E.U: Leave or Stay? Your thoughts.

A little levity - http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...rom-arguing-with-brexit-fkwits-20160713110699

 

And that's all it is, your own personal estimate based on what you personally consider "core" voters, me I'd say "core" voters are a committed members of a political party, and based on that your supposed 28-32% is actually less than 1%.

Again a single bill and again your making unfounded assumptions that MPs would vote against the whip.

So again you're basing your opinion on your own rather distorted view of the world rather than evidence, you're reinforcing your confirmation bias and attempting to make the facts fit your opinion instead of changing your opinion when the facts change.

So when facts suite your opinion your willing to accept them, like the above link, but when they don't, like when Theresa May said she supported remain you refuse to believe it.

You refuse to believe someone when they personally make a speech that contradicts your opinion of them, but when there's an unconfirmed rumor you take it as gospel even though that rumor could been seen as a means to an end.

Seriously if you can't see how much confirmation bias you have and refuse to change your opinion when the evidence and facts change there's really not much point in discussing this further.

 

26%

And what do you want to call, pray tell, that 26% of people that have always voted labour since the extention of franchise to all over 18. Regardless of how bad their policies they've been or what they did.

I call what you're calling core support i call "activists" and they are more likely to switch than their "base," "core" "whatever they're called" voters; look at the SDP or look at the infiltration of the militant tendency.

Why oh why oh why would a minister be making compromises on a bill, all spring in a majority government, with her MPs if there wasn't a possibility of them voting against the whip.

I could say the same for you.

Do you not realise that you said "oh look at the what the tory governments doing now"
and then I looked at it and said " Next to all of that is either less bad than what the liberals allowed the Tories to do last time, is just as bad, they've softened their position on and there's only a few minor things that wouldn't have got through"

So i'd say the evidence pointed to a rather minimal difference between a Tory government with a slim majority and a coalition with the liberals".

This is politics.
Someone making a forgettable speech, spends and entire campaign with her head down and only pops up to drop what anyone with a modicum of political understanding would know is a massive clanger on immigration.

Whilst doing this in a campaign where everyone knows there will be political fallout and the stake for their ambitions are high.


If all what you consider is delusional and then you might as well never read a history book (of any more depth than this or that happened), study political science, understand game theory, public choice theory, motivated reasoning and definitely never study economics (if you don't like assumptions).

because those subjects are full of assumptions made about people based on what they have done and how they did it.

As an example you said something snarky to an acquaintance friend or family member and they said "I'll kill you you little t***"

Would you take it as their literal intention based on what was simply said or would you base it on their tone of voice, body language and whether you were speaking to joe pesci or not?

For example when the trade union bill was to bepassed was david cameron overcome with a sense of fairness as the government stated intention of giving people an opt in instead of an opt out of the political levy or was he trying to defund the labour party?

Politicians statements and actions differ from their real intention and you making a guess based on a speech is in the very least no better than my guess based on their overall behaviour over time and what has leaked to the media.

The possibility that jeremy corbyn's office wasn't trying to sabotage the remain campaign was about as much an unsubstantiated rumour as pep guardiola joining MCFC, or zlatan and mourinho joining the rags.

The point being that those things were the worst kept secrets in football much like Jeremy's dislike of Europe being the worst kept secret in politics.

Likewise to yourself.

You're evidence that the tories are running rampant is a list of things that by comparison they'd have easily got away with barring 1/2 policies. eg. compare junior doctors to lansley reforms. or cuts in corporation tax to cuts in CT in the last parliament.

There's next to nothing that you've shown me that the Tories have implemented thats any more extreme than what they did in coalition, that tells me that they didn't negotiate very well and didn't really moderate them at all.

You've come to your guess about Prominent politicians real beliefs from what they have openly stated.

I've come to my guess based on their actions, opinions, what they have to gain, character and the view of these people by colleagues, friends and family

But again this is politics not everything is what it says on the tin.

I just think your opinion of their position is unlikely and mine reading is likely (it's not an absolute)

As far as changing my mind on things goes, I've changed my mind on a lot of major issues over time when confronted with new information.

You're assumption of "what politician say politician believe" requires at the very least the same amount of confirmation bias as anything I have wrote.

And also for the record trying to evaluate someone's psychological capacity to change their minds, accusations of paranoid delusions do not actually support your argument especially when discussing something as common as saying that politicians take positions sometimes for political ambition and convenience. Especially when the stakes are high.


