
That sinking feeling - ttepasse
https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2018/07/that-sinking-feeling.html
======
lozenge
Entertaining, but realistically the UK will just get a "bad deal". Life will
go on, political parties are blamed, then we get to repeat it all again
because the next party to be elected does it on a platform of "renegotiating".

~~~
ComradeTaco
There is a non-zero chance that May is replaced by a hard brexiter and they
insist, by will of the referendum, that a hard brexit must occur. You can see
UKIP bubbling back up in frustration.

When you consider what a soft brexit is, it's genuinely nothing of what leave
wanted. The UK still doesn't have a solid border between itself and the EU
because of the Good Friday Agreement, the UK still had to pay the EU and
follow it's regulations and for all that it gets zero say in the EU
legislature.

So there is a real chance of a hard brexit and it's going to be very messy.

~~~
arethuza
And the most likely candidate is Jacob Rees-Mogg "Honourable Member for the
19th Century":

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Rees-
Mogg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Rees-Mogg)

<sob>

~~~
gnode
18th Century according to the article linked -- which I'd say is more
accurate.

~~~
arethuza
Probably made that mistake because I went to a state school!

------
Symmetry
This is from an outsider to UK politics but it seems weird to me that we
didn't see the Lib Dems or some other smallish party position themselves as
the party of "We won't Brexit" and pick up a lot of the Remain votes?

~~~
arethuza
Both the Lib Dems and the SNP are pretty clear about not wanting Brexit
(possibly some other parties as well) - but this means nothing in the context
of UK politics.

Given that the current Labour leadership are quietly pro-Brexit and that there
is unlikely to be an election anytime soon I don't think there is _any_ chance
of an electoral solution to this problem.

[https://www.libdems.org.uk/exit-brexit](https://www.libdems.org.uk/exit-
brexit)

[https://www.snp.org/what_is_the_snp_plan_for_brexit](https://www.snp.org/what_is_the_snp_plan_for_brexit)

~~~
ethbro
Hypothetically, what's to stop one of the opposition parties from allying with
the Conservatives over a watered-down Brexit? (And ignoring DUP)

Or once a governing coalition is formed is it "locked in" until new elections?

------
consto
While the article may seem alarmist, considering how little the government has
achieved in the 762 days since the referendum, I too have little hope of any
meaningful progress being made. We have 240 days left, little idea what the
government even wants, and Theresa May is in the headlines for snatching milk
from children. Not that the opposition is in much better shape.

I do not know what Brexit the UK will get, but it will be a lazy, half-arsed
Brexit. My prediction is either the UK will crash out entirely leaving the
country in the chaos described in the article, give in to essentially all of
the EU's demands in the last few days or weeks to save face, or give up
entirely and call the whole thing off. When was the last time any UK
government pulled of something this big this quickly?

I am probably going to stockpile medicines, food, and essentials late Winter.

~~~
afsina
Alarmist is an understatement. Especially last part sounds like delusional to
me.

~~~
pjc50
I've already had the experience of "no fresh food in the shops", and it was
earlier this year when we had two feet of snow. Supply chain disruption to
some extent somewhere for at least a few days looks extremely likely to me.

What I'm worried about is "cascade failure". So far there's been very little
street violence, apart from the murder of Jo Cox. I'm worried about what might
happen if, say, the Met accidentally kill someone and set off a riot at the
same time as all this is happening.

------
kevingadd
Political aspects of Brexit aside, I had no idea Britain's food and fuel
situation was so dire in the event of a Hard Brexit. I would have assumed they
were more self-sufficient - the near-doomsday predictions coming from civil
service is really sobering. It sucks that the US is contributing to this
problem right now (in many ways, really).

Can they disentangle themselves from this even if they manage to get the
government to move in this direction? Is starting the process of exiting the
EU something that can be taken back, given that it seems to not be a realistic
option? I've seen differing opinions on this.

~~~
smacktoward
Britain has been dependent on food imports for a long time, ever since the
late 19th century. That’s why the U-boat threat in both World Wars was so
dangerous — Germany came within an inch or two of sinking enough ships
containing food and other vital import goods to starve the country out.

~~~
sgt101
This is typical of high density population centres - remember that Germany
_was_ starved out by the Royal Navy's blockade in 1918.

