Op Ed: Brexit is teaching Britain its true place in the world

[ruby sparks]

Ruby, the vote was 52% in favor and 48% opposed, from what I remember. It sounds like you guys are almost as confused as we are, when it comes to Brexit. The only American paper that ever seems to cover Brexit in much detail is the NYTimes, which has a pretty decent world news section. But, it does seem as if the voters that were in favor were about as bright as Trump supporters. Trump has said positive things about Brexit, so I'd be worried if I were you.

I know a redo is very unlikely, but I keep reading about people that haven't given up hope. It's probably like the wishful thinking of some of us who keep expecting that the Republicans are going to do a damn thing about Trump.

Yes. Britain is roughly as divided as America, over different things yes, but both countries have that in common. Increased division.

As to a second referendum:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-46311052/could-there-be-a-second-brexit-vote

( I don't know if you can access that)

I think Labour are secretly maybe slightly in favour of it, but chasing the bigger reward, a second referendum under Labour. In other words, their main goal is a general election, first and foremost, because they see the mess the conservatives are in as an opportunity they can benefit from. Right now, they're saying that there would be no 2nd Brexit referendum though, just a possible referendum on the terms of leaving.

As to the possible result of a 2nd referendum, if there was one (which is probs unlikely) I think it's generally accepted that it could go either way. There doesn't appear to have been a massive shift in public opinion. maybe it would go 52/48 in favour of staying in. Cue more years of division.

 

[Canard DuJour]

The blogger is right about British delusions of grandeur. Even during the glory days of the British empire, other European nations always told us to fuck off.

However..

The EU was originally envisaged as a protectionist bulwark against laissez-faire globalisation. It has since (over the last 30 years) turned into nearly the opposite. A dysfuntional neoliberal dictatorship which is now generating exactly the hard right and left nationalisms it was supposed to mitigate.

Brexit will hurt Britain economically - no question. But the EU in its current form is unsustainable and deserves to fail. The sooner the better.

 

[EvoUK]

Also, the 'deal' May has got isn't really a deal to begin with. A deal that ends freedom of movement but only half hobbles the economy isn’t a compromise.

Compromise isn’t really possible in this case, because EU membership is in many ways a package deal. Once you pick apart one aspect of membership everything begins to collapse. We’re either completely out and royally fucked, in the SM CU and broadly OK (though without any control so worse than we are now) or in the whole thing and completely fine (as soon as we fix the millions of problems caused by years of awful domestic governance, that is).

 

[Harry Bosch]

Ruby, the vote was 52% in favor and 48% opposed, from what I remember. It sounds like you guys are almost as confused as we are, when it comes to Brexit. The only American paper that ever seems to cover Brexit in much detail is the NYTimes, which has a pretty decent world news section. But, it does seem as if the voters that were in favor were about as bright as Trump supporters. Trump has said positive things about Brexit, so I'd be worried if I were you.

I know a redo is very unlikely, but I keep reading about people that haven't given up hope. It's probably like the wishful thinking of some of us who keep expecting that the Republicans are going to do a damn thing about Trump.

Yes. Britain is roughly as divided as America, over different things yes, but both countries have that in common. Increased division.

As to a second referendum:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-46311052/could-there-be-a-second-brexit-vote

( I don't know if you can access that)

I think Labour are secretly maybe slightly in favour of it, but chasing the bigger reward, a second referendum under Labour. In other words, their main goal is a general election, first and foremost, because they see the mess the conservatives are in as an opportunity they can benefit from. Right now, they're saying that there would be no 2nd Brexit referendum though, just a possible referendum on the terms of leaving.

As to the possible result of a 2nd referendum, if there was one (which is probs unlikely) I think it's generally accepted that it could go either way. There doesn't appear to have been a massive shift in public opinion. maybe it would go 52/48 in favour of staying in. Cue more years of division.

BTW: super dumb question, but why can't you guys have a second vote on Brexit? Maybe it would pass again. If not, then that's an example of some people changing their mind. In the US, we change our minds every two or four years! What's the big deal of a second vote?

 

[EvoUK]

Neither main party wants one, despite this clearly being in everyone's self-interest.

Not that I'd trust my countrymen not to fuck up again. You can be sure that despite all the previous lies of the leave campaign being shown to be lies to even the most stupid of gammony voter, they'll just campaign on the same old lies all over again and the gammon will swarm to the polls and vote against the countries best interests. Again.