Because that does happen. I don't see you pulling up nexxo when he states similarly distrustful and speculative assumptions about politicians from a pro EU lens.


At worst I have said you are being naive. Your worst has basically been to try and paint me as crazy.

Where at worst for either of us is: I am a cynic and you're naive.

 

So again nothing more than your opinion based on no evidence whatsoever.

Wasn't it you who said we seem to be going around in circles?
Either way hears one reason, because parts of the bill were illegal, parts were unworkable, and other parts cost way more than first thought, practical changes, things that needed to be changed because experts and people said her original opinion was flawed, because the facts and evidence meant changes had to be made.

You could but it would be true, you claim the Lib Dems didn't act as a brake on the worst excesses of the Conservatives and when i provide evidence to the contrary you attempt to brush it off by claiming there's a minimal difference, even after Mr Cameron said "I'm happy to tell you that there's a good list of things I have put in my little black book that I haven't been able to do which will form the next Tory manifesto."

No it's your refusal to change your opinion when the facts contradict it, instead of changing your opinion you attempt to change the facts to suit your beliefs.

On the contrary I'm more than happy to change my opinion when the evidence contradicts it, but as yet you've not provided any evidence, all you been doing is presenting a rather distorted view of how you see the world.

 

Farewell Cameron, your achievements were without end...

...sadly they were also without start.

 

Yeah only the evidence of elections going back to 1922. Despite all the different disasters in the labour party the lowest proportion was 27.2%of the vote in 1983.

Thats probably the case then.

But the consideration of a small majority is still important and she changed her opinion based on facts and evidence doesn't mean she needs the liberals to help her along.

What david cameron appealing to his right wing headbangers?

Things like the Eu referendum wouldn't have happened with the liberals, some of the tories new policies eg. HA right to buy neither of us know, inheritance tax wouldn't and a few piddling things like inheritance tax.

But nothing else that you listed was any more extreme than the liberals let through last time.

So to phrase it more accurately on welfare, the NHS, foriegn aid, education, border policy, privatisation and fiscal policy the liberals did nothing to temper tory ambitions.

Obviously the Eu referendum was significant but elsewise camborne negotiated them into a false compromise and achieved much of their ambition for the last parliament.

There's the argument I constantly hear on political programmes is that cameron was much more comfortable in coalition than with a majority having to deal the crazy right wing of his MPs and also the argument that he offered the referendum on the basis that he thought that the next government would be a coalition again based on polls.

(which it could have been if they had not taken so many Lib dem seats)

It's the failure to see that the accusation of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias can equally be levelled back at you.

You think you have given sufficient evidence, I think you haven't. You think I have no evidence (never mind sufficient), I think in most areas there is evidence to suggest those things.

I.e when you compare what the tories are currently doing (your evidence) to what they did in coalition (My evidence) there is nothing more extreme (lansley to jun docs, grants to tuition fees, Gove reforms to academies) or that couldn't/didn't have happen with the liberals (cuts, corporation tax, welfare cuts etc).

If you look at it from my side it looks like you've just said " look at what the tories are doing now" without taking into account the exact same or worse that the lib dems let through in coalition even after its been presented to you.

From my side it could just as easily look like confirmation bias also but i'd prefer not to level that argument at you and just assume that we put different weights on how extreme policies are in comparison or different weight on the evidence from the era.

On the first strand (cores support) it looks very clear when there are constuencies that have never changed from labour to another party post war, labour have always pulled 27%+ of the vote despite devastating party splits, membership infiltration and very poor policy would tell me that is the floor of their support in this country and therefore their base.

But you consider that "no evidence" which looks a lot like evidence to me.

Then on the third strand (political crossdressers) I accept as speculation, that I base on political theories (game, motivated reasoning, public choice) against judgements of character based on all that I have seen of them (which is a lot being a political geek).

Whereas you don't seem to understand that accepting a politicians stated position as true, when there is a lot to be gained and lost from your publicly stated position, is at best speculation.

What the difference would be here is trust.

From my point of veiw you sound like this:

"Senator, Caesar has crossed the rubicon saying he wants payment for his men, I think he wants to take over"
"oh ok not to worry they do this all the time, he doesn't want to take over"
"Senator, Caesar is to become dictator for 10 years, it think he's going to end the republic"
"oh, don't worry he'll hand back power in 10 years"
"Senator, Caesar is to become dictator for life, he's ended the republic"
"oh I had no idea this was coming, well looks like i'm off to help brutus"

The reason I use that example is there is a written history going back thousands of years showing that politician say they believe one thing, in fact having another set of beliefs and acting upon those instead.