------
arethuza
Well, at least well have Tim Shipman to document whatever happens - his
previous two books on the Brexit campaigns and May's troubled time as PM are
outstanding:

[https://www.amazon.co.uk/All-Out-War-Britains-
Political/dp/0...](https://www.amazon.co.uk/All-Out-War-Britains-
Political/dp/0008215170)

[https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fall-Out-Year-Political-
Mayhem/dp/0...](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fall-Out-Year-Political-
Mayhem/dp/0008264384)

------
alexgmcm
As someone who emigrated from the UK to the EU, I just hope I receive my Irish
passport in time...

~~~
NeedMoreTea
On the plus side (not that there is really a plus side to this epic stupidity)
many many Brits are entitled to an Irish passport.

------
ethbro
Is "Tangerine Shitgibbon" a normal British colloquialism?

All this time, and I'm still learning things about the Queen's English...

------
TorKlingberg
I am quite sure the author is exaggerating the risks here. But, it scares me
that there are people who think you can just close the borders and everything
will be fine. Worse, those people might be running the country.

------
bilbo0s
Just an outsider's opinion, but I think that they had a vote. They probably
should _not_ have voted "Leave", but they did. So now you have to get on with
the business of implementing the will of the people.

It _might_ come out just as the author has outlined, or it _might_ not be that
bad, or it _might_ be far worse than even the author has envisioned. The thing
is, whatever the consequences and benefits are, they are consequences and
benefits for which the people voted. I think as democratic stewards and public
servants, the only thing you can do is implement the Brexit to the best of
your ability. Even in the face of the many grave personal reservations you may
hold as to the wisdom of that Brexit.

~~~
Symmetry
Two things. First, the UK is a representative democracy ruled by Parliament
and if Parliament decides they don't want to do something they don't have to
and the way for the people to indicate their displeasure is to elect new
people to Parliament.

Second, the will of the people is a nebulous thing. Brexit won with slightly
more than half the vote but that was in 2016. Since then many Brexit voters
have died, many new people on the Remain side have come of age, and people
have learned new things. It's very likely that if they had another referendum
now people would vote to stay in the EU.

~~~
jlavine
The promises of Parliament and the will of the people regarding Brexit were
about as clear as it gets in any democracy. Parliament voted to have the
referendum. The referendum was simply and clearly expressed (though not at all
detailed), each side had months to state their case, and the results were
uncontroversial. Parliament followed the referendum with a vote to trigger
Article 50. Subsequent elections resulted in a pro-Brexit government. What
more could you possibly want in a democracy? To reverse course now - or to
just keep having a referendum or revotes until the "right" result is achieved
- would express total contempt and disregard for democracy itself. Such total
disregard for the will of the people occurred following referenda on the EU
Constitution in France and Ireland. The EU's anti-democratic actions were one
of the main arguments of the Brexiteers.

~~~
YeGoblynQueenne
>> To reverse course now - or to just keep having a referendum or revotes
until the "right" result is achieved - would express total contempt and
disregard for democracy itself.

Ah, yes. There is no democratic way to overturn a democratically taken
decision. And it is the peple who are sovereign, not Parliament. That's how
the story goes.

Many UK citizens who voted Remain have a poor understanding of the procedures
of their own democracy. This is the fault of the political class of course,
who have long wished to keep their voters misinformed and apathetic, the
better to control them. Inevitably, this is now coming back to bite them.
Along with everyone else.

For the record: in the UK, Parliament is sovereign (i.e. they can do whatever
they decide) and democratically taken decisions are routinely overturned, e.g.
when a new government is elected every 5 ish years.

~~~
jlavine
I certainly wasn't advocating for any sovereignty of the people outside of or
above Parliament. The point is that Parliamentary elections and Parliamentary
votes have aligned with the pro-Brexit result of the referendum.

Parliament voted to trigger article 50, and subsequent elections (still very
recent) resulted in a pro-Brexit government.

The only democratic way now for Parliament to overturn the democratic decision
on Brexit would be for a party to run on an anti-Brexit platform and win the
next elections, then take a vote to reverse course. But, to repeat, there just
were elections, this didn't happen, and nothing fundamentally new has happened
since the elections that would lead to any change if elections were held again
now.

------
xamuel
My sinking feeling comes from seeing democracy dying, replaced by "right
answers" declared from on high.

Suppose the UK held a referendum about whether RSA encryption should be legal.
The voters narrowly vote to keep it legal. Suddenly the press, the
universities, celebrities and think-tanks start proclaiming the voters were
mis-informed. That foreign powers deceived voters to keep RSA encryption
legal. That the vote should be re-held because voters have changed their
minds. Suddenly, you can't post a tweet in favor of RSA encryption without a
brigade shaming you and demanding you be fired. Can't you see how wrong this
is?

