UK Politics Thread VIII—Can't Let EU Go

[Souseiseki]

All leavers want a managed no deal. There's not a single major Brexit figure which does not support this route, and I challenge you to find one. Are you judging Brexit by Theresa May and Hammond or what?

i include the charlatans who said they wanted EEA or EFTA before the referendum and the people they misled into thinking the government would consider it in those figures, so perhaps i have a higher perception of support for such things as you do. i recall one leave figure saying they're surprised we haven't found a compromise option by now, but i cannot recall their name.

It does, because it means we can close the chapter on EEA and ignore what the 48% squeak.

you cannot, because the number of leavers who would support EEA over no-deal is non-zero. combine that with the number of remainers who would prefer EEA over no-deal and you have a nice little faction going. the only way you can get majority support for no-deal is to take away every other option other than remain, and even then you have to deal with the occasional "actually people want to stay in the EU now!" poll cropping up. i'm also interested in what your "managed no deal" actually is, considering i've seen several experts say such an idea is nonsense.

though, as always, the public want different things and conflicting things every few months depending on what polls you take and when, which is why this whole thing was a bad idea in the first place.

[Bienenhalde]

United Ireland my arse, if Sinn Fein kicks up a fuss it's time to arm the DUP.

26+6=1!!! Kick out the invaders!!

Tbh I would love nothing more than to see a United Ireland, an Independent Scotland, the city state of London, the commonwealth destroyed, and the monarchy crushed.

Get thee behind me Satan!!!

[Hrythingland]

Nah, as someone who lives in Scotland most genuine Scottish people are unionist to be quite honest. The SNP is largely a bunch of metropolitan types bolstered by some frustrated rural types who just wanted more Scottish recognition. Most of the scottish independance sorts are not so much passionate about Scotland as they are simply anti-English.

If the Scots want to dress like clowns, that's their business, but please keep it north of the border.

Oh dear, someone is not fond of tartan. I personally am very fond of kilts and trews though sadly not being of Lowland nobility I am not entitled to wear trews. And the full kit for a kilt is rather hefty. Still always an impressive sight to be honest, and always amusing in a ceilidh or reel when a kilt reveals what is underneath..

[Vassenor]

So basically you're making shit up so that we would have to leave no matter what because that's what you want. Because apparently reform to address the reasons why people voted Leave is unnacceptable because it doesn't involve ragequitting.

Leave no matter what?

The claim was that Leavers should be prepared to concede to 48% of the population because "52% IS NOT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE." Asked what concessions should be made, it was admitted that remainers effectively want all the core functions of the EU, thus, quit in name only.

The claim was that this is the moral thing to do because Remainers would have done the same to concede to the 48% of leavers if they had won. Asked what concessions should be made, it was admitted that remainers would effectively not give a shit about the core arguments for leave, beyond 'fixing the causes' like income disparity. Bullshit.

Let me illustrate it for you so you can understand it better.



You people want your cake and you want to eat it too. You want zero compromises if you won, but you basically want us to agree to stay in the EU if we win.

You are politically despicable and I take no shame in saying that 48% of the country should have zero input in deciding what to do next.

And what about all the Leavers who don't want your vision of Brexit? Do they have to eat shit too?

Or are you still deluding yourself that everyone who voted Leave 100% supports the same sort of exit that you do?

[Trumptonium1]

I agree, but it's too late to undo the damage Attlee and Blair have done to the country on the basis of those principles of absolute rule past halfway point of parliament, and it's unfair to expect either side to begin the process of compromise.

Attlee actually had more of a mandate than Thatcher, with Thatcher getting only 43.9% of the vote at her peak and Attlee getting 47.7% of the vote at his peak. In fact, at one point, Attlee lost to Churchill despite having more votes (1950). Blair, however, got 43.2% of the vote at his peak compared to Edward Bonar Law's 38.4%. So it really all depends.

Doesn't matter, no single British Prime Minister since the 1920s received more than half of the vote, and thus since 1920s we've been governed by people who are supported by a minority, yet wield unlimited governance power by holding more than half of parliament.