So to believe a politician stating their position is this or that is a much speculation as believing it is something different.

On the fourth strand, the economics, it didn't appear you replied last time

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I personally don't like throwing around accusations of intellectual rigidity because it is precisely unhelpful and anyone can be accused of it because everyone is guilty of it to some degree.

So then you come to the point where the argument is "nuh uh you have confirmation bias."

Which is a pointless argument to be in; as no one directly involved in the argument is a valid judge of confirmation bias because it is just as likely they suffer from it as the other and its very hard to prove who is worse and the biases don't actually invalidate the argument or conclusions made.

This isn't the disequilibria-corky42 psych evaluation thread. So stick arguing your own opinion rather than musing over the psychological reasons why I may or may not agree with your opinion.


Additionally:

I've always thought of an understanding of psych biases being less of a tool to bash people that disagree with you and more something you understand to allow yourself to change and challenge your opinions over time.

Also to understand clearly irrational though without losing faith in humanity

 

The purpose was to determine if people wanted Britain remain in the EU or leave it.

However remaining in the EEA:
Still has EU regulations to follow
It still has free movement of people who can "terk er derbs"
Britain still has to pay its dues to the EU

Those are all slightly watered down from being a fully fledged member, less fees, less range of possible immigrants, less regulations to follow but they are all still there none the less. These are the key points from the leave campaign. These are the things they wanted control over. The EEA doesn't provide full if any autonomy on any of these aspects.

It almost delivers what the remain voters want, which is basically the EU. But it doesn't deliver much of anything of what the leave voters (who were the majority) wanted. That is why moving the EEA neuters the referendum and makes the whole thing pointless. The leave voters get nothing of what they actually wanted and the remain voters get a watered down version of the EU, which so close to the real deal, that it is more straight forward to just stay in.

 

A perfect example of your confirmation bias, for some reason you think that because the lowest proportion was 27.2% that must mean it's the same people voting for the same party all the time.

But lets look at it logically, lets apply occam's razor, is it more likely that the same 8.5 million odd people always vote for the same party every time, or is it more likely that people vote for the party they think best serves their own interests, whoever that maybe, and different people vote for different parties at different times.

No one mentioned the liberals helping Theresa May, we were talking about the liberals preventing the Conservatives from enacting some legislation that they (the liberals) didn't like, we were talking about the legislation that the Conservatives have enacted since they've been unshackled from the Lib Dems.

There you go again with your confirmation bias, you have no evidence David Cameron was appealing to his right wing headbangers, it's just supposition, it's just an opinion, it's you that believes inheritance tax is a piddling thing because you're refusing to look outside of your worldview, you're not challenging your own assumptions.

Well I'd say it can't, then again i would wouldn't I.

I've provided plenty of evidence for you, but so far all you've provided are you opinions and logical fallacies.

Another example of your flawed logic, you claimed the Lib Dems didn't act as a brake on the Conservatives and when i provide evidence to the contrary you claim i said "look at what the tories are doing now" when i was just using that as an example of why your original claim was wrong, you're using a straw man argument.

That's a false equivalence, actions are evidence, when the evidence or facts change we change our minds remember, if Caesar has crossed the rubicon then the speech he gave saying he wouldn't has been replaced with the new evidence and we act upon that.

Because like most of what you say it's based on flawed logic and assumptions.

No it's really not, it's why people use current evidence and facts to form their opinion, when new evidence and facts come to light we change that opinion, if we didn't people would still be saying the earth is flat and the sun orbits around us.

Indeed it's not, it's me saying why Disequilibria reasoning is flawed, it's me pointing out that just because we once believed the earth was flat that we changed our opinion when the facts changed, it's me pointing out that just because an MP once said something 3, 4, 5 years ago that doesn't mean they can't change their opinion.

 

Yeah, it'll be interesting to see how well (or badly) whatever arrangement we end up coming to fits the desires of both the Leave and Remain campaigns. I suspect that neither side will be particularly happy with the outcome.

 

As the saying goes, you know you've reached a compromise when nobody is happy

 

But technically it is still leaving the EU.

You are arguing from a position of logic, which as we all know rarely applies to politics.

