
Brexit – where now? The flow diagrams - lrsjng
https://jonworth.eu/brexit-where-now-the-flow-diagrams/
======
DanielBMarkham
I'm not a Brit and the politics of this are not my concern. However the
information dissemination and internet aspect of the story is quite
fascinating.

I have no idea what's going on. I tried to ignore it, but my friends who care
deeply about it can get quite upset so I've been pulled into several private
conversations. Because of that, on several occasions I've looked around the
web in an effort to easily understand what's going on.

No luck.

Two things come to mind. First, complexity can be used as a wonderful shield
against openness and accountability. You can be as open and accountable as
anybody would like, but as long as most people find the situation impenetrable
and you do not, it doesn't matter. It's the same thing as not being open at
all. Second, I don't see how any reasonable public discussion happens at all
in an information environment like this. It's a fail. If they wanted no public
discussion, they should have made that choice. This is probably the worst
situation a democracy can find itself in: lots of upset people arguing about
things which they have no idea the true status of. You might as well watch a
puppet show. There's no nuanced conversation possible. It is contrast turned
as high as possible.

It's not the decision as much as the uncertainty. I can't help but think the
net failed us here -- but I don't know how it could have done better. The
betting markets at least will give you an up/down version of the likely
outcomes. Oddly enough that might be the best source of information.

~~~
rusk
I don't think the net failed us ... I think the 'net is maybe the only thing
that's slowed this disaster down. Yes yes whatever about the disinformation
campaign that allegedly influenced the vote, but misinformation has always
been a tool in the political toolkit. What's different this time around is
that the net provides the means to _route around_ the official narrative and
dig into what's going on. Yes, you might dig the wrong way and come up with
bullshit but anyone that can evaluate information can figure this out, and
once the honest and educated manage to get to grips with the non-official
details then the net provides a means to mobilise.

If anything it's politics has broken the 'net, not the other way round. But
the net provides a means to save politics.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Interesting.

If I understand each of us correctly, my position is that the internet has
provided a ton of information and drama, just nothing of use to the general
public. Your position is _because of the vast amount of information_ , we can
identify these problems and route around them.

I can certainly see where you might be correct. I think the key question is
this: does the emotional impact of all the noise outweigh the nuggets of
useful information a person may find here or there? (And I use the term
"noise" generously. A cynic would consider this a form camouflage)

In a way, this is the discussion the net is having all over, right? Do you get
more social control by creating these made-for-internet dramas that hide the
actual important stuff? Or does the fact that the information can exist much
easier now and be published instantaneously to millions easily overcome that?

I'm with the "people decide based on emotion, then use reason to justify their
decisions" group of folks, but that's only because I come at this from a
sales/startup angle. It very well may be different in the political realm.

~~~
rusk
I think anybody that's educated can filter out the noise usually and get at
some element of the truth. This is an option that would have been mostly
unavailable beforehand.

Anybody that's easily swept up by rumours and bullshit was always just getting
sucked in by the tabloids and the mainstream press anyway so their situation
remains unchanged.

What is particularly interesting in the case of Brexit, and perhaps tangential
is how the Brexiteers keep getting caught out speaking out both sides of their
mouths time after time. They make a deal in Brussels and then fly home and
speak to factory workers in Grimsby contradicting that deal. It's reported
immediately online and goes straight back to Brussels where they're _" like
really?"_.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
I'm going to disengage because I believe this is getting too far into local
politics for me.

However I want to make sure you understand my point.

 _"...I think anybody that's educated can filter out the noise usually and get
at some element of the truth...Anybody that's easily swept up by rumours and
bullshit..."_

You understand that's not the way it works, right? This isn't an intelligence
test. My point was about how humans make decisions, not how stupid people
gossip and believe things they shouldn't. That's a great topic, but not my
point. You don't educate or smart your way about of being human. It doesn't
work like that.

I used to love to discuss politics with folks, mainly because it was the one
area in which really smart people believed really stupid things. It was -- and
remains -- an excellent place to observe clanning and how the human mind
works. (I stopped bringing it up, though, because as it turns out, text
conversations have a completely different dynamic than in-person
conversations.)