All leavers want a managed no deal. There's not a single major Brexit figure which does not support this route, and I challenge you to find one. Are you judging Brexit by Theresa May and Hammond or what?

i include the charlatans who said they wanted EEA or EFTA before the referendum and the people they misled into thinking the government would consider it in those figures, so perhaps i have a higher perception of support for such things as you do. i recall one leave figure saying they're surprised we haven't found a compromise option by now, but i cannot recall their name.

So you don't know a single (like, all I'm asking for is 1) major Brexit figure that doesn't support no deal at this point?

It does, because it means we can close the chapter on EEA and ignore what the 48% squeak.

you cannot, because the number of leavers who would support EEA over no-deal is non-zero. combine that with the number of remainers who would prefer EEA over no-deal and you have a nice little faction going.

take away remainers unsatisfied with leaving the EU in favour of EEA and you're back below 50%

i'm also interested in what your "managed no deal" actually is, considering i've seen several experts say such an idea is nonsense.

A minimalist withdrawal agreement aiming to secure UK supplies and travel post-Brexit, or alternatively in gymtalk a 'dropset' which means we strip away parts of the EU over time as we adjust to the new paradigm, but this would require a transition deal with the EU and hence an extension. Although the former is preferable.

An immediate deployment of all functions of the civil service into no deal mode to minimise the damage/confusion/uncertainty so that by the middle of this year life is back as it was and we're looking forward to trading with the rest of the world. An expansion of DITEO to get UK businesses exporting without EU red tape and all-round government spending support to get businesses to play a large role in growing this country again. Preferably a new national government composed of pro-leave Labour and pro-Leave + business Tory MPs to establish an efficient regulatory regime, adjust labour laws and govern together for the sake of creating Britain ready for a new post-EU world rather than arguing at election time instead.

[Trumptonium1]

Leave no matter what?

The claim was that Leavers should be prepared to concede to 48% of the population because "52% IS NOT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE." Asked what concessions should be made, it was admitted that remainers effectively want all the core functions of the EU, thus, quit in name only.

The claim was that this is the moral thing to do because Remainers would have done the same to concede to the 48% of leavers if they had won. Asked what concessions should be made, it was admitted that remainers would effectively not give a shit about the core arguments for leave, beyond 'fixing the causes' like income disparity. Bullshit.

Let me illustrate it for you so you can understand it better.



You people want your cake and you want to eat it too. You want zero compromises if you won, but you basically want us to agree to stay in the EU if we win.

You are politically despicable and I take no shame in saying that 48% of the country should have zero input in deciding what to do next.

And what about all the Leavers who don't want your vision of Brexit? Do they have to eat shit too?

Or are you still deluding yourself that everyone who voted Leave 100% supports the same sort of exit that you do?

Let me think whether Leave voters prefer No Deal or EU membership/second referendum



All views of leave can be represented by getting the handful of Labour MPs on board (and maybe in cabinet) and throwing out the time-wasting Remain Tories.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

Leave no matter what?

The claim was that Leavers should be prepared to concede to 48% of the population because "52% IS NOT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE." Asked what concessions should be made, it was admitted that remainers effectively want all the core functions of the EU, thus, quit in name only.

The claim was that this is the moral thing to do because Remainers would have done the same to concede to the 48% of leavers if they had won. Asked what concessions should be made, it was admitted that remainers would effectively not give a shit about the core arguments for leave, beyond 'fixing the causes' like income disparity. Bullshit.

Let me illustrate it for you so you can understand it better.



You people want your cake and you want to eat it too. You want zero compromises if you won, but you basically want us to agree to stay in the EU if we win.

You are politically despicable and I take no shame in saying that 48% of the country should have zero input in deciding what to do next.

And what about all the Leavers who don't want your vision of Brexit? Do they have to eat shit too?

Or are you still deluding yourself that everyone who voted Leave 100% supports the same sort of exit that you do?

Not 100%, but the majority. Remember: This is the majority of the majority. A soft eurosceptic left-wing Brexit. I believe that South Wales, North England and the other left-wing leave-voting regions would support this Brexit. It's just the South Englanders who have to eat stool, and I'd gladly stuff it into their rich, aristocratic, greedy mouths.

[Vassenor]

I mean I find it equally "politically despicable" to rant about DEMOCRACY while also basically saying that anyone who disagrees with you to any degree can fuck right off.

[Trumptonium1]

I mean I find it equally "politically despicable" to rant about DEMOCRACY while also basically saying that anyone who disagrees with you to any degree can fuck right off.

