seen as a great weakness. How could you ever mistake Her Majesty for a buffoon?
5
@Blackmamba
Well said. The hubris of Cameron, who was blind-sided by the Referendum, made for a good example in a limited democracy of why you don't leave complicated policy decisions to the electorate, that's what politicians (allegedly) are for. The over-confidence of May, seeking to enhance her power, instead severely hampered her ability to govern. B.(as in buffoon) Johnson is about to make the same mistake or worse. Likely worse, because he is an incompetent fool. A second Referendum is the only real solution, given that Brexit has been revealed to be completely different than what demagogues like Johnson and Farage promised. I know what I just said about voting on policy decisions, but like the US, voters, ultimately, made this mess, so they are the ones best suited to clean it up. Britain is much stronger in the EU.
3
The names mentioned belong in a museum- apart from Shakespeare and Orwell.
This all well put, but this and all other articles I read on the subject don't dwell on the misguided nature of this debacle: it is entirely self-generated, it was not mandated by law, it was promoted by politicians who lied to the public, it ended prematurely the political career of a young and dynamic PM, and turned into an immense sink of time and energy that could have been spent for much better goals. This is a tragedy.
30
@AH
"...it ended prematurely the political career of a young and dynamic PM..."
I agree that Brexit is an epochal tragedy for the UK, which was largely brought about by the "young and dynamic PM" (not the first adjectives that I would choose to describe him) who, for reasons wholly unconnected with the welfare of the country, chose to conduct a referendum for which there was no public clamor, organized without a strict definition of one of the options, which has resulted in a chaotic, exhausting and undemocratic shambles, the consequences of which the UK could be living with for a generation. In the circumstances, the termination of the PM's career should be counted as one of the few benefits.
24
@cjw .
I was in the UK just as Brexit was brewing and Cameron was still PM. At that time, it was commented (in print, I think) that Cameron wanted the referendum so that "right-thinking Englishmen" (word-play intended) would reject the European proposal to give (some) prisoners and convicts the vote.
Apparently, the very thought of this made him "physically ill" which seems to have left him mentally ill or something like that.
Historians may eventually categorize Leave/Remain as "yet another example of incredibly stupid political episodes."
2
As many have said before, the EU is like the Hotel California - You can check out any time you like but you can never leave. Even after a hard Brexit the “continent” will still be right over the Channel, and negotiations for trade, travel, security and everything else will be endless and infuriating. All those flag waving little Englanders will never get the satisfaction of truly feeling on their own.
75
@Thollian
Hotel California is an excellent metaphor for this mess.
"And in the master's chambers,
They gathered for the feast
They stab it with their steely knives,
But they just can't kill the beast"
1
This has been going on for so long, I forgot what the rationale was behind the leaving the EU. If there was one. Oh well, I'll check back in after Dec 12th.
Now back to the Impeachment proceedings. I do know what that's all about. Getting rid of the imbecile in the Oval Office.
150
Brexit is a populist fantasy built on the nostalgia for not having to adapt to European Union regulations for the size of tomatoes.
96
@MJM ... "regulations for the size of tomatoes," which is a plant the Spaniards "discovered" in Mexico. Go figure.
2
I know precisely the effect Brexit will have me and my family's future and I'll be damned if Johnson, directly, and Corbyn, by fudging it, will put us out of work. And that is how I will vote, to put an end to this fiasco and chase the lemmings back into their holes.
The Tories have totally destroyed Britain's reputation, such as it was, in a display of utter vanity and incompetence in pursuit of a pathetic delusion. Brexit is a con, a massive case of cognitive bias and a shameful display of public ignorance.
348
@Angstrom Unit - so, how will you, and others like you, vote? Lib Dem, the only fully anti-Brexit party? Inevitably the Tories will then have a plurality, if not a majority, and nothing will change.
@Angstrom Unit
Just to be sure, suggest claiming dibs on Nanofoot Unit...
Not mentioning the Liberal Democrats in this piece is super weird, given that they have staked out a clearer position on Brexit than Labour, and are running close to parity with Labour in polling
68
@Really? To quote the 2000s, ikr?!
