You're funny. I've done the serious part in relation to Brexit. What you were replying to was about your spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, baked beans, spam, and spam. — S

Perhaps there are chat forums you could use instead of trolling a philosophy forum with your inappropriately inane line of, what I presume aspires to wit?

Perhaps there are chat forums you could use instead of trolling a philosophy forum with your inappropriately inane line of what I presume aspires to wit? — karl stone

I see. So it's appropriate for you to spam a philosophy forum, but it's inappropriate of me to criticise your spamming of a philosophy forum, on that same philosophy forum, in a comical manner susceptible to accusations of trolling?

Let's find out. I've reported your posts as off topic. This topic doesn't need witless trolling. It's too serious. Please stop it.

I agree. What it needs is more spam about David Cameron and his criminal conspiracy.

Sorry, please continue.

Well it's now clear that nobody in the UK has an idea what alternative arrangements should be, which explains the vague terminology to begin with. What I seriously don't get is what motivates some to prefer no deal over the existing deal. What exactly is so bad about it that all the bad stuff of no deal is preferable? Or are there benefits to no deal like disaster capitalism and those who benefit have this much influence?

We are standing at a cliff edge threatening to jump off. We are blaming the cruel world. Don't imagine there is much power in reason to influence us; we need the Samaritans, not some turbulent priest telling us we're going to hell.

We are standing at a cliff edge threatening to jump off. We are blaming the cruel world. Don't imagine there is much power in reason to influence us; we need the Samaritans, not some turbulent priest telling us we're going to hell. — unenlightened

You're not going to hell. What bad could happen to you?

What bad could happen to you? — ssu

I dare say we will survive, but the UK is losing influence, losing money, losing jobs, losing trade. We already have gone back to folks dying of malnutrition, rising inequality, rising homelessness, a loss of human rights and political accountability, increasing crime and quite a deal of despair and desperation. Plenty more bad stuff could happen.

I dare say we will survive, but the UK is losing influence, losing money, losing jobs, losing trade. We already have gone back to folks dying of malnutrition, rising inequality, rising homelessness, a loss of human rights and political accountability, increasing crime and quite a deal of despair and desperation. Plenty more bad stuff could happen. — unenlightened

Are you serious?

You know, I've thought about starting a thread on this British (or should I say English) gloominess and persistent self-flagellation, that only seldom is interrupted by some brief upbeat monent. Yes, one could argue that it's the loss of the Empire, but it has to be something more. Now some might find this quite rude and I surely don't want to be insulting, but there is a difference in attitude especially when comparing Britain to France. Even if France humiliatingly lost to the Third Reich, was occupied and also lost it's colonies too (which there were fewer) the attitude of the French is still different.

For me the perfect example of this, which might sound very odd at first, is the British Space program. In the 1970's the British government came to the conclusion that having a British Space program was far too costly (even if it had a shoe-string budget compared to the Superpowers), the program didn't have a purpose and somehow it would be a far better idea buying the ICBM rockets from the US. So, in the very British manner, the (few) people of the British Space program got the news that the program was terminated while in Australia when they were preparing finally to launch a rocket with a satellite. Not knowing what to do with a completed rocket and satellite, they then unceremoniously launched the rocket (that btw differed a lot from other rockets as it had been made by unique British technology). The rocket performed well and put the satellite into orbit. The satellite performed also well and kept flying around the World for the time planned for a government that didn't need it. And this happened just on the cusp of the era of commercial satellite launches, which has turned out to be quite lucrative to the French with their Arianne rocket-family. I don't know how many Britons nowdays even know that their country did have a space program with British built rockets.

Then there's the aviation industry, which created the jet engine with Frank Whittle, which today only manufactures parts of aircraft. By the way Whittles career reinforces this sad story of British government not using the talented people that worked for it. With more investment earlier the Battle of Britain could have been fought with Meteor jet aircraft. Or the car industry, which apart from few tiny sport car manufacturers is owned by foreigners. Now compare all this to France and the French counterparts in industry (Groupe PSA, Dassault group). Note the difference? Why is this?

I've really thought about what would be the reason of this, and the only answer that I come to is that people serving in the British government and British politicians simply don't believe in their country. Things are problems for the British industry, not opportunities to be seized. Their (the governments) role is to protect British industries from foreign competition, not for British industries to gain success. This dismal narrow mindedness of the politicians and government officials is the basic problem. Even if Thatcher had a bit of Churchill in her (which other British politician would have dared to send the Royal Navy to fight for some far off islands with more sheep than people?), she surely wasn't anything like general Petain.