The ballot box is a precious thing. It is a sign that a nation permits its citizens to effect peaceful change so they aren't forced to riot or take up arms.

Anyone attempting to subvert it - such as by deciding not to implement certain votes - is playing a very dangerous game. You lost, accept it and move on. Your opinion on the matter is not needed - it was polled in a nationwide referendum and rejected. Let the will of those who won be implemented.

You know there's a new bestseller book in the US called "How Democracies Die" and it has a near perfectly analogous to Remain squeals in the media and in Parliament. Breakdown of "mutual toleration" and respect for the political legitimacy of the opposition. This toleration involves accepting the results of a free and fair election where the opposition has won, in contrast with advocacy for overthrow, complaints about the election mechanism or demands of reversing or 'correcting' the vote. The authors also assert the importance of respecting the opinions of those who come to legitimately different political opinions, in contrast to attacking the patriotism of any who disagree, or warning that if they come to power they will destroy the country.

"A man must be excessively stupid, as well as uncharitable, who believes that there is no virtue but on his own side. And that there are not men as honest as himself who may differ from him in political principles."

[Hamstan]

Was away for the bit, what the fuck is going on now?

[Souseiseki]

A minimalist withdrawal agreement aiming to secure UK supplies and travel post-Brexit, or alternatively in gymtalk a 'dropset' which means we strip away parts of the EU over time as we adjust to the new paradigm, but this would require a transition deal with the EU and hence an extension. Although the former is preferable.

a minimalist withdrawal agreement is, in itself, a deal. and needless to say a transition deal is also a deal. no deal means dropping out without any agreement made with the EU regarding our relationship post-brexit, including a withdrawal agreement or transition deal. so what i'm reading here is that you yourself obviously know that no deal is a terrible idea which is why you support your "managed no deal" instead of just no deal, and that your "managed no deal" is in fact a deal. this makes half of our previous conversations worthless.

e: and of course, it's hard to come up with a withdrawal agreement regarding supplies and travel without figuring out how northern ireland is going to be handled...

take away remainers unsatisfied with leaving the EU in favour of EEA and you're back below 50%

they're unsatisfied with leaving the EU in favour of EEA, but would be the satisfied with no deal over EEA? hmm.

[Trumptonium1]

A minimalist withdrawal agreement aiming to secure UK supplies and travel post-Brexit, or alternatively in gymtalk a 'dropset' which means we strip away parts of the EU over time as we adjust to the new paradigm, but this would require a transition deal with the EU and hence an extension. Although the former is preferable.

a minimalist withdrawal agreement is, in itself, a deal. and needless to say a transition deal is also a deal. no deal means dropping out without any agreement made with the EU regarding our relationship post-brexit, including a withdrawal agreement or transition deal. so what i'm reading here is that you yourself obviously know that no deal is a terrible idea which is why you support your "managed no deal" instead of just no deal, and that your "managed no deal" is in fact a deal. this makes half of our previous conversations worthless.

e: and of course, it's hard to come up with a withdrawal agreement regarding supplies and travel without figuring out how northern ireland is going to be handled...

When people talk about a deal they are talking about having a relationship with the EU, free trade or further.

I am not advocating that at all. I am simply advocating managing Calais and supplies, and that's it. That's not a deal. That's not a transition deal either.

take away remainers unsatisfied with leaving the EU in favour of EEA and you're back below 50%

they're unsatisfied with leaving the EU in favour of EEA, but would be the satisfied with no deal over EEA? hmm.

Did I say they would be?

There is no single option where more than half of the population would be satisfied with -- why be disingenuous and pretend there is?

No deal is what is best for the country, it is what the majority of those who voted for the option want, and it is what should be implemented.

[Souseiseki]

I am not advocating that at all. I am simply advocating managing Calais and supplies, and that's it. That's not a deal. That's not a transition deal either.

and how are you going to do that exactly? get around the table with the EU and hash out the details? what is your plan for "supplies"? could you go into more detail on what supplies you mean and how they will be handled?

like i said, you're as well throwing the northern ireland border into your totally not a deal while you're at it. the EU are certainly going to inquire what your plans are for it at least, to say nothing of what northern ireland and parliament will be asking you.

e: calais is literally once of france's biggest points of leverage for pressuring the UK into not taking no deal and for controlling the terms of any deal and you somehow think you're going to magically walk up to the EU and secure "no deal but with calais deal"

There is no single option where more than half of the population would be satisfied with -- why be disingenuous and pretend there is?

i'm quite aware of this - i just happen to believe that EEA is the closest we can get to it.

