Brexit “Flextension” Agreement Reached

Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has since lived and traveled around the world several times over. Though frequently writing about politics out of a sense of duty and love of country, most of the time he would prefer discussions on history, culture, occasionally nerding on aviation, and his amateur foodie tendencies. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter @four4thefire and his writing website Yonder and Home.

Related Post Roulette

45 Responses

  1. Saul Degraw says:

    The problem with Brexit is kind of a mirror of the problems between boomers and millennials in American politics*. There are still lots of Boomer voters but they know their time is coming to an end and a lot of them dislike Millennials because the younger set swings left and has different ideals, priors, and beliefs for government. So a lot of the stuff going on in American politics now feels like a ram-rod to get as many Boomer priorities (especially right-wing Reaganite Orthodoxy) set in before it is too late.

    The Brexit election was close and decided more on the lines of older voters v. younger voters than on party lines. Brexiters know that a second referendum would mean defeat because of some demographic changes because of younger voters entering majority and older voters kicking the bucket. So they are holding on for all dear life until they get it. The other problem is that hard Brexit and soft Brexit are split in support.

    Corbyn can’t come out against Brexit because he himself is a Brexiter as are many older Labour voices (Tony Benn was the original anti-Europe Labour MP in the 1970s, forging an odd alliance with Tory bete noir Enoch Powell). But he is smart enough to know he needs younger Labour voters too and they are pro-remain. Hence Labour’s non-committal stance. Only the Liberal Democrats seem strongly pro-remain.

    My guess is that a new election causes Labour to lose seats and Tories gain a majority. Not because the Tories are popular but because enough Labour votes go to Liberal Democrats or other parties and the Tories manage to win those Labour seats by a bare plurality.Report

    • Doctor Jay in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      Honestly, Saul, I’ve seen more Millennials complain about this than I’ve seen Boomers doing it. I have seen Boomers doing it, to be sure. I certainly hope you’ve never seen me do it. I think this is a thing that will go away with benign neglect. Living well is the best revenge.

      In this case, those demographic categories don’t really apply to GB, even though there is an age differentiation on Brexit.

      In any case, the question of what happens to Boris Johnson now is fascinating. There’s more going on upstairs with him, he just likes to throw the high, inside fastball, and chance the consequences. (There must be the equivalent of this in cricket, right?). So what now for him?Report

  2. Saul Degrawq says:

    In other news, our well-paid and easy job holding pundit class is getting their underwear twisted in a bunch because Trump was booed by people at the World Series. Apparently these people do not remember “Lock her up! Lock her up!” chants at public events or Trump egging on the class.

    I don’t get it. We had a whole war of Independence over the idea against absolute monarchy. Yet so many pundits want to be nothing but courtiers. They all love the First Amendment in theory but treat it like fine china, the First Amendment is great and wonderful and makes America special but please don’t use it in ways that make us feel nervous, uncomfortable, or that our well-paid and easy jobs are under threat.Report

    • Chip Daniels in reply to Saul Degrawq says:

      As someone else noted, the tee shirt says “Fuck YOUR Feelings”, not MY feelings.Report

    • Most of the objections I’ve seen are from conservative stalwarts trying to make this into Something, and the “Lock him up” specifically.

      And yeah! I remember Trump with “Lock him up”! That doesn’t make it cool here. If it’s a net positive as a team-building exercise or whatever, fine. But the cost is that people outside the team (and some inside the team) are going to find it obnoxious. The whole thing doesn’t boil down to that item, though.

      On the booing itself, I have a flurry of conflicting views.

      The argument I’ve seen about booing the president being Un-American have a very different understanding of “American” than I do. It’s very American.

      That doesn’t tell us much about the appropriateness of doing so. Being in favor of free speech is not at all contradictory with “Don’t say this thing at this specific event.”

      A baseball game, though, isn’t the sort of event that makes me cringe. Compared to say a confrontation at a restaurant or in a neighborhood or whatever. Games are loud and raucous by design.

      “Why shouldn’t Trump be able to go to games and not be harassed” rings hollow. I don’t know how things are going to be going forward, but this is a situation of his own making.

      I would rather presidents in general be able to go to games and not have this be a thing, though. This and the defenses of this are setting the stage for that not to be the case.

      Trump, however, is qualitatively different than most presidents (past and potential). So on that level let it rip. If he wants to be “treated” like a normal president he can act like one.

      A lot of the people doing the chanting do not consider him qualitatively different, though. They consider him roughly representative of almost half of the country. That makes extending the conventional battle that is everywhere and will always be with us to yet another place, which is tiresome.

      But Trump and his supporters have no credible argument to make about decorum. None at all. So I end up breaking rank with his critics on “Lock him up” despite not because of whatever they say in response to this. Whether by attacking or whining they hurt their own case just by talking (and by being who they are).

      So ultimately I find myself unable to muster up much objection to the booing itself. Or the “Impeach Trump” banner. Or, to take issue with Nate Silver’s complaint, not letting Trump have “one good day”. There’s no obligation to him here.

      But I do stop short of being on board or cheering the chanters on, and nonetheless wish they would cut it out with Lock Him Up.

      Otherwise, let it rip. I just don’t care. Hopefully we can pick up the pieces at some point in the future.Report

      • DensityDuck in reply to Will Truman says:

        Every President is going to be qualitatively different from other Presidents.

        I’m on board with booing Presidents in public, just like I’m on board with booing random people on the street in public; or, more properly, pressuring a company