I've thought about starting a thread on this British (or should I say English) gloominess and persistent self-flagellation, that only seldom is interrupted by some brief upbeat monent. — ssu

Could be interesting. I lived in France for a few years.One of the historic differences is the revolution. It may seem extravagant, but the class divisions in England especially play an important role. Most of the government went to the same school, and the same university. That's only slightly an exaggeration.

Could be interesting. I lived in France for a few years.One of the historic differences is the revolution. It may seem extravagant, but the class divisions in England especially play an important role. Most of the government went to the same school, and the same university. That's only slightly an exaggeration. — unenlightened

You even have a different language among the classes. Above all, the British are very class conscious in a totally different way than others.

And I should note here that I referred to the French politicians and officials, not the ordinary French people. The French do a long history of revolting against their officials, while with the English, your civil war was ages ago. And that in my view was more of a struggle between the King and the aristocracy.

Comment of the day. Some government spokesman burbles on in a brexit 'statement'. Reporter comments, "Well if you understood that, you probably weren't listening carefully enough."

Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear.

Funny because it's true...?

Yeah. Gallows humour. This is what happens when supposed leaders and opinion makers are guided by focus groups and opinion polls - endless chasing fantasies on the road to disaster. People are actually saying things like 'we survived the war...'

I lived in France for a few years.One of the historic differences is the revolution. It may seem extravagant, but the class divisions in England especially play an important role. Most of the government went to the same school, and the same university. That's only slightly an exaggeration. — unenlightened

I am not sure that the differences in class consciousness that you perceived have much to do with the French revolution. Here is Proust writing at the turn of the (last) century:

... middle-class people in those days took what was almost a Hindu view of society, which they held to consist of sharply defined castes, so that everyone at his birth found himself called to that station in life which his parents already occupied, and from which nothing, save the accident of an exceptional career or of a “good” marriage, could extract you and translate you to a superior caste. M. Swann the elder had been a stockbroker; and so “young Swann” found himself immured for life in a caste whose members’ fortunes, as in a category of tax-payers, varied between such and such limits of income. One knew the people with whom his father had associated, and so one knew his own associates, the people with whom he was “in a position” to mix. — Marcel Proust, Swann's Way

I've really thought about what would be the reason of this, and the only answer that I come to is that people serving in the British government and British politicians simply don't believe in their country. — ssu

In today's world, existence is a communal, global, thing. Our country, in isolation, is less than half the story. Perhaps the politicians know this? :chin:

No deal according to the UK Parliament. A few retards are yelling "transition without a backstop", because, of course, the Good Friday agreements aren't important at all.

A few retards are yelling "transition without a backstop" — Benkei

It's Ok, no-one is listening. Most likely outcome now is a delay followed by UK capitulating further to customs union arrangement or final say referendum.

As one of the BBC commentators said, three years after the Brexit vote Parliament is still unable to decide what it should do with the vote.

Brexit, IMHO, was a bad idea to begin with, and it isn't improving with time.

The question should be, will the EU agree to a delay? What if they say 'Hey, Britain, you're the ones who decided to leave, and we've given you all the ground you're going to get. What difference is another 2-3 months going to make? You'll still be in the same position. Either you withdraw Article 50, or the axe falls on 29th March.'

That would be interesting.

@Benkei

To continue our previous conversation on this Brexit thread, do you feel a second referendum is still unlikely and in any case a bad option? I'm curious if your thinking has changed.

It’s interesting to see that this is a global issue. The UK may not have the biggest economy in the world but what effects it effects everyone ... this is the fear. We could have another global financial crisis.

I am just curious as to whether this looking crisis will benefit global stability in the long run or hamstring the poorer fast growing countries?

The previous discussion revolved around a referendum before March 29. Any extension of the deadline will require that the UK has a concrete reason for it or the EU would not agree to it. One of those reasons can be a referendum or a new general election. Assuming Parliament will vote against a no deal brexit today, it's one of three remaining options on the table (the third being scrapping the whole process). So a referendum is a lot more likely at this point.

A referendum would be easier I think but at the same time the current sitting members of Parliament have lost a lot of legitimacy by not resolving Brexit so a general election would be better. I haven't read any recent statements on these issues to have a sense what's more likely at the moment.