Thanks for the chat!

------
mikekchar
Tinfoil hat: I'm actually on record as speculating that Brexit is just a big
currency trading scam. Imagine that you go into Brexit _knowing_ that you will
make it fail. You spend 2 years sitting on your prosterior, not actually
forming a deal and then at the last minute: OMG what are we going to do. The
currency bounces around like a yoyo. You time all the nice low points. And
then you cancel it saying "Oh we tried our best. Nothing we could have done.
The EU was bent on screwing us if we left". The pound jumps 20 or 30 cents on
the pound overnight.

I will literally fall over if it actually comes to pass, but like I said, this
was my somewhat tongue in cheek speculation about 6 months ago (although I
predicted that the budget would fail leading to a general election and an
opportunity to repeal Brexit at that point, so I'm already technically wrong).

~~~
dak1
I hope this post is intended as sarcasm, and others interpret as such.

There are 650 MPs in Parliament, with vastly different constituencies and
agendas. You would need 326 currently elected MPs to be on board with this
plan, not even considering the possibility of election results changing those
dynamics.

And at the beginning of this process it was not clear that the UK could
unilaterally rescind Article 50, either, which adds further risks and
complications. Not to mention the referendum itself was decided by over 33
million people casting votes.

That is a completely impractical collective action problem and a conspiracy
theory on par with others like the moon landing or 9/11.

~~~
mikekchar
I'm not really serious, but I _do_ slightly wonder. You don't have to really
get everybody on board, though. You just have to do such a bad job at
negotiating a deal that nobody in their right mind would accept it. I think
you might have to have the majority of the cabinet involved, though, so I
think your point still stands.

Still... Why did Boris Johnson drop out of the leader race when we was
practically a shoe in for PM? I think there _are_ some shenanigans going on
here and May has a really narrow tightrope to walk to survive...

------
michaelbuckbee
Imagine if Florida wanted to leave the US and renegotiate their trade and
governmental relationship with China/Brazil/Iceland, etc?

\- Why would a country give Florida a better trade deal or more rights than
the US?

\- How do Floridians benefit from suddenly being unable to freely cross the
border to the US?

And this is why Brexit is so screwed up: the promise was "all the benefits you
have now plus we'll renegotiate and get a bunch more when we aren't being held
back anymore", but it's really hard to fundamentally see why/how that could
happen.

EDIT: bunch of replies to this that maybe miss the main thrust of this
question which is "Why would a country give a better deal to Florida in this
scenario?"

~~~
Aromasin
While I'm a firm remainer, I'd still say it's not quite the same as you've
described. It would be closer to New York leaving the US if we were to do it
by GDP (with Germany being California and France Texas) with New York of
course having much more political and financial power than Florida. With it
would go numerous financial institutions and various other corporate
headquarters that are based there. Also, while I know this is a very dumbed
down way of looking at the issue, many people felt that the UKs contribution
to the EU was not reciprocated, and the EU was only there to funnel money away
from the UK down to Greece, Spain, Portugal and the like, place strange
legislation that took control away from people, and force us to take in
immigrants that take jobs away from British citizens and send their earnings
abroad to their families in other countries.

Again, this is all the simplified, digestible summaries of arguments that were
given to the British public during the referendum, hence the result of the
vote. Of course, the MPs should be there make an informed decision because
it's their full time job, not the general public that will only have a passing
knowledge of it that is often learnt through biased media. 2 years of thorough
coverage on the issue has made it clear to most people that the above
summaries are not accurate, and mostly fabrications by people with a vested
interest in destabilising and shorting the pound.