No deal is what is best for the country, it is what the majority of those who voted for the option want, and it is what should be implemented.

you yourself just admitted that there is no option that half the population would be satisfied with - so no. it would be incredibly damaging to the country and the majority of the people and majority of government do not want it.

though, i suppose your response to remain "scaremongering" over no deal makes more sense now. the remain scenarios for no deal are based around us not having any arrangements made for things like supplies because we were unable to reach a deal with the EU regarding our exit. if you swoop in at the last moments and make arrangements but insist that doesn't count as a deal that gets rid of one no deals biggest problems.

[The Huskar Social Union]

"Arm the DUP"

lol

"I would like an additional war i will not be involved in please"

[The Archregimancy]

Doesn't matter, no single British Prime Minister since the 1920s received more than half of the vote, and thus since 1920s we've been governed by people who are supported by a minority, yet wield unlimited governance power by holding more than half of parliament.

The basic point is sound, but the specific details being used to make the point are historically inaccurate.

No political party or Prime Minister won a majority of the vote in any of the elections of the 1920s; the electorate was too fractured between the Conservatives, Labour, and the Asquith- and Lloyd George-led wings of the Liberal Party.

The last time a British government won more than 50% of the vote in a general election was 1935, when the combined vote share of the National Government parties backing Baldwin was 53% (Conservatives 47.8%; Liberal Nationals 3.7%; National Labour 1.5%)

The last time a single British political party won more than 50% of the vote in a general election was 1931, when Baldwin's Tories won 470 seats on 55% of the vote; the government's functional majority and vote share was even higher due to the National Government incorporating the National Liberals (35 seats; 3.7%) and National Labour (13 seats; 1.5%).

Prior to Baldwin's National Governments, the last occasion a British government won 50% of the vote was 1900, when the Marquess of Salisbury-led Conservatives won 50.2% of the vote.

Eden's Conservative Party have come closest since, winning 49.7% of the vote while winning a majority of 60 in 1955.

[The New California Republic]

Was away for the bit, what the fuck is going on now?

Nothing of concern.

[Hurdergaryp]

Was away for the bit, what the fuck is going on now?

Nothing of concern.

Pay no notion to the mobilized troops.

[Neu Leonstein]

Was away for the bit, what the fuck is going on now?

Ok, here's the story so far, in a nutshell:

1) Referendum happens in June 2016, leave wins a small majority, but almost immediately after the initial shock is over, the leave camp starts to fray at the edges over what this means.

2) The thing that keeps the coalition together is their common opposition to remainers, who are not happy with the referendum result. In order to keep that coalition together and be seen to be making progress, May triggers Article 50 in March 17. That means the 2-year countdown starts, even though she hasn't really managed to build a consensus on what the relationship with the EU is meant to be.

3) Initially the UK hopes to negotiate the withdrawal and future relationship in one piece, but the EU blocks that and wants the immediate questions to be answered. The spat over procedure and the "intransigence" of the EU becomes front and centre in the UK, delaying any more considerations of what they want to achieve in the negotiations.

4) Worried about her ability to negotiate credibly and about detractors within her party, May calls an election. It backfires badly... she's not a charismatic campaigner, and the elections ultimately end up with a hung parliament that forces May to keep the DUP from Northern Ireland happy to maintain a majority.

5) With the UK unable to present anything at the negotiations besides appeals for flexibility for political reasons, the withdrawal agreement negotiations end up with a deal that extends most of UK market access to the EU for a while longer to help smooth things out. It also includes a 'backstop', meant to ensure that the Good Friday Agreement in Ireland is respected: any future relationship must ensure that there's no hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. Until such an arrangement is found, Northern Ireland must effectively remain tied to the Customs Union, and in many ways the Single Market. Because the DUP refuses the idea of Northern Ireland deviating from the UK, that means the UK as a whole must remain tied to the Customs Union until a replacement is found.