~~~
nicktelford
The chief problem with Brexit is the ambiguity of the referendum question.

"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the
European Union?"

The problem with this is that if you interpret it literally, the outcome is to
leave the European Union, but remain in the EEA (single market), potentially
also the ECJ and a number of other treaties.

This is why so many commentators have argued that no one really knows "what
kind of Brexit" the public voted for.

The question was proposed with the expectation of a Remain vote. No one
expected the Leave result, and as such, hadn't planned for what that even
meant, let alone actually executing on it.

~~~
xamuel
That's a very good point, thanks.

But just in this thread, I see many other arguments to invalidate the vote:

* Arguments that economics make Remain "right" (assuming economic considerations overrule votes; if economists proved the economic thing was to kill one half the population, does that mean that's the "right" choice?)

* Arguments that since the vote, Leavers have died while Remainers have come of age. This kind of reasoning blatantly disenfranchises an entire section of demographics, and no-one sees a problem with that??

* That the margins were too close and this somehow invalidates the vote. This is "complaining about the rules of Monopoly after you've lost the game".

* That the public is not qualified to vote on this question. This is insulting and highlights what I said about democracy dying.

* That the result is invalidated by outside meddling. Others have already pointed out how ridiculous this is.

~~~
nicktelford
I haven't combed the entire thread, so I can't speak for everyone, but I'd
like to address some of your points more generally.

Before I begin: thanks for the calm and reasoned discourse - I've found it
difficult to have open discussions like these with Brexit supporters, mostly
because I don't know many.

Firstly, I think many making these arguments aren't suggesting the vote should
be ignored, simply that it resulted in a bad choice being made. Criticising
the result of a vote isn't an attack on democracy in itself; for example, I
disagree with the result of the Alternative Vote referendum, which would have
actually made our electoral system _more_ democratic.

"Arguments that since the vote, Leavers have died while Remainers have come of
age." \- again, I don't think this invalidates the vote; it's just an
observation about demographics. It's also worth noting that it's not anti-
democratic to suggest holding another vote when either the demographics or the
facts/information at-hand has changed.

"That the margins were too close and this somehow invalidates the vote." \-
curiously, referendums that decide on whether to change something almost
always require a 60% majority vote for change in order to succeed. This was
the case with the Alternative Vote referendum (where it didn't matter), but
strangely not with the Brexit referendum (where it did). The reason for this
is to partly account for the large number of people who don't vote; most of
these are assumed to be happy with the status quo.

"That the public is not qualified to vote on this question." \- it's kind of a
given that the public wasn't qualified to vote on this; just as we're not
qualified to vote on most matters of parliament. We have a "Parliamentary
Democracy", which means we elect representatives to vote on issues on our
behalf. The concept being that, since it's their full-time job, they have
ample time to research the issues and to better understand them than we can.
It's perplexing to many that an issue as complicated as Brexit was put to the
public when so many MPs are unable to fully understand it.

Also, the Brexit referendum is not legally binding. The government had the
opportunity to ensure that it was, but decided against it. Technically
speaking, the government/parliament are free to completely ignore the result.
The reason they don't isn't that it'd be illegal, but that it would be
political suicide, due to the demographic nature of the Leave vote.

"That the result is invalidated by outside meddling." \- there's a fair bit of
anger at how corrupt the Leave campaign was: from blatantly misrepresenting
the truth to breaking electoral law on spending limits. They did this because
they knew they could get away with it: once the vote was over, the
organisation would no longer exist, and there would be no-one to punish. Sure,
you can level some fines against a few individuals, but most of their
behaviour will go unpunished. The only thing anyone can think of that would
discourage this behaviour in the future is to re-run the referendum, but even
then, it's not a perfect solution. Their deeds cannot be undone.

------
brandmeyer
What exactly are the EU red lines in the brexit negotiations?

~~~
pjc50
Indivisibility of the four freedoms: of movement for goods, services, capital
and people.

The UK seems to be determined to end free movement of people, largely out of
anti-slavic racism and systematic misinformation about how the system works by
the press.

~~~
kazen44
breaking up the four freedoms is very unlikely, mainly because it is a
foundation principle of the EU.

------
kzrdude
Just because of a customs border, one doesn't have to have road blocks and
controls. Seems to be an assumption, but I don't agree, one can keep an
opening border anyway, even if you have customs.

~~~
EliRivers
I think that falls foul of WTO rules.

[https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-what-
are-t...](https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-what-are-the-
options-for-the-irish-border-after-brexit)

~~~
osullivj
I guess the UK could have a referendum on leaving the WTO.

~~~
pjc50
That really would put us in the same collection as a few failed states and
minor dictatorships. Being outside the WTO would be _even more_ inconvenient.