The Times is so dead set against Brexit that it can't resist pointing out all the reasons why Johnson might fail to get the majority he craves., but there are reasons to think he may succeed. First, of course, is Jeremy Corbyn. He would be such a disaster that there is no possibility of anti-socialist Remainers (Lib Dem or even Blairite Labour) voting strategically for him to keep the Tories from getting a majority. So while many voters will vote against the Tories to try to soften or prevent Brexit, their votes will be dispersed among several parties, possibly allowing the Tories to win more seats. As importantly, a lot of voters can live with any result short of a no-deal Brexit, as long as it gets done quickly. This favours Johnson because his program is the only one that promises anything definite. A vote for Labour is a vote for a second referendum, which could well produce the same result as the first, while a vote for a small party could produce a hung parliament which, like the present one, would be stalemated.
2
@William Benjamin if Corbyn is such a guaranteed disaster, what is your explanation for Labour's unexpected showing in the last general election? Admittedly, they still lost, but they closed the gap and forced the Conservatives into a fragile deal with the DUP.
8
@Paul Davis
The standard Labour line: Corbyn didn’t lose by as much as people thought he would in 2017. He lost. According to the UK polls, he’s now the most unpopular opposition leader in the history of polling. And there’s good reason.
4
@Paul Davis You ask a good question. The BBC, which tends to support Labour, nonetheless opined that Theresa May blew it with campaign mistakes. And the election she called was unnecessary, in contrast to the present one. Also, while Corbyn was never popular with his caucus, left-wingers were united behind him. With his continual waffling over Brexit and with the anti-Semitism crisis in Labour, he hasn't helped his cause. Of course, my estimation of him as a "disaster" is subjective. But we shall see.
2
Well, now that Labour has agreed to a General Election they will exit with the deal Boris has just passed. Had to take No Deal off the table and that also has been settled. So, now we wait and see who the sky falls on. Will it fall on the Leavers who don't like this deal or the Remainers who didn't want any deal to pass? Will it fall on the EU or the UK? Or, will the sky Not Fall at all? Guess which one I think will happen.
1
So a herd of MPs have decided not be on the ballot. BoJo has not faced real voters, having been picked by a hard core right wing Tory fringe. He lied to the people and the Queen, he misrepresented the benefits of Brexit, he breached parliamentary procedures et al. Are the British people so gullible? It's time for Labour to slay the elite beasts on the Right and end the fantasies of English nationalists bent on binging on imperial nostalgia.
15
I don't see any mention of the other side of the coin, the eminences grises of the EU and their obsession with their internal order above all else. I don't see a mention of what they did to Greece after that country hit trouble, or what they may yet do to Spain, Portugal or Italy. Putting yourself in service to bureaucrats is a recipe for disaster.
And forget about the House of Lords. Every time they defy the Commons they get punished for it. The election will happen. It won't include ballot initiatives or all those "questions" beloved of Americans. It will just be "vote for your MP in your district", nothing more. If the Scots want to go their own way, well, there are 10 times more English in the UK. The same goes for those turbulent Ulsterites.
5
@Daedalus
I don't think there is another side of the coin anymore. The EU agncies are already out of the UK and they won't be back anytime soon.
It is now clear among Europeans that Brexit has no real impact on their lives and they want to go ahead with their plans. Whether they succeed or not is no longer UK business.
6
Americans have come to know a thing or two about what it means by withdrawing from fundamental precepts like what British Parliament is going through with the exit or remain split that the English are facing with Brexit. We are doing much the same when one considers our Constitution and our alliances. Our president is blowing holes in our alliances throughout the world and at the same time he is doing that he is threading the constitution. Neither country is learning very much from the other's points of view. And unfortunately, those that will get it in the neck in the final analysis are the people all these elected officials are supposedly there to unite, protect and support.
It's almost a matter that we should revert back to our first election under the newly printed Constitution in the late 1700s. George Washington did not want to be king and only accepted the presidency to give his infant country a chance to validate the Constitution. Our current president wants none of that.
He wants to be King, not just of the Hill, but the whole country and eventually the whole world.He hasn't a clue about what the Constitution is meant to do. We may have made mistakes in electing certain officials over the last 230 years, but we were always able to "right the ship" from rough seas those elections produced. This time neither Britain, nor the US may be able to keep the "Ship of State" afloat long enough to reach some kind of "port" of resolution..
13
Only Jeremy Corbyn could lose this election, and lose he will. Labor is like the Democrats in this country, intent at avoiding the center in the face of extremist opposition. Whoever wins the center wins.
3
@T
And who do you think has thwarted the Conservative government's efforts to impose either a hard Brexit or a no-deal Brexit on the UK since the referendum in 2016? You might not like him, but Corbyn has done the country a great service. Remember that.
27
@Monterey Sea Otter
I thought a no-deal Brexit and a hard Brexit were the same thing? AKA "crashing out"? Please explain the distinctions. Thanks!