After all, Brexit is a shit show not because it always was going to be a shit show even those campaigning for didn't want, but because we didn't believe in it enough.

 

[southernhybrid]

From Ruby's link:

If a further referendum was to happen, the EU would have to agree to delay or cancel the Article 50 deadline of the UK leaving the EU on 29 March 2019; in the UK, politicians would also have to pass legislation for a new referendum.

I assume that the UK politicians are too divided to agree on passing the legislation for a new referendum. Correct me if I'm wrong, UK members.

 

[EvoUK]

There's that. Plus there's the fear of political fallout from those who voted to leave: they were mostly lied to and were promised the impossible. Technically it was then up to the government to then provide the unicorns promised to the public. That they've failed to do so is seen as a failure of government and to put it back to the public may be seen as a 'you got it wrong, now vote again and get it right this time'.

 

[RVonse]

The blogger is right about British delusions of grandeur. Even during the glory days of the British empire, other European nations always told us to fuck off.

However..

The EU was originally envisaged as a protectionist bulwark against laissez-faire globalisation. It has since (over the last 30 years) turned into nearly the opposite. A dysfuntional neoliberal dictatorship which is now generating exactly the hard right and left nationalisms it was supposed to mitigate.

Brexit will hurt Britain economically - no question. But the EU in its current form is unsustainable and deserves to fail. The sooner the better.

So far, this is by far best answer to the OP.

 

[RVonse]

Ruby, the vote was 52% in favor and 48% opposed, from what I remember. It sounds like you guys are almost as confused as we are, when it comes to Brexit. The only American paper that ever seems to cover Brexit in much detail is the NYTimes, which has a pretty decent world news section. But, it does seem as if the voters that were in favor were about as bright as Trump supporters. Trump has said positive things about Brexit, so I'd be worried if I were you.

I know a redo is very unlikely, but I keep reading about people that haven't given up hope. It's probably like the wishful thinking of some of us who keep expecting that the Republicans are going to do a damn thing about Trump.

Brexit has nothing to do with Trump nor whether you are in the "smart or stupid" club. Yes, it is true that more college educated people voted against Brexit the same way they voted against Trump. But that was NOT because smart people were against Brexit. It was because college educated professionals were located in London. In other words Brexit had to do more with where people were located and the employment they were doing (banking industry) more than anything else.

So please do not confuse the anti globalists movement with anything other than the desire to break away from tyranny.

 

[Underseer]

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-brexit-fantasy-goes-down-in-tears

For the past two and a half years, James O’Brien, a popular London talk-radio host, has been arguing that the “Leave” vote in the 2016 Brexit referendum was a tragic mistake. On Thursday morning, as the British Prime Minister, Theresa May, was preparing to defend in Parliament the controversial withdrawal deal her government has made with the European Union, O’Brien’s show received a call from a Leave voter named Bill, who said he owed the host an apology. “I was wrong, I was wrong, I was wrong, I was wrong,” the man began to say, in an accent that placed him firmly outside the British élite. “I’m an old-fashioned git, really, I suppose . . . For some reason, I thought we were better off, but, clearly, I was wrong.” As Bill made this admission, his voice broke and he started crying. O’Brien pointed out that 17.4 million Britons made the same choice, and told him not to blame himself. Bill was inconsolable. “I was wrong, I am so sorry,” he blubbered. “What have I done to my country?”

[YOUTUBE]MiA9AEAOFU8[/YOUTUBE]

(Above video is more or less a guy reading the article out loud.)

 

[Rhea]

Brexit has nothing to do with Trump nor whether you are in the "smart or stupid" club. Yes, it is true that more college educated people voted against Brexit the same way they voted against Trump. But that was NOT because smart people were against Brexit. It was because college educated professionals were located in London. In other words Brexit had to do more with where people were located and the employment they were doing (banking industry) more than anything else.

So please do not confuse the anti globalists movement with anything other than the desire to break away from tyranny.

This might be an interesting point if it didn't ignore the fact that no matter where you look, the more educated you are the fewer of you voted for Brexit or Trump.

For example I live in a very rural, very "red" county in America. Once here, you still find that the blue voters tend to be educated people, while the people who do not have plural units of measurement tended to vote for Trump (and other ghastly candidates). So no, it's not about rural vs city entorely.