~~~
zimzam
The idea that the U.K. was getting used is an interesting one considering they
are the only one who get/got a rebate on their EU contributions: relative to
their GDP the U.K. is/was objectively paying less than other members (when
looking st the last couple of decades - the U.K. was struggling economically
when the rebate was negotiated).

~~~
Chris2048
The UK also get proportionally less from the EU that those that didn't get a
rebate. This was the _reason_ the rebate was given, why else would the EU
agree to it?

It's only recently that the matter of the rebate is being spun to bash the UK.

------
Kurtz79
A few weeks ago I was in Basel, Switzerland, which is uniquely positioned at
the cross of the Swiss, German and French borders.

There are suburbs of the city that are in German and French territory: Basel
trams and buses will get to either side, with no notice you are crossing a
national border.

You can cross the Rhine from Weil am Rhein (Germany) to Huningue (France)
through a footbridge, with the only thing marking the cross being a German and
French flags side by side, on the French side of the river.

[https://en.radreisen.at/data/thumbs/_data_pic_Frankreich_Reg...](https://en.radreisen.at/data/thumbs/_data_pic_Frankreich_Region_Basel_Sternfahrt_Huningue_WeilamRhein_2_jpg.1539077909.800x600x75.crop.jpg)

No border, no checks, even normal police nowhere to be seen. 75 years ago (and
pretty much over the course of their history) these two countries were at
bitter war between themselves.

I cannot fathom why people would do anything that could cause returning to
those times a possibility.

As flawed the EU is, it has been instrumental in ensuring decades of peace.
The (partial but undoubtful) loss of sovereignity for individual members
should be considered a fair price to pay.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

~~~
areyousure
One difficulty in drawing a conclusion from your story is that Switzerland is
not in the EU.

~~~
corney91
Sure, but the story is not inherently about the EU. It's about the free
movement between neighbouring countries, which is something Leave campaigners
are determined to stop as part of our withdrawal. Leaving could've been over
relatively quickly if all we did was leave the EU but keep our place in the
single market.

------
davidjgraph
Aside, a few click saving/general things with draw.io (and as a UK resident
you'll excuse me if I avoid the actual subject):

1) Add #U to the URL then the path to the diagram to create a link that loads
it directly:

[https://www.draw.io/#Uhttps://jonworth.eu/downloads/29jandia...](https://www.draw.io/#Uhttps://jonworth.eu/downloads/29jandiagrams/BrexitPlanB-V22.xml)

2) File->Embed->HTML gives you an HTML snippet that you embed in your page to
render a vector version of the diagram. Click the viewer opens up a lightbox,
zoomable vector version, that can include the diagram data in the snippet, and
a edit option from the lightbox to navigate to the editor with the diagram
loaded.

3) draw.io is open source,
[https://github.com/jgraph/drawio](https://github.com/jgraph/drawio), if you
don't want to depend on a third-party for the viewer, clone the repo, host it
as a static site (doesn't need a back-end) and reference the viewer on that
site instead of www.draw.io.

~~~
oarsinsync
Dunno why you're being downvoted. The page itself isn't loading anymore, and
the link you've provided in (1) does still load, so if anyone else is unable
to load the page in question, see this link (1) to see the flowchart at least.

------
alkonaut
A parliament that HAS to choose among N possible futures or else the one of
those N that is _least_ popular wins.

Yet they seen convinced that the only thing they can do is do yes/no votes to
reach a majority for one of the N alternatives. If this is for
legal/constitutional reasons (it most likely is) then it’s a horrible mistake
to not have realized this and corrected it.

Parliament needs a simple and legal way to swiftly select the most popular
option among N options where none have a majority. This isn’t a dangerous
legal loophole - the acceptance of such an N-way tie and the selection of the
N options can still be decided with majority.

There should be a ranked or Condorcet vote and the winner should be enacted.
It should have happened a year ago at least.

~~~
orra
Well, archaic voting practices are constitutional practice. But the UK
constitution is 'unwritten'. That means these practices could be easily
changed, given the will.

In Westminster, voting usually happens by each MP physically moving into one
of two lobbies. That is a very time consuming process, that can easily take
twenty minutes per vote. There are no ballots, let alone a computerised voting
system.

That the recent indicative votes happened on paper is _extraordinarily_
modern. Preferential voting would clearly be a step too far.

~~~
nicky0
It's not a complete innovation. Voting on paper has been the practice for some
divisions for some time (deferred divisions where instead of voting
immediately, MPs vote on paper the next day).

~~~
orra
Thanks for the explanation. Still, it is absurd they don't use paper (or
computers) for all votes.