~~~
osullivj
Agreed. I'm surprised Rees-Mogg isn't advocating it...

------
api
I've spoken to people who are cheering for these kinds of effects. An actual
quote: "I hope Trump does as much damage as possible."

The Trump and Brexit elections were for some people a kind of Luddite revolt
-- not against technology per se but against globalization. This was a revolt
by the working classes of the developed world against a globalization process
that is substantially impoverishing them.

I can't say I blame them much. I don't know about the UK but in the USA nobody
cares. The American left looks down on the working class for their religious
beliefs and hates them for their social conservatism. The American right
pretends to care long enough to win an election and then goes back to pursuing
policies that hollow out industry in favor of lucrative labor arbitrage
profits for major corporations.

This could have been avoided, but the time to avoid it was perhaps in the
early 2000s. Developed nations that don't have these problems are those that
have taken steps to protect (through social safety nets) and retrain those
whose jobs are threatened. But here in the US and (AFIAK) UK we have made
college dramatically _more expensive_ , allowed housing and health care to
inflate far beyond wages, and generally twiddled our thumbs and looked the
other way. It's almost like some fraction of the US educated and wealthy
classes delight in the economic impoverishment of its middle and have pursued
policies designed to do exactly that. I say this because as the effects have
become apparent we have doubled down on these policies.

What are the victims of these policies going to do? Nobody listens to them.
Nobody cares. So in the end all they're left with is political revolts that
most of them from what I've read understand are likely impotent, but at least
somebody is discussing it. I'm a coastal "tech elite" and I'm writing this
post and I wouldn't be if Hillary had won and Brexit hadn't passed. That's
democracy I guess.

Edit: one more point:

During the election I watched a show (Colbert I think but I'm not sure) where
Trump supporters and "MAGA" were mocked by walking around and asking them when
they thought America was great. None of them had a good off the cuff way to
answer the question. Well here's the answer if anyone is curious:

[http://www.eoionline.org/wp/wp-
content/uploads/productivity-...](http://www.eoionline.org/wp/wp-
content/uploads/productivity-versus-wages.jpg)

Draw a line through 1973. Before: America was great. After: America is not
great.

Highly skilled and educated Americans don't get the appeal of MAGA because
they have been spared to a much greater extent from this divergence. I would
argue they've still felt it but more through indirect means like housing
hyperinflation on the coasts, but it hasn't been visceral enough to provoke an
extreme response.

I'm not and never was a Trump supporter but I totally get the appeal of that
slogan and it's not stupid at all. It's very real.

~~~
mnm1
If America was great before 1973, it certainly was only great for white men.
Ask a black person just how great America was before 1973. Or a woman.
Mexicans. Chinese. Native Americans. MAGA is a racist slogan that only appeals
to racist whites and idiots who don't know American history.

~~~
api
Think of it this way. Had wages continued to track productivity gains and the
black white wage gap closed black workers would be making twice as much.

If the trends hollowing out the middle class continue social justice won't
matter. If the plane is going down does it matter if you have an aisle or a
window seat?

------
bharam
Any article which devolves to name calling within a few paragraphs (the Nazi
stuff) lacks credibility and can safely be dismissed. It won't win anyone over
and just looks like someone who is preaching to the choir.

~~~
hudibras
It's called "hyperbole" and it's been a pretty standard rhetorical device for
several thousand years.

~~~
bharam
Yes and when it's used in an argument it's a sign of weakness. It's similar to
resorting to shouting in a verbal discussion.

------
losvedir
I applaud the concrete predictions, but like all the sky-is-falling things
I've read about Trump and the tariffs which haven't (yet?) come to pass, I
think Stross's are over the top and business will continue as usual. We'll
see, it's good he's stockpiling food and medicine since that's consistent with
his worldview, but I wonder if we'll learn anything from the outcome since one
of us will be very, very incorrect.