Although I will agree that rurals tend to be more "conservative" because, as a rural person, you don't have to think about cooperating with your neighbors since they are too far away to matter. Noise, guns, pollution; when we do those things our neighbors aren't immediately impacted (pardon the pun). So they think nothing of shutting down welfare because you can "just" plant your acre to food and log your back 20. Behaviorally, you can be a straight-up asshole at your house and dump your sewer directly into the creek and no one will realize it, or you can be horribly unsafe with guns and people are capable of avoiding you. But take those less educated people to an urban area and even they realize the benefits of cooperative society.

But city vs rural doesn't tend to change the way the educated and well traveled think, it only changes the way the less/un educated and ignorant think.

(Also there are lots of rura; highschool conservatives, though not where I live.)

 

[Trausti]

Brexit has nothing to do with Trump nor whether you are in the "smart or stupid" club. Yes, it is true that more college educated people voted against Brexit the same way they voted against Trump. But that was NOT because smart people were against Brexit. It was because college educated professionals were located in London. In other words Brexit had to do more with where people were located and the employment they were doing (banking industry) more than anything else.

So please do not confuse the anti globalists movement with anything other than the desire to break away from tyranny.

This might be an interesting point if it didn't ignore the fact that no matter where you look, the more educated you are the fewer of you voted for Brexit or Trump.

For example I live in a very rural, very "red" county in America. Once here, you still find that the blue voters tend to be educated people, while the people who do not have plural units of measurement tended to vote for Trump (and other ghastly candidates). So no, it's not about rural vs city entorely.

Although I will agree that rurals tend to be more "conservative" because, as a rural person, you don't have to think about cooperating with your neighbors since they are too far away to matter. Noise, guns, pollution; when we do those things our neighbors aren't immediately impacted (pardon the pun). So they think nothing of shutting down welfare because you can "just" plant your acre to food and log your back 20. Behaviorally, you can be a straight-up asshole at your house and dump your sewer directly into the creek and no one will realize it, or you can be horribly unsafe with guns and people are capable of avoiding you. But take those less educated people to an urban area and even they realize the benefits of cooperative society.

But city vs rural doesn't tend to change the way the educated and well traveled think, it only changes the way the less/un educated and ignorant think.

(Also there are lots of rura; highschool conservatives, though not where I live.)

Educated does not mean smart. Lots of dumb grads, e.g., taking on mounds of debt for freely available knowledge.

And these days, ANYONE can go to college. College seems more about indoctrination than education. The reason a lot of self-starters quit college.

Exclusive Test Data: Many Colleges Fail to Improve Critical-Thinking Skills

Results of a standardized measure of reasoning ability show many students fail to improve over four years—even at some flagship schools, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of nonpublic results

Freshmen and seniors at about 200 colleges across the U.S. take a little-known test every year to measure how much better they get at learning to think. The results are discouraging.

At more than half of schools, at least a third of seniors were unable to make a cohesive argument, assess the quality of evidence in a document or interpret data in a table, The Wall Street Journal found after reviewing the latest results from dozens of public colleges and universities that gave the exam between 2013 and 2016.

At some of the most prestigious flagship universities, test results indicate the average graduate shows little or no improvement in critical thinking over four years.

Not surprising people with poor ability to assess the quality of evidence would have voted remain. Likely that many who voted remain didn't know (or couldn't understand) what they were voting for. Ditto those who voted for Hillary.

 

[lpetrich]

Educated does not mean smart. Lots of dumb grads, e.g., taking on mounds of debt for freely available knowledge.

But people who don't go to college are ruining their career prospects, right?

Employers want experience, and if they can't get that, then they want credentials. Their ideal employee often seems to be a 25-year-old with 20 years of experience. Failing their finding such unicorn employees, they often settle for such demonstrations of competence as getting good grades in college.

Book learning is not enough. Many skills have to be learned by doing. You can read about how to drive a car all you want, but you won't be competent in doing so until you have had a lot of practice in doing so. This is also true of many academia-related skills, like writing.

 

[Bronzeage]

I think the conundrum of why Trump alienates college educated people is fairly simple to understand, if one realizes there is a common thread in the college experience, whether one studies engineering, social welfare, literature, or medicine. A person who spends several years on a college campus, attending classes and studying, will encounter a high percentage of assholes. Whether they are fellow students, faculty or staff, or local residents, a college student is confronted by assholes of many different backgrounds.