~~~
nicky0
Quaint maybe but I would not go so far as to say absurd. There is something to
be said for physically getting up and indicating your choice that way. Seems
to me to give more weight to the process. Pushing a button seems rather
clinical by contrast. Plus I am sure they appreciate the piss break.

------
ganeshkrishnan
This is two days outdated. We are at meaningful vote 3 phase.

I assume this is going to fail again which gives it a 80% hard brexit chance
with 20% rescinding brexit.

I have always been all-in on "no brexit" for last three years. It's a dog and
pony show.

~~~
ldite
It's not a "meaningful vote" today (29th) - it's only a vote on the withdrawal
agreement, not the political declaration. According to the Attorney General
that means it's not a "meaningful vote" as previously defined.

And it's going to be voted down, of course.

~~~
ethbro
Whatever happened to the speaker's declaration that the government couldn't
keep bringing up the same bill?

Is this actually different, or did everyone forget that?

~~~
nmeofthestate
This is not a repeat, it is some kind of sneaky half-vote just on the WA that
will not ensure an orderly Brexit on May 22.

It appears that Theresa May is trying to run the clock past the April deadline
for a long delay, so we're back in a "her deal or no deal" situation. Then
again the EU will probably not stand for that.

~~~
oarsinsync
A European Commission spokesman said: "The withdrawal agreement negotiated
between both parties is indeed both necessary and sufficient to ensure the
orderly withdrawal of the UK."

------
martythemaniak
Nice diagram, but it's already out of date. The indicative votes already
passed, there was no consensus and I think now they'll do a second round? I
wouldn't be surprised if a good chunk of MPs are confused about what's
happening.

Anyway, the central delusion of Brexit is that the British public vote to have
a foreign sovereign government give them something. Technically they voted for
the British government to leave the EU, but what they really voted for is to
have the EU give them an unbelievably awesome deal that screws over the EU.
That is not going to happen, so now we're witnessing this mass political
delusion crash into reality.

------
krona
Unsurprisingly there are several possibilities not accounted for here.

One being that the 3rd vote passes, the PM resigns (which she's already agreed
to do), a new leader is elected _and_ a general election is held soon after
which will essentially be a 'second referendum' election in which we end up
rejoining the EU in less than 5 years. A true Schrödinger's brexit.

~~~
Sahhaese
Sadly we'll never be able to rejoin with the amazing deal we have now, with
our rebate and opt-outs intact.

And no matter the outcome, we've lost our dignity. We'll never get back our
reputation for stability.

~~~
digianarchist
Which would oblige the UK to join the Schengen area adopt the Euro.

~~~
_nalply
Perhaps you forgot the word "and" after "Schengen area". Because these are two
different things as Switzerland shows (Switzerland being in the Schengen area
but not adopting the Euro).

~~~
digianarchist
Indeed I did however I feel as though that is obvious and your comment is
rather facetious.

~~~
_nalply
Sorry.

------
jmkd
No wonder the public feel powerless.

The options are so obfuscated behind political complexity AND ever-changing
that a simple voter (me) can't hope to keep up.

The moment you half-understand a scenario it is outdated, the days it takes to
form a layperson's reasonable opinion are wasted grasping at now-irrelevant
information.

It takes multiple hours per day to try and understand the details and their
strategic importance.

I will forever remember this as a contradictory moment when the British
public's political awareness was both at its greatest and weakest.

No positive outcomes look possible any more.

~~~
daemin
This is why it should not have been a simple majority public vote. Either
leave it for the politicians which or make it a two thirds majority (so if a
civil war breaks out the side that lost the vote has to defeat 2x people).

~~~
lucozade
Unfortunately, that all only makes sense if we were given the vote in order to
make the decision to leave the EU or not.

But that wasn't why. It was to stem the haemorrhaging of MPs and voters to
UKIP for the 2015 GE. As such, the calculation was that anything other than a
straight fight wouldn't resolve the question.

I see no reason to disagree with that calculation. I mean, say it was a 2/3rds
vote and we got the result we did. How likely would it be that Farage et al
would just say "Fair cop" and move on?

The truth is it was a high risk punt, same as with the Scottish referendum and
AV vote, to kill any constitutional questions for a generation. If it had
succeeded as the other two had done, we would likely have Tory hegemony for at
least another decade. And Cameron could have argued (quite reasonably) that he
was the most democratic PM in our history.

And the way I see, it the calculation was based on the idea that the British
people are generally pretty conservative (with a lowercase c). This worked
well for AV (I mean who votes to retain FPTP?), reasonably well for Scotland
and spectacularly well for Brexit. The only problem was that, it turns out,
we're too conservative: we didn't want the status quo, we wanted the Edwardian
era back.

------
ColinWright
These are fabulous - they take serious work to follow through, but are clear,
and give a great sense of structure.

Great work - props to Jon Worth!