As for what the Leave voters want: I have said before that they are a heterogeneous bunch who voted Leave for all sorts of reasons ranging from immigrants raus to sticking two fingers up to Cameron or "Gosh, I didn't know my vote actually meant something...".

Polls that ask people what arrangement people actually want finds that the majority (54%) wants an EEA arrangement, and that access to the common market is more important than immigration control. Now these are not all Remainers --they are a cross section of the population. Of course Leavers are more likely to prioritise immigration control over trade (polls checked that out too) but not nearly as many as you think; not even a majority of Leave voters. And Brexit may be Brexit, but whatever that means has to accommodate the whole population, not just the 52% who voted Leave.

So if May decides to go for an EEA arrangement there will not be blood in the streets, as some people fantasise. There will not be a revolution. There never was one before this damn referendum suddenly made the EU a thing. People don't care that much in the end. The majority of the population will be perfectly OK with an EEA membership.

 

Never said the same people. I said the same number and that is their floor of support regardless of what happens.

People's lives change someone who voted labour all their life suddenly becomes a business success and may decide to vote tory however we are not talking about the micro of the situation we're talking about the macro.

It's like the old credit card maxed out comparison to government debt.

You are claiming there is no such thing as voter loyalty.
The only way any less than 27% will vote for them is if they went more Tory than the Tories on major things like the NHS and welfare.

And your not challenging your assumption that politicians mean what they say.

.

But that's the sum total of your evidence.
And only basis of comparison is what got through a coalition and what is getting through a pure Tory government.

and whats the difference in the severity or the type of legislation from last time

The answer is nothing much in the areas of welfare, the NHS, fiscal policy, education.

The point was is that if he said he was doing it to get paid not to take Rome, if we believed politicians and people off what they said we wouldn't be suspicious

Oh really. Textbook macroeconomics and trade theory. Okay.

Or maybe I'm talking s*** in your view just like this:
http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?p=3902183#post3902183
and this (which you may be familliar with given your enjoyment of it...)

but it's not. It's that you're actually providing no evidence but "the politician said this,"

They're known for telling the truth are they, known for not climbing the greasy pole by any means, doing things for party loyalty?

I suppose Cameron believed in giving a referendum because of a stong belief in direct democracy and had nothing to do with shoring up party disunity. at all............

I suppose we should just take him on his word



If you believe what a politician says you are speculating as much as the person who believes they have an ulterior motive.

 

I hope no one fantasises about blood on the streets.

I agree that people would likely accept it.

However considering your deep seated cynicism for the electorate how many do you reckon don't realise that EEA EFTA access will have a 99.99% chance of meaning free movement of labour.

And is that 54% support for EEA and 46% no EEA

Or is it 54% support for EEA and X% association agreement x% WTO etc.

EDIT: One caveat is I think an EEA membership would possibly kick EU dissatisfaction down the road as people realise many of the things they believe are a problem continue.

I wonder how much that plays on the mind of EU states that just want this over and done for good?
and how much that plays on the mind of UK policy makers and officials?

 

You are right, it is leaving the EU and I suspect that's what will happen. Especially if the majority of the sitting government are remainians. I think you are also right that the public will probably accept it with little complaint.

That doesn't change the fact that an EEA outcome will make the whole referendum one of the most expensive and pointless things that has happened to Europe in a long time. (and that statement takes the Eurovision into account).

 

Then your definition of "core" is wrong or exhibits bias, firstly, you can look at party identification and then match it up with their socio-economic background. secondly, we can look at past vote history, either way you or i know none of that information, so once again your making assumptions.

I'm also not claiming there's no such thing as voter loyalty, I am however saying that your claim of "core" voters making up 26% is a fictitious number you've cooked up to suit your belief, I'm saying the only thing we know for sure, the only evidence we have to indicate "core" voters are registered members, and even then it's just a guess as how people vote is between them and the ballot box.

That's because challenging what someone says leads down the path you've obviously taken, a path that leads to you imposing your beliefs onto others, a path that means you focus on what you think rather than how the world around you actual is, that despite evidence to the contrary you think or believe something that doesn't reflect reality.

At least I've provided evidence, all you've done is paint a picture of how distorted your view of the world is, despite evidence that shows it's not correct. Instead you chose make lite of welfare, the NHS, fiscal policy, and education in a staggering display of denial.