This leaves a person with a keener sense of who is full of shit and this is a valuable skill in the real world. It has nothing to do with "book learning." It is a byproduct of being trapped in an academic environment.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I think the conundrum of why Trump alienates college educated people is fairly simple to understand, if one realizes there is a common thread in the college experience, whether one studies engineering, social welfare, literature, or medicine. A person who spends several years on a college campus, attending classes and studying, will encounter a high percentage of assholes. Whether they are fellow students, faculty or staff, or local residents, a college student is confronted by assholes of many different backgrounds.

This leaves a person with a keener sense of who is full of shit and this is a valuable skill in the real world. It has nothing to do with "book learning." It is a byproduct of being trapped in an academic environment.

Totally agree! An education also teaches people to question authority, keep an open mind and be suspicious (or skeptical). IMO, Obama was a great president. But many of his supporters (including myself) have no problem pointing out his deficiencies. Trump supports like absolutes. Trump is correct in everything. We've never seen such a cult of personality like Trump.

 

[jonatha]

We've never seen such a cult of personality like Trump.

I had the impression you were old enough to remember President Reagan...

 

[bilby]

The original purpose of the Brexit vote was to stop, once and for all, the anti-EU faction of the Conservative Party from undermining their party leader, then Prime Minister David Cameron, by demonstrating clearly and unequivocally the well known fact that most British citizens wanted to remain in the European Union.

That was the vote's sole reason for existing at all. It was never a referendum, in the legal sense. It was a non-binding plebiscite, which the UK government had every right to disregard if it saw fit. It was expected by all that the 'remain' vote would be a clear majority, and as a result no thought was given, by anyone, to what the actual 'leave' option might entail.

As a means to the end of shoring up internal support in the Conservative Party for Prime Minister Cameron, it ranks as one of history's worst miscalculations since Archduke Ferdinand decided to boost the waning popularity of the double monarchy by making a quick public relations trip to Sarajevo in 1914.

The British people delivered a resounding "We have no fucking idea!" with an almost exactly even split on the question, with 'leave' getting just a tiny margin ahead (the margin was so small, that had it not rained in London that afternoon, depressing turnout in the capital, 'remain' would probably have won).

Having gotten the wrong result, Cameron decided that rather than say "Well it was a non-binding vote, so we will remain anyway', he would instead run away and leave everyone else to clean up his mess. The tabloid press went into patriotic and democratic overdrive, declaring that the People had Spoken, and that Leave was the ONLY possible response to the vote. The shattered Conservative Party put a staunch 'remain' supporter in as the new leader, and she instantly switched sides, in fear of the press and the mob, and declared that Brexit MUST now happen, and would somebody like to find out what it actually means please.

That nobody, even two years after the vote, knows what the winning choice actually means or even implies, makes a mockery of the idea that the vote was in any way democratic. But the politicians on both sides of British politics seem to have decided that totally and royally fucking over the entire nation forever is better than actually standing up for democracy by offering the people a final say on the actual deal, once it is known what the fuck it is that people are voting for.

Two years ago, Brexit supporters were talking about having large sums of cash to spend on the NHS, and a bright new future for Britain and her people just as soon as the EU was given the boot. Today, the same people continue to support Brexit with claims such as 'We probably won't run out of food', and 'Most people should still be able to get essential medications', and 'well, we survived WWII, so we can survive Brexit'.

Of course, lots of Britons didn't survive WWII. And if you had asked them to vote, they likely would have preferred not to have a war, with bombs dropping on their cities and severe food rationing for over a decade. But it was forced upon them by the actions of the Axis powers, so poor Britain just had to survive. Brexit, on the other hand, is not being forced on Britain by some external power (unless Rupert Murdoch qualifies as such). It's a national madness, which could be stopped at any time if anyone in a position of power were to just for a moment put the needs of the country over their personal political popularity.

The whole thing is batshit fucking insane.

So I have decided to explain the Brexit process through the medium of cakes.

LEAVER: I want an omelette.

REMAINER: Right. It’s just we haven’t got any eggs.

LEAVER: Yes, we have. There they are. [HE POINTS AT A CAKE]

REMAINER: They’re in the cake.

LEAVER: Yes, get them out of the cake, please.

REMAINER: But we voted in 1974 to put them into a cake.

LEAVER: Yes, but that cake has got icing on it. Nobody said there was going to be icing on it.

REMAINER: Icing is good.