~~~
estomagordo
It does not describe what finger was licked and held up in what wind, though.

~~~
ColinWright
I produced exactly this kind of chart when engaged in a semi-hostile
management take-over, including the wild guesstimates of probabilities.

But then I further did a stability analysis to see which of the probabilities
needed to be more accurate, and thus require more careful measurement. That
identified critical decisions and pathways, and which of the other party's
decisions should be nudged.

Here, though, there's not really a lot to be gained by greater precision,
although your point is taken.

------
akerro
Basically we're sitting at no deal or no brexit. If no deal happens I have to
leave the UK in the next 2 weeks...

~~~
moreira
Do you though? As per gov.uk[0]:

> The rights and status of EU, EEA and Swiss citizens living in the UK will
> remain the same until 30 June 2021.

[0]: [https://www.gov.uk/settled-status-eu-citizens-
families/what-...](https://www.gov.uk/settled-status-eu-citizens-
families/what-settled-and-presettled-status-means)

~~~
desdiv
OP has EU citizenship, OP's partner does not. OP was under the impression that
their non-EU partner will loose their right to work in the UK.

That's definitely not the case though, and I've replied to OP on the steps to
securing a "Settled Status" for their partner.

------
fredley
These are great, but a little out of date (the situation has changed a lot in
the last 48 hours...). It's the visualisation I've wanted all along though!

------
TorKlingberg
Neat, but it seems to be missing the upcoming parliament vote on Monday. That
one seems very important to me.

~~~
Zenst
The EU has stated that they need to hear by close of today if any extension
beyond the 12th of APril and they said they would only do that if the UK
agreed the deal May got offered in which nobody of any voting stance likes.

In short, the EU is dictating Brexit direction more than the UK now.

So unless they agree May's deal, any other extension has to be voted upon.

However technically the UK could cancel article 50, then resubmit it and give
an extension of upto 2 years as article 50 covers a 2 year period and in that
time the end date can be earlier. Whilst technically they could do that and
the EU would be powerless to stop them, it would be a complete and utter
gaming of the political and legal system.

~~~
repolfx
The Article 50 treaty says very clearly that unilateral revocation isn't
possible. The ECJ has done what's expected for the EU and simply ripped it up,
but will the other heads of state accept the treaty they all signed just being
voided like that?

Probably yes - ultimately what happens in the EU is always and everywhere
about politics. Written law hardly matters.

~~~
stevesimmons
You are incorrect. The ECJ confirmed on 10 Dec 2018 that unilateral revocation
is possible. Indeed the exact title of the press release from the ECJ after
the judgement was "The United Kingdom is free to revoke unilaterally the
notification of its intention to withdraw from the EU".

~~~
repolfx
How is what I'm saying incorrect? You're agreeing with me that the ECJ voided
the treaty. Here's what Article 50 says:

 _3\. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date
of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years
after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European
Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to
extend this period._

The treaties cease to apply two years after the notification date unless the
Council decides unanimously to extend.

The ECJ read this and said, nope, unanimous consent not required actually, the
country can simply revoke it (i.e. extend indefinitely) at any time.

------
arethuza
I don't think this covers (MV3)/2 or whatever today's vote is called?

~~~
elyobo
Yeah, the latest two have "Meaningful Vote 3" taken into account.

~~~
arethuza
But aren't we just having a part of MV3 voted on today, which is how it got
round the ban on just repeating the same thing over and over again?

~~~
elyobo
Fair point, I guess that's what ganeshkrishnan was referring to about it being
two days out of date.

------
fbn79
Excellent work!