6) Not sure that such a replacement is possible (so far Parliament's search for one has come up empty), this means that hard Brexiters are very unhappy with the deal... if the UK is still tied into the Single Market in such significant ways, it cannot really run an independent trade or industrial policy, nor can it be completely independent from EU rules and laws. Remainers and soft Brexiters are unhappy with the deal because Brexit is still Brexit and brings with it all sorts of other pain in terms of services trade and, most importantly, conditions of migration. So really no one is happy with the deal.

7) Faced with this, May tries to get funding and set in place things preparations for leaving without a withdrawal agreement, but there's no majority in Parliament for this and she loses the vote. The hardest Brexiteers are exposed for not having any power, despite the amount of air time they get on TV.

May tries to get Parliament to accept the deal, but fails to get many people on board. She loses the vote, badly. So badly, that the opposition calls for a vote of no confidence.

9) The vote of no confidence fails because the only thing more unpopular with the Conservatives than the withdrawal agreement is Jeremy Corbyn.

10) The EU is meanwhile staring at their watch, waiting for someone to come sign the agreement that the UK delegation negotiated with them. They realise it's a delicate matter, but call on the UK to make up their mind. To help the process along, they're happy to make public statements to say that they're committed to trying to find an Ireland-friendly future relationship - but they cannot countenance leaving a hole that would see the GFA break down if no solution can be found, so the backstop must stay. That doesn't work for Parliament, obviously. The EU suggests that if it turns out that the UK cannot get their act together in time for the March 2019 Brexit date, they're willing to extend to September. However, they are not willing to return to the negotiating table. They just want someone to sign on the dotted line.

[Far Easter Republic]

What would you think the results of a second referendum be?
And how will Brexit effect the accession of the West Balkans(Serbia, Montenegro, Albania) and Turkey?

[Neu Leonstein]

What would you think the results of a second referendum be?
And how will Brexit effect the accession of the West Balkans(Serbia, Montenegro, Albania) and Turkey?

A second referendum's result would obviously depend on the question, but personally, I think the mess made of Brexit so far means that a whole bunch of people who voted less because of some fundamental disagreement with the EU and more out of dissatisfaction with Cameron or 'the Establishment' will flip over to remain.

As for the accessions, I don't think Brexit would have any significant effect. Turkey's accession talks have been dead for many years, first because conservatives in major countries didn't like the idea of doing it quickly, and now because Turkey is ruled by a more nationalist authoritarian government for which the EU is more useful as an adversary to rally against in domestic politics. And the ones in the Balkans will be a protracted process without a certain outcome either way, but all for their own reasons unrelated to Brexit.

You've got to remember, Brexit is obviously Topic #1 for Britain, but it is not really for the EU. There are a lot of other things going on, mostly 'domestic', i.e. debates between countries and factions within them about EU policies. Compared to those, Brexit is 'easy' - a consensus on the EU stance was found early and has been stuck to.

[The Archregimancy]

Was away for the bit, what the fuck is going on now?

Ok, here's the story so far, in a nutshell:

You forgot the bit about some factions in May's own party badly misjudging their attempt to get rid of her via an internal party vote of no confidence (some weeks prior to the parliamentary vote of no confidence), which largely failed because none of the different factions of opinion within her party can agree on who should replace her if she does go, and which under Conservative Party rules now makes it even harder to remove her via internal party mechanisms even as she continues to haemorrhage support both within and without her own party.

Perhaps there's room for a 6.5?

[The Blaatschapen]

Was away for the bit, what the fuck is going on now?

Ok, here's the story so far, in a nutshell:

1) Referendum happens in June 2016, leave wins a small majority, but almost immediately after the initial shock is over, the leave camp starts to fray at the edges over what this means.

2) The thing that keeps the coalition together is their common opposition to remainers, who are not happy with the referendum result. In order to keep that coalition together and be seen to be making progress, May triggers Article 50 in March 17. That means the 2-year countdown starts, even though she hasn't really managed to build a consensus on what the relationship with the EU is meant to be.

3) Initially the UK hopes to negotiate the withdrawal and future relationship in one piece, but the EU blocks that and wants the immediate questions to be answered. The spat over procedure and the "intransigence" of the EU becomes front and centre in the UK, delaying any more considerations of what they want to achieve in the negotiations.