1
@Charles Dean
The worst outcome of all would be a "No-Deal Brexit". This means that all links with the EU would be severed overnight. Given that trade deals take years to conclude, this would leave the UK in an extremely difficult situation. Security cooperation would also be severed, which would be welcomed by future bin-Ladens. It would in addition mean that we leave without paying our existing financial commitments (c. 39 billion euros), which hardly encourages the EU to strike future trade deals. All of this would amount to national suicide. We would be totally dependent on the whims of the United States.
A mere ''Hard Brexit", which is what Johnson appears to favor (although it's difficult to know what he'll say tomorrow/next week/next month etc) essentially means that the UK will belong to neither the single market or the customs union. This is also suicidal, but more like slashing your wrists in the tub, as opposed to shooting yourself between the eyes (aka 'No-Deal').
1
Brexit is conservative fraud aided by Putin to disrupt the West, just like trump. Brexit must be rejected altogether, just like trump.
Putin has been so successful. To now, at least.
A second referendum is the only solution to defeat Putin in UK. Removing trump through impeachment or next Nov 3 is the solution to vastly accelerate that defeat.
Our redemption depends on this.
294
@Murray Bolesta Viewing Brexit through the lens of the Trump saga is myopic in a characteristically American way. Those who think a second referendum will solve anything should look at this.
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-a-second-eu-referendum-were-held-today-how-would-you-vote/
2
I wonder what will happen if Farage's party wins the majority, Farage may become PM, he won't pursue Johnson's Brexit deal, but can't leave without a deal either, because that is now written into law.
Then the charade might continue for another few years.
The only solution then would be for Scotland and Northern Ireland to leave the Union, join the EU and England and Wales eventually leaving, because at that point, I don't think anyone would care anymore what happens.
10
@Captain Nemo Farage will never win a majority. He might win one or two seats and hold the balance of power. And no deal is not written into law. It was only prohibited on Oct 31. Come Jan 31 UK can exit without a deal.
3
@Captain Nemo If Farage wins, he will just repeal the law.
1
@Captain Nemo
What is Written Into Law can be Written Out of the Law with a new Parliament. Farage is more likely to join with the Tories to prevent the Remainers from scuttling article 50 if they win. He is, in fact, a grown up and either the UK ends up with a FTA with the deal Boris negotiated, or the UK does leave on WTO terms in a couple to three years if a Free Trade Agreement fails to be signed.
It would be nice if we got an explanation of the actual voting process in the UK. Is it carved up into equal population districts, like the US has for the House? Are there two candidates or many candidates in each district? Do candidates need a plurality or a majority?
If it's like a US House race, it seems to me that if Conservatives and Brexit Party pick a single pro-Brexit candidate, the Liberal Democrats pick a Remain candidate, and Labour picks a wishy-washy candidate that isn't willing to take a position either way but wants Labour in charge, that the pro-Brexit candidate will likely win even without a majority.
10
@Sam I Am Yup, that about sums it up
4
@Sam I Am
There are 650 constituencies representing areas with roughly equal populations, with some exceptions due to geography (e.g. the Shetland and Orkney Islands). Members of Parliament are elected to represent a constituency using the First Past the Post system (that is the candidate with the most votes is elected even if they do not have an overall majority of the number of votes cast). In those sense it is I believe much like elections for the US House of Representatives.
The two largest parties are the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, however unlike the US, the UK also has smaller parties that are significant players. The longest standing is the Liberal Democrats who currently have 20 MPs. Any given constituency will thus usually have at least three candidates running. There are many smaller nationwide parties too though only the Green Party and the Independent Group for Change have representation in Parliament (1 and 5 MPs respectively). In addition to nationwide parties there are also a number of regional parties, of which the Scottish National Party is the most significant, with 35 MPs (a majority of the 59 constituencies in Scotland). In Wales there is the Welsh national party, Plaid Cymru.
Northern Ireland is a bit different and has it's own separate network of parties dominated by the Democratic Unionist Party and Sinn Fein, though Sinn Fein have long refused to take their seats in Parliament as doing so requires swearing an oath to the Queen.
33
@Sam I Am One detail not mentioned so far: unlike the US where we vote for the president in a separate ballot, in the UK the new prime minister will be whoever the leader of the majority party is after the election. So for example, nobody will actually vote for Boris Johnson to lead the country - they will just vote for their local MP, and then the PM is based on the outcome.
8