LEAVER: And there are raisins in it. I don’t like raisins. Nobody mentioned raisins. I demand another vote.

DAVID CAMERON ENTERS.

DAVID CAMERON: OK.

DAVID CAMERON SCARPERS.

LEAVER: Right, where’s my omelette?

REMAINER: I told you, the eggs are in the cake.

LEAVER: Well, get them out.

EU: It’s our cake.

JEREMY CORBYN: Yes, get them out now.

REMAINER: I have absolutely no idea how to get them out. Don’t you know how to get them out?

LEAVER: Yes! You just get them out and then you make an omelette.

REMAINER: But how?! Didn’t you give this any thought?

LEAVER: Saboteur! You’re talking eggs down. We could make omelettes before the eggs went into the cake, so there’s no reason why we can’t make them now.

THERESA MAY: It’s OK, I can do it.

REMAINER: How?

THERESA MAY: There was a vote to remove the eggs from the cake, and so the eggs will be removed from the cake.

REMAINER: Yeah, but…

LEAVER: Hang on, if we take the eggs out of the cake, does that mean we don’t have any cake? I didn’t say I didn’t want the cake, just the bits I don’t like.

EU: It’s our cake.

REMAINER: But you can’t take the eggs out of the cake and then still have a cake.

LEAVER: You can. I saw the latest Bake Off and you can definitely make cakes without eggs in them. It’s just that they’re horrible.

REMAINER: Fine. Take the eggs out. See what happens.

LEAVER: It’s not my responsibility to take the eggs out. Get on with it.

REMAINER: Why should I have to come up with some long-winded incredibly difficult chemical process to extract eggs that have bonded at the molecular level to the cake, while somehow still having the cake?

LEAVER: You lost, get over it.

THERESA MAY: By the way, I’ve started the clock on this.

REMAINER: So I assume you have a plan?

THERESA MAY: Actually, back in a bit. Just having another election.

REMAINER: Jeremy, are you going to sort this out?

JEREMY CORBYN: Yes. No. Maybe.

EU: It’s our cake.

LEAVER: Where’s my omelette? I voted for an omelette.

REMAINER: This is ridiculous. This is never going to work. We should have another vote, or at least stop what we’re doing until we know how to get the eggs out of the cake while keeping the bits of the cake that we all like.

LEAVER/MAY/CORBYN: WE HAD A VOTE. STOP SABOTAGING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. EGGSIT MEANS EGGSIT.

REMAINER: Fine, I’m moving to France. The cakes are nicer there.

LEAVER: You can’t. We’ve taken your freedom of movement.

(https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/9n9bhm/brexit_explained_via_cake_analogy/)


If you are not confused by Brexit, then you don't understand it at all.

 

[jonatha]

The original purpose of the Brexit vote was to stop, once and for all, the anti-EU faction of the Conservative Party from undermining their party leader, then Prime Minister David Cameron, by demonstrating clearly and unequivocally the well known fact that most British citizens wanted to remain in the European Union.

That was the vote's sole reason for existing at all. It was never a referendum, in the legal sense. It was a non-binding plebiscite, which the UK government had every right to disregard if it saw fit. It was expected by all that the 'remain' vote would be a clear majority, and as a result no thought was given, by anyone, to what the actual 'leave' option might entail.

As a means to the end of shoring up internal support in the Conservative Party for Prime Minister Cameron, it ranks as one of history's worst miscalculations since Archduke Ferdinand decided to boost the waning popularity of the double monarchy by making a quick public relations trip to Sarajevo in 1914.

The British people delivered a resounding "We have no fucking idea!" with an almost exactly even split on the question, with 'leave' getting just a tiny margin ahead (the margin was so small, that had it not rained in London that afternoon, depressing turnout in the capital, 'remain' would probably have won).

Having gotten the wrong result, Cameron decided that rather than say "Well it was a non-binding vote, so we will remain anyway', he would instead run away and leave everyone else to clean up his mess. The tabloid press went into patriotic and democratic overdrive, declaring that the People had Spoken, and that Leave was the ONLY possible response to the vote. The shattered Conservative Party put a staunch 'remain' supporter in as the new leader, and she instantly switched sides, in fear of the press and the mob, and declared that Brexit MUST now happen, and would somebody like to find out what it actually means please.

