Brexit Thread IV - Negotiations begin (and we're all screwed)


that’s what i mean, he’ll be annoyed that his legacy is fucked but he certainly doesn’t give a shit that his legacy is fucked cos he’s fucked the country

fuck fuck fucked


To be fair, in his mind it was probably a successful venture. Got to fuck over a LOT of poor people in those 6 years. He’s probably just a little bit miffed that he lost the referendum meaning he can’t really fuck over poor people as much now.

Probably waiting for people to throw money at him on the after dinner speaker circuit as well. *Edit - if he’s not doing that already, I don’t know?


Follow up to long haired lover from Liverpool?


I think it will hurt him to have lost the referendum, and lost to the side picked by Boris, but I can’t see him being upset at the consequences of Brexit.


Cameron cannot Even be fucked to go back through his twitter and delete all these tweets that people keep sharing about chaos with Ed Miliband/the SNP holding Labour to ransom etc. That how few fucks he gives about any of this. Being PM for him was probably just nice padding for his CV. What a dreadful bellend


probably forgotten his login and all the names of the interns who could remind him


If we were going to have a referendum, we should have had, and still should have, a referendum for a specific package of constitutional changes vs the deal that Cameron had on the table. Rather than, do you want whatever fantasy dream land that tickles your fancy vs the boring old EU.


This is it. He’ll primarily be annoyed at losing what was a very elaborate bet with an old rival from school.


typical remoaner - you lost, get over it
It’s people like you that are stopping brexit from being a success
why don’t you move to EUstan if you love it there so much




A minimum turnout clause in a referendum can have a disastrous effect, as it benefits the minority view.

The majority of voters who are against a certain proposal face two choices: vote against it (so the proposal will be rejected), or don’t vote at all (so the proposal doesn’t meet the turnout threshold). This can easily lead to a split vote where the minimum turnout is met, and the proposal is passed with the support of a minority of the electorate*.

*) this actually happened in a Dutch referendum in 2016 on the EU-Ukraine treaty, where the turnout was 32% (threshold was 30%) and 62% voted to reject the treaty, i.e. only 20% of the electorate. Opinion polls predicted that somewhere between 40% and 45% of voters were against the treaty.


That seems a very small threshold


I don’t make the rules.

For comparison, the turnout for the AV referendum was 42%, and for Brexit it was 72%.


You can get past this paradox though by instead insisting that any withdrawal from the EU would have to be supported by a majority of the electorate rather than a majority of voters


n the case of Brexit this would make sense as interpretting passivity in non-voters to support passivity in changing the status quo & activity in voting to support an active withdrawal


Snap judgement no-time-to-think poll

  • Brexit will happen and it will be as bad as / even worse than we fear
  • Brexit will happen but it will be soft
  • Brexit won’t happen

0 voters


It’s starting to look like the Tories have specific plans for a fucked up, self-serving Brexit that will benefit them and no-one else. Unless the Government collapses (which will require a truly spectacular meltdown which even the shittiest elements of the press can’t defend), we’re going to get dragged under by them.


I don’t see how it’ll even benefit them tbh.


Me neither, but there has to be some reason they’re aiming towards the hardest possible Brexit - Especially if they’re doing it without studying the risks.


Move all assets offshore then when its all done move in and pillage the NHS. AKA doing a Redwood.