4) Worried about her ability to negotiate credibly and about detractors within her party, May calls an election. It backfires badly... she's not a charismatic campaigner, and the elections ultimately end up with a hung parliament that forces May to keep the DUP from Northern Ireland happy to maintain a majority.

5) With the UK unable to present anything at the negotiations besides appeals for flexibility for political reasons, the withdrawal agreement negotiations end up with a deal that extends most of UK market access to the EU for a while longer to help smooth things out. It also includes a 'backstop', meant to ensure that the Good Friday Agreement in Ireland is respected: any future relationship must ensure that there's no hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. Until such an arrangement is found, Northern Ireland must effectively remain tied to the Customs Union, and in many ways the Single Market. Because the DUP refuses the idea of Northern Ireland deviating from the UK, that means the UK as a whole must remain tied to the Customs Union until a replacement is found.

6) Not sure that such a replacement is possible (so far Parliament's search for one has come up empty), this means that hard Brexiters are very unhappy with the deal... if the UK is still tied into the Single Market in such significant ways, it cannot really run an independent trade or industrial policy, nor can it be completely independent from EU rules and laws. Remainers and soft Brexiters are unhappy with the deal because Brexit is still Brexit and brings with it all sorts of other pain in terms of services trade and, most importantly, conditions of migration. So really no one is happy with the deal.

7) Faced with this, May tries to get funding and set in place things preparations for leaving without a withdrawal agreement, but there's no majority in Parliament for this and she loses the vote. The hardest Brexiteers are exposed for not having any power, despite the amount of air time they get on TV.

May tries to get Parliament to accept the deal, but fails to get many people on board. She loses the vote, badly. So badly, that the opposition calls for a vote of no confidence.

9) The vote of no confidence fails because the only thing more unpopular with the Conservatives than the withdrawal agreement is Jeremy Corbyn.

10) The EU is meanwhile staring at their watch, waiting for someone to come sign the agreement that the UK delegation negotiated with them. They realise it's a delicate matter, but call on the UK to make up their mind. To help the process along, they're happy to make public statements to say that they're committed to trying to find an Ireland-friendly future relationship - but they cannot countenance leaving a hole that would see the GFA break down if no solution can be found, so the backstop must stay. That doesn't work for Parliament, obviously. The EU suggests that if it turns out that the UK cannot get their act together in time for the March 2019 Brexit date, they're willing to extend to September. However, they are not willing to return to the negotiating table. They just want someone to sign on the dotted line.

Or to summarize your summary: The UK thought it was an island, but it turns out that it is not.

[The Archregimancy]

Doesn't matter, no single British Prime Minister since the 1920s received more than half of the vote, and thus since 1920s we've been governed by people who are supported by a minority, yet wield unlimited governance power by holding more than half of parliament.

The basic point is sound, but the specific details being used to make the point are historically inaccurate.

No political party or Prime Minister won a majority of the vote in any of the elections of the 1920s; the electorate was too fractured between the Conservatives, Labour, and the Asquith- and Lloyd George-led wings of the Liberal Party.

The last time a British government won more than 50% of the vote in a general election was 1935, when the combined vote share of the National Government parties backing Baldwin was 53% (Conservatives 47.8%; Liberal Nationals 3.7%; National Labour 1.5%)

The last time a single British political party won more than 50% of the vote in a general election was 1931, when Baldwin's Tories won 470 seats on 55% of the vote; the government's functional majority and vote share was even higher due to the National Government incorporating the National Liberals (35 seats; 3.7%) and National Labour (13 seats; 1.5%).

Prior to Baldwin's National Governments, the last occasion a British government won 50% of the vote was 1900, when the Marquess of Salisbury-led Conservatives won 50.2% of the vote.

Eden's Conservative Party have come closest since, winning 49.7% of the vote while winning a majority of 60 in 1955.

I forgot to add an important clarifying point to the above post relating to the 1935 general election.

As the components of Baldwin's National Government won the 1935 election with a majority of votes and seats, and no general election was then held until 1945 due to the minor kerfuffle involving Germany in the intervening years, the UK had governments that enjoyed the support of a majority of the electorate from 1931 (the election of Baldwin's first National Government) through 1945 (Churchill's war coalition never had to face a general election, but as it involved all of the major parties in Parliament, it clearly represented a majority of the electorate).