No the point is we base our opinion, or actions on the best currently available evidence, be that what some says or does, be that words or actions, if you don't you'll spend your life second guessing everything around you, if you don't you may as well thump the guy that you thought looked at you strangely on the train.

No, like i said what you say it's based on flawed logic and assumptions, that's not to say the macroeconomics and trade theory is flawed, it's to say that based on what you've said so far that your interpretation of it probably follows the same vain.

You really don't get it do you, what someone says and does is the evidence, it's the best way we have of assessing the world around us, what you're talking about is constructing a view of the world that doesn't reflect reality.

Going by your logic we should lock all criminals up for life because despite them saying they've changed their past behavior shows they don't mean what they say, going on your logic we shouldn't believe someone when they apologies for something they said, going by your logic we shouldn't take people at face value we should impose our own preconceived thoughts and feelings on them.

 

While the public may accept it as a compromise to keep both sides somewhat happy the question of course then has to be, why wasn't "Brexit means joining the EEA" made clear by the government before the referendum?

Not necessarily pointless, with eu hating populist parties on the rise all over europe there is a pretty high chance that we will eventually see a full EU and a EU Diet version, the EEA with its already existing agreements and so on would be the perfect starting point for that EU Diet version.

 

Farage does. He likes the drama. But that's by the by.

Apparently the poll explicitly pointed that out. Checking the report (and newspaper article), 57% of the people polled still preferred an EEA model, knowing that it would involve free movement, while only 24% were against.

57% in favour of EEA, 24% against and 19% had no opinion.

Of the Leavers specifically, 42% were in favour of an EEA/EFTA arrangement and 45% against.

Even 25% of UKIP voters are in favour of an EEA option, while 33% are against (with a massive 42% having no opinion. Go figure).

Today the Birmingham Mail's front cover said: "MAY'S FIRST PRIORITY SHOULD BE THE PUB BOMBING FAMILIES". Hang on, I thought that was Brexit? People are already moving on.

On the upside for the EU, it has never looked so good in the eyes of the electorate of the remaining 27 member states.

But seriously, there are real benefits to an EEA Brexit:

• It provides a quicker departure from the EU than a bespoke deal;
• It provides a good interim solution that creates more time to strike a better long-term deal;
• It protects the economy/continuity of trade during and after exit;
• It creates a market-based relationship that most people in Britain want;
• It creates a model and a path out of EU membership that other EU states may then follow;
• It provides an exit settlement that Leavers and Remainers can unite around — it heals political wounds;
• It provides an exit settlement that Scots, Northern Irish and Gibraltarians can support;
• It gives the UK control back over big policy areas e.g. CAP, CFP, Common Foreign policy, Law & Order, VAT (and more);
• It gives the UK a proper emergency brake on the four freedoms including free movement;
• It frees the UK to negotiate new trade deals with other countries, individually or as an EFTA group (which will become the fourth trade largest bloc in the world);
• EFTA Court preliminary rulings on single market rules for EEA countries are not binding;
• It becomes possible to reject any measures that still come from the EU.

The government hoped to stay in. This is their fall-back position. And if Vote Leave had spent a bit more time on a proper Brexit vision and plan and less on cynically manipulating the crowd with empty promises, they might have spotted that. But Johnson and Gove never really expected to win, Farage had no idea except "OUT!", and the rest of the Brexiteers just had fevered dreams of free market unicorns.

Actually EU hating populist parties are rapidly on the decline all of a sudden. Even Austria's far-right Freedom Party's leader Norbert Hofer told Die Presse that he was “not in favour of an Austrian exit from the European Union”.

 

Right lets get back to where we started on this "what party gets what" line.

We got here because you think the Lib dems might take labour votes and I said I think that labour support will not drop below 26% even in the most politically unstable times there are for the labour party and these aren't even close to michael foot days yet.

So I am making a judgement that labour would still retain a "core" or "floor" of support. It's not that far fetched.

I didn't start out looking to disprove that the Lib dems had no chance but my opinion of voter feeling from what I have read and what I think party loyalties.

Remember this start with me questioning the speculation that the liberals had any chance of taking enough labour votes to be a serious threat to the referendum result in the event of a general election.

The assumption take what politicians suddenly say with a dead sea of salt because politicians with high ambitions or a long way to fall will act to maximise their own utility (public choice theory).