Any referendum should be remain or the brexit deal. A three way option (deal - no deal - remain) would skew the results in favour of an exit; basically a loaded question.

The next interesting question is going to be whether May will be able to continue directing the process, or whether control will be taken by another faction. A three month extension would be another step towards a binary between May's deal or no deal, making both of these scenarios more likely. Anyone wishing a referendum must make a move.

The sad thing with Brexit is that, as with Trump in the US, a massively skewed opinion on this forum is not representative of opinions among the general public. UK citizens are still closely divided over the issue, and polarization is such as hasn't been seen on any issue in recent times - perhaps the closest comparison would be Jacobite conflicts three hundred years ago, except that divisions then were more in line with preexisting regional and religious divisions, whereas now the Brexit controversy is tearing apart colleagues, friends and families.

The previous discussion revolved around a referendum before March 29. Any extension of the deadline will require that the UK has a concrete reason for it or the EU would not agree to it. — Benkei

Yes, the referendum option most likely hinged on an extension, which I found likely the EU would give for the purposes of a referendum. I thought a referendum was more likely, whereas from what I understood you thought a deal would be more likely. Of course all positions were fairly speculative at the time.

It seems a deal is off the table now, so it's either no-deal or a referendum ... or some cockamamie situation where parliament has no position, there's no general election, they're forced to unilaterally cancel Brexit somehow in the name of continuing Brexit.

In other words, there seems to me now no alternative to a second referendum (which of course implies extension). Do you agree with this, or do you think there's another option?

In other words, there seems to me now no alternative to a second referendum (which of course implies extension). Do you agree with this, or do you think there's another option? — boethius

So far, there have been no signs of sufficient parliamentary support for a referendum. This may change if it looks like supporting a referendum is the only way to avoid a no deal situation. I am not holding my breath though, the second referendum is very dangerous to the individual careers of politicians.

I thought a referendum was more likely, whereas from what I understood you thought a deal would be more likely. Of course all positions were fairly speculative at the time. — boethius

That's correct, I thought a referendum would've been impossible in the given time frame before March 29.

In other words, there seems to me now no alternative to a second referendum (which of course implies extension). Do you agree with this, or do you think there's another option? — boethius

I think the second and better option would be to have a general election. The current MPs should be shipped to Madagascar for being unable to keep the common good on their radars and working towards a solution that has broad support and would've been in the best interest of UK citizens within the boundaries necessarily resulting from any negotiation.

The game has played out so that there is not time with a short extension to hold a referendum, and barely time to hold an election. I suspect there are no circumstances under which a long delay requiring UK European elections would be granted. So I think the choice has now come down to no deal brexit or revocation of article 50 withdrawal by parliament. And Politicians will be too frit for the latter.

Sorry for the bad news.

So far, there have been no signs of sufficient parliamentary support for a referendum. This may change if it looks like supporting a referendum is the only way to avoid a no deal situation. I am not holding my breath though, the second referendum is very dangerous to the individual careers of politicians. — Echarmion

Yes, I completely agree with this sentiment. The danger to careers is grave indeed; however, disorderly Brexit would be dangerous for the conservative party as a whole and at some point the interests of the country do override careerism.

At the end of the day (in my view) a second referendum is the only way to have some sort of closure to the situation (now that a soft-Brexit deal is dead).

That's correct, I thought a referendum would've been impossible in the given time frame before March 29. — Benkei

Though the official time-frames seem unfeasible, the EU is at the end of the day a democratic institution and there's no realistic way for bureaucrats (or the leaders of the other countries) to not acquiesce to giving more time for a referendum if Britain requests it.

I think the second and better option would be to have a general election. — Benkei

Though I agree a general election would be a good idea, it would likely be a disaster for the Tories so they will do everything to avoid it (and thus make concession to the DUP necessary). I feel strategically, the only reasonable option is to about face and call a second referendum now that the deal is defeated in parliament and there can be a binary "hard Brexit or reverse Brexit" vote. This would provide closure to the situation as well as time for the Tories to reorganize post-massive-ridicule.

... Of course the whole point of the first referendum was to resolve internal Tory differences, and that didn't work out so well for them. However, the basic logic that a referendum can provide fairly long term closure to an issue remains sound. Not that reversing Brexit with a referendum wouldn't cause high levels of consternation and lingering bitterness and division, just seems the least bad option of only bad options at this point.