There's a further point where my post was misleading. While the last time that a party won more than 50% of the vote was 1931, and the last time that a government coalition running on a single platform won a majority of the vote was 1935, the last time that a government represented a majority of the electorate was in fact as recent as 2010-2015. The combined vote share of the Conservative and Liberal Democrats in the 2010 election was 59.1%. The important qualifiers are that the two parties ran on separate platforms, and that the coalition was formed after the election returned a hung parliament; nonetheless, the parties that formed that government collectively enjoyed the largest share of the vote of any UK government since Baldwin's 1931 National Government.

Again, the basic original point about how our FPTP parliamentary democracy has tended to return governments that enjoy the confidence of the Commons without having won a majority of the popular vote is entirely sound. The statement that 'no single British Prime Minister since the 1920s received more than half of the vote, and thus since 1920s we've been governed by people who are supported by a minority' is, however, historically inaccurate and/or misleading on multiple points.

[Far Easter Republic]

What would you think the results of a second referendum be?
And how will Brexit effect the accession of the West Balkans(Serbia, Montenegro, Albania) and Turkey?

A second referendum's result would obviously depend on the question, but personally, I think the mess made of Brexit so far means that a whole bunch of people who voted less because of some fundamental disagreement with the EU and more out of dissatisfaction with Cameron or 'the Establishment' will flip over to remain.

As for the accessions, I don't think Brexit would have any significant effect. Turkey's accession talks have been dead for many years, first because conservatives in major countries didn't like the idea of doing it quickly, and now because Turkey is ruled by a more nationalist authoritarian government for which the EU is more useful as an adversary to rally against in domestic politics. And the ones in the Balkans will be a protracted process without a certain outcome either way, but all for their own reasons unrelated to Brexit.

You've got to remember, Brexit is obviously Topic #1 for Britain, but it is not really for the EU. There are a lot of other things going on, mostly 'domestic', i.e. debates between countries and factions within them about EU policies. Compared to those, Brexit is 'easy' - a consensus on the EU stance was found early and has been stuck to.

I'm guessing the factions are:
The Right Wing:
Poland, Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia, Italy, Austria, Malta
The Leaders:
Germany, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Sweden, Denmark
PIGS:
Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain
The Laggards:
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus
Others:
Ireland, Finland, Slovenia, San Marino

Ascension Process:
Likely: Serbia(2/16 of 35), Montenegro(3 of 35)
Probably: Albania(Candidate), Macedonia(Candidate)
Hopefully: Bosnia and Herzegovina(Applicant), Kosovo(Possible Applicant), Turkey(1/16 of 35), Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan
Pipe Dream: Belarus, Russia, Switzerland, Armenia

[The Blaatschapen]

A second referendum's result would obviously depend on the question, but personally, I think the mess made of Brexit so far means that a whole bunch of people who voted less because of some fundamental disagreement with the EU and more out of dissatisfaction with Cameron or 'the Establishment' will flip over to remain.

As for the accessions, I don't think Brexit would have any significant effect. Turkey's accession talks have been dead for many years, first because conservatives in major countries didn't like the idea of doing it quickly, and now because Turkey is ruled by a more nationalist authoritarian government for which the EU is more useful as an adversary to rally against in domestic politics. And the ones in the Balkans will be a protracted process without a certain outcome either way, but all for their own reasons unrelated to Brexit.

You've got to remember, Brexit is obviously Topic #1 for Britain, but it is not really for the EU. There are a lot of other things going on, mostly 'domestic', i.e. debates between countries and factions within them about EU policies. Compared to those, Brexit is 'easy' - a consensus on the EU stance was found early and has been stuck to.

I'm guessing the factions are:
The Right Wing:
Poland, Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia, Italy, Austria, Malta
The Leaders:
Germany, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Sweden, Denmark
PIGS:
Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain
The Laggards:
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia
Others:
Ireland, Finland, Slovenia, San Marino

Poor Luxembourg. And what is San Marino doing there? And Italy twice?

Also, not entirely.

Sweden and Denmark are not anywhere near being leaders. They're not even Eurozone. They, together with Finland are usually Nordic.

And the three baltic states, especially Estonia, would not like to be lumped in with the balkan.

Edit: And there are more mistakes. I would not add Austria to Visegrad.