That nobody, even two years after the vote, knows what the winning choice actually means or even implies, makes a mockery of the idea that the vote was in any way democratic. But the politicians on both sides of British politics seem to have decided that totally and royally fucking over the entire nation forever is better than actually standing up for democracy by offering the people a final say on the actual deal, once it is known what the fuck it is that people are voting for.

Two years ago, Brexit supporters were talking about having large sums of cash to spend on the NHS, and a bright new future for Britain and her people just as soon as the EU was given the boot. Today, the same people continue to support Brexit with claims such as 'We probably won't run out of food', and 'Most people should still be able to get essential medications', and 'well, we survived WWII, so we can survive Brexit'.

Of course, lots of Britons didn't survive WWII. And if you had asked them to vote, they likely would have preferred not to have a war, with bombs dropping on their cities and severe food rationing for over a decade. But it was forced upon them by the actions of the Axis powers, so poor Britain just had to survive. Brexit, on the other hand, is not being forced on Britain by some external power (unless Rupert Murdoch qualifies as such). It's a national madness, which could be stopped at any time if anyone in a position of power were to just for a moment put the needs of the country over their personal political popularity.

The whole thing is batshit fucking insane.

So I have decided to explain the Brexit process through the medium of cakes.

LEAVER: I want an omelette.

REMAINER: Right. It’s just we haven’t got any eggs.

LEAVER: Yes, we have. There they are. [HE POINTS AT A CAKE]

REMAINER: They’re in the cake.

LEAVER: Yes, get them out of the cake, please.

REMAINER: But we voted in 1974 to put them into a cake.

LEAVER: Yes, but that cake has got icing on it. Nobody said there was going to be icing on it.

REMAINER: Icing is good.

LEAVER: And there are raisins in it. I don’t like raisins. Nobody mentioned raisins. I demand another vote.

DAVID CAMERON ENTERS.

DAVID CAMERON: OK.

DAVID CAMERON SCARPERS.

LEAVER: Right, where’s my omelette?

REMAINER: I told you, the eggs are in the cake.

LEAVER: Well, get them out.

EU: It’s our cake.

JEREMY CORBYN: Yes, get them out now.

REMAINER: I have absolutely no idea how to get them out. Don’t you know how to get them out?

LEAVER: Yes! You just get them out and then you make an omelette.

REMAINER: But how?! Didn’t you give this any thought?

LEAVER: Saboteur! You’re talking eggs down. We could make omelettes before the eggs went into the cake, so there’s no reason why we can’t make them now.

THERESA MAY: It’s OK, I can do it.

REMAINER: How?

THERESA MAY: There was a vote to remove the eggs from the cake, and so the eggs will be removed from the cake.

REMAINER: Yeah, but…

LEAVER: Hang on, if we take the eggs out of the cake, does that mean we don’t have any cake? I didn’t say I didn’t want the cake, just the bits I don’t like.

EU: It’s our cake.

REMAINER: But you can’t take the eggs out of the cake and then still have a cake.

LEAVER: You can. I saw the latest Bake Off and you can definitely make cakes without eggs in them. It’s just that they’re horrible.

REMAINER: Fine. Take the eggs out. See what happens.

LEAVER: It’s not my responsibility to take the eggs out. Get on with it.

REMAINER: Why should I have to come up with some long-winded incredibly difficult chemical process to extract eggs that have bonded at the molecular level to the cake, while somehow still having the cake?

LEAVER: You lost, get over it.

THERESA MAY: By the way, I’ve started the clock on this.

REMAINER: So I assume you have a plan?

THERESA MAY: Actually, back in a bit. Just having another election.

REMAINER: Jeremy, are you going to sort this out?

JEREMY CORBYN: Yes. No. Maybe.

EU: It’s our cake.

LEAVER: Where’s my omelette? I voted for an omelette.

REMAINER: This is ridiculous. This is never going to work. We should have another vote, or at least stop what we’re doing until we know how to get the eggs out of the cake while keeping the bits of the cake that we all like.

LEAVER/MAY/CORBYN: WE HAD A VOTE. STOP SABOTAGING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. EGGSIT MEANS EGGSIT.

REMAINER: Fine, I’m moving to France. The cakes are nicer there.

LEAVER: You can’t. We’ve taken your freedom of movement.

(https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/9n9bhm/brexit_explained_via_cake_analogy/)


If you are not confused by Brexit, then you don't understand it at all.

I didn't realize Monty Python were still in business...