The Northern Ireland bit was interesting to me. Maybe I misunderstood the tone
but it seemed to me that Stross wanted a customs border between Northern
Ireland and Britain, and no such border between it and Ireland? That seems
bizarre to me if you think of the UK as one country, and Ireland as a
different one. Or am I misreading it? If it's untenable for the borders to
work that way, it seems to me Northern Ireland isn't (not "shouldn't be" but
specifically "isn't") a part of the British people's nation already, and
borders should be re-drawn to reflect that.

~~~
maxerickson
The government is going to pay farmers $12 billion in aid due to the tariffs
and then they are going to put crops in piles to rot.

I guess that technically isn't the sky falling, but the food going to waste is
the sort of thing reasonable people would have predicted. They wouldn't
necessarily have predicted the targeted bailout.

Another thing where the sky isn't falling is that companies that consume steel
and aluminum are doing worse. Again, exactly the sort of thing that reasonable
people predicted.

~~~
losvedir
> _I guess that technically isn 't the sky falling_

Right that is exactly my point. It's totally plausible that we might waste
some food or money. By "sky is falling" I mean things like these wink-wink-
nudge-nudge articles that Trump is ready for WW3 [0] and is able to use nukes
whenever he wants [1], or that 1,000 economists imply tariffs can lead to
another Great Depression [2].

It's that latter tenor that I'm getting from cstross's post. I don't doubt
that _mildly_ bad things can happen as a result of Brexit. I just am skeptical
it will be more than your usual recession, say.

[0] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-
party/wp/2016/11/22...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-
party/wp/2016/11/22/trumps-national-security-adviser-is-ready-to-fight-
another-world-war/?utm_term=.1f549ec9fdac)

[1]
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/12/01/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/12/01/no-
one-can-stop-president-trump-from-using-nuclear-weapons-thats-by-
design/?utm_term=.b3237f5b1960)

[2] [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/03/donald-
trump...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/03/donald-trump-trade-
economists-warning-great-depression)

~~~
maxerickson
The article about nukes is true and doesn't have any connection to tariffs?

I guess a fun game for you to play would be to write down the positive
outcomes you expect and the worst case scenarios you expect. Then if you are
wrong you can eat your keyboard or something. And if you are right then you
are right.

------
coldtea
> _The Electoral Commission has uncovered evidence of electoral spending
> irregularities in the Leave.UK and Vote Leave campaigns serious enough to
> justify criminal investigation and possible prosecution_

Somehow those kinds of probes only conveniently find "irregularities" from the
sides that the political elites are against...

UK is supposedly a democracy (and thus such matters are to be decided by
popular vote), but the pro-EU side has brought a strong TINA approach over the
whole thing -- as it's not just a choice with pros and cons, that can be
debated, and eventually go either way (even if it has a cost), but some kind
of historical inevitability for the UK to be in the EU.

And anyone against is a bad person, and/or racist, and/or baseless (if not an
agent). This demonising will continue to hurt the Bremain in the UK (and the
ruling classes in general) and the Democrats in the US. You cannot rule a
people, or have a united country, unless you understand "how the other side
lives" and their grievances.

And all of that after a long period where the legitimacy of the EU was in
question, the Euro in the crapper, and fiscal policies made to benefit a few
big gorilla countries (if not a single one).

(And after 2 decades of power elites getting their way with the Maastricht
treaty, the Lisbon treaty and so on, untangling 50+ years of social
protections in the process -- and after time after time, the popular vote for
the EU constitution, policies and other matters has been against when it was
asked for in a referendum (e.g. in France, Ireland, Spain, Italy, Greece,
etc).

(This is of course not a popular approach for the upper middle class, mobile,
HN crowd).

> _On a micro scale: I 'm stockpiling enough essential medicines to keep me
> alive for six months, and will in due course try and stockpile enough food
> for a couple of weeks._

Rather, on a micro and macro scale: nothing much will change. The "end is
coming" survivalist fantasies will be laughed at 2-3 years from now. I'm
saving this post, let's check back and see who was right.

~~~
EliRivers
_UK is supposedly a democracy (and thus such matters are to be decided by
popular vote)_

I disagree; that's not true at all. The UK generally does not have such
matters decided by popular vote. An actual referendum is a very unusual thing
in the UK.

~~~
coldtea
Well, there was the Scottish independence referendum.

(Had it gone for independence, we'd still be hearing how the Scots where
deluded, how the independent Scotland side had "electoral spending
irregularities" and such, how they are racist and backwards, etc. Now that we
hear about it again in the face of Brexit -- where Scottish independence would
be interpreted as "Scotland in the EU" \-- the same people would say the
opposite).

But I was speaking of the people voting in general, not a referendum. UK still
has elections IIRC.

~~~
EliRivers
Sure does. Such matters are meant to be decided by those democratically
elected representatives; not by popular vote. Referenda, especially with only
two opposing options, make bad democracy, exposing one of its most dangerous
failure modes; a tyranny of the majority.