In this case:

First is the question what is the political climate like?
Is the outcome likely to lead to a shakeup politically?
What will the strategies be for achieving things like party unity, leadership, cabinet job, PM
(game theory)
What are the ambitions of that person?
Do they have reason to take a course of action that deviates from their belief or are they in a position to take a principled stand?(motivated reasoning)
If so what's the best strategy(game) (in my opinion) to achieve that persons ambitions at each juncture?
Then review: looking back over that persons campaign and see how far they deviated and how successful they were, what was the optimal game. Did their sudden unexpected change of heart and campaign behaviour match close enough to their best possible game.

So yeah when I evaluate I start with what is as far as I know.

I think it is still better than taking politicians at their word.

Again if the Pure tory policy looks the same now and could have got through last parliament in those areas then I doubt their impact beyond stopping a referendum, inheritance tax reduction. Things like TU bill and IP got watered down anyway.

I've still yet to see you provide any more evidence than a list of tory policies that would have got through last time the same.

How you get to that is odd.

I think you should consider the advantages of painting your own picture of another person based on more that what just they say, rather than believing everything at face value and letting of all people a politician to paint that picture for you.

So we're following heuristics here your previous percieved value of what I said determines the future percieved value of everything I have to say.

You're using a rule of thumb.

Or are you going to address further what I stated on that strand, rather than dismiss it out of hand?

Even if I believed crazy things which I don't, I've made a judgement about a politician, political landscape and a party and defended it as such against what I consider insufficient evidence and at best an equal level of speculation.

We're all making judgements here (politically), we're all engaging in speculation. I see little difference between mine and others speculation.

When not discussing economics but the politics we are pretty much engaging in normative judgements and statements rather than the positive. Whereas you're expecting I reside in the undeniably positive.

When discussing the economics there are positive judgements to be made but then a normative judgement to be made between what we each feel is the best outcome satisficing between political, social and economic outcomes.

You could equally end up with a veiw of this world that doesn't reflect reality if you just take what they say at face value.

If you're presented with false evidence and take that to form your "reality" you'd have distorted that reality if that evidence is false.

Since we're coming on to a criminal theme.

Take witnesses to the court, they can be considered unreliable and have their testimony disregarded.

What I am saying is that a politician with ambition and something to gain (or avoid losing) from taking a false stance in a major policy issue like the EU referendum is an unreliable witness to their own true beliefs in that period.

On criminals:
Parole officers, Judges and release boards don't take a criminal's word for it they look at a body of evidence as to their rehabilitation and place restrictions upon their release to gain an idea of how they'll behave in an open environment while not endangering the public or the offender.

Also certain requirements are placed on them for early release like taking certain courses.

"I'm sorry your 'onour wont do it again" doesn't cut it anywhere

Obviously differs from system to system in the UK we have automatic release on none tariffed offenders.
But for those who need to seek parole they need a full evaluation a half hearted effort in the run up to the hearing after years of non compliance wouldn't get them out. Nor would a simple statement of "I wont do it again"

On apologies:

Again you judge the sincerity of the apology by the character, tone, correction of behaviour, what someone has to gain/lose from the apology, frequency of having to apologise etc.

So if a crackhead lodger/friend/SO apologises for setting the house on fire for the sixth time because they're afraid you might kick them out/leave and they apologise every time.

I'd be inclined to tell that person they'd be at fault for believing the guy/gal was genuinely sorry if they did it again.

Of course that is a purposely extreme example but the point remains the same we accept and give apologies for a wide rage of reasons. We often accept insincere apologies for the sake of moving on an uncomfortable situation in a family or friend group.

Therefore we don't just judge the content and current apology in front of us but a myriad of evidence that forms a judgement.

 

It seems no one thought this thing through to be honest. No one really made any sort of exit plan clear nor was it clarified what leave vote actually meant. It was all very populist and nebulous.

I think it depends on what happens to Britain to be honest. If there are negative long term effects from leaving then its unlikely to see any others trying to move away from the EU to the EEA or an EU lite (which is basically what the EEA is anyway). If Britain finds some sort of fantastic success from the outcome of all of this, then I imagine Euro-sceptic views will escalate quickly in other countries. I think the latter is the less likely of the two, but who knows.

 

So much for our speculation
Think I said culture secretary.


Boris is foreign secretary . But not in charge of brexit .



David Davis is brexit minister .

Osborne gone , Cameron gone, boris no chance of leadership . Even if we just end up in the end of the EEA the vote has ended the plutocratic etonian grip on the Premiership and chancellorship that looked to continue for the next 10 years.