Is there a tariff on imported horse meat though?


This is the thing. Many people voted for a brexit which fixed all social and economic issues - aka a total pile of bullshit.

Remember this largely wasn’t driven by mainstream parties but by the far right, wedging the conservatives. as soon as it went through, half of them resigned and crawled back under their rocks.

They sold something which never existed.


And A discount for Mad Cow Disease?


The Brexit that people voted for was basically a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too fantasy. Complete control over immigrants entering the UK but complete freedom of travel for UK citizens who want to retire in Provence or get on the ■■■■ in Ibiza! Better trade deals for british exporters but more restrictions on imports! $350 million per day back into the NHS! The Leave campaign was promising all the benefits of EU membership but none of the responsibilities.

And tbh I don’t think the people who voted for brexit are even bad people mostly (yeah, I’m sure all the Nazis etc voted leave, but they are a very small minority). We’re in a time when in developed countries, the economic consensus and it’s exporting of manufacturing jobs to china, the financialisation of the economy, deregulation and privatisation, persistent corruption and corporate tax dodging and the rise of multinationals as basically immune to law and untouchable by regular people - is hurting a lot of people. I think the vote against Brexit was for a lot of people a protest vote against the decades of conventional and mostly bipartisan economic policy that arrived at this point.

And yeah, there were a bunch of wankers who voted Brexit to keep out the darkies. But they’re very, very far from the whole story.



There has also been long-term anger over Brussels beauracracy hubris, economic waste and essentially bullying.


I dont think years of austerity measures by their own government has helped either. People were hoping for change.


My brother in law’s position (Pom, living in Cambridge) is that “Brussels was total bollocks and desperately needed to be reformed, but us bailing out is short sighted and far worse”. He’s quite depressed about his countries outlook.

And Europe’s outlook too, with nationalism on the rise again.

I told him to move here.


so he could be depressed about ours?


It really is looking like a disaster.
A reminder that regressive politics take you nowhere but backwards.


Allegedly Jacob Rees-Mogg, the UK Minister for the Eighteenth Century, has made his many millions profiting from disasters, and sees a fair prospect of doing so again.

So Sue Perkins suggested in a recent tweet.

Out with the tumbrils and off to an appointment with Mme La Guillotine.

Should remove at least 30 of the plums in his mouth.


If you want a taste of “what Brexit people voted for”, consider that it was a yes/no question on the ballot.

If you’re old enough to remember, think of the referendum on the republic, which was also a yes/no question. What republic were people voting for?


It actually wasn’t a straight forward “Should Australia become a Republic” like the “Leave or Remain” question though.

A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament


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

Not sure what you’re trying to say? :thinking:


It was a deliberately slanted question to get the debate and answer that Howard and Abbott wanted. Same as the way they selected the group of people to discuss it. They were crafty buggers.

That’s despite it actually being an excellent model. It’s rare that anyone objects to the PM’s ability to appoint the Governor-General (read: President), and it would be rarer that they would object to a more-or-less consensus candidate.

Most people probably can’t name the GG.

But if we the people vote for a President it’ll solve all our issues with the current political parties! That debate was pathetic.


It was also silly to call it a President, which was something else deliberately designed to create confusion and uncertainty.


That’s one way to characterise what they did. Another way is to say that Howard proposed the only amendment that would actually work. A “Republic: Yes or No” referendum would not have changed anything, and there would then have to have been another on to make actual changes to the Constitution.

And I completely agree that the idea of a directly elected President is ridiculous, and that those who argued that it would “keep the politicians out” of things simply don’t have a brain in their heads.


I thought the detailed Republic question was fine in the sense that everyone knew more or less what they’d get and could vote accordingly. There was more clarity on the future than the Brexit question.


Also, wasn’t there to be a follow-up referendum to vote on the actual changes to our constitution?
(if Yes won)


Can’t recall that bit. Maybe. You’d probably need one to set-out the powers and role available to the “President/chief minister/El supremo/whatever”. Although from what I remember the Republican convention came up with a largely toothless figurehead role? Much like the UK now have, actually.

But We don’t really want this thread to go down an Aus Republic pathway so I’ll leave it at that.


Summed it up nicely.


Yeah certainly wasn’t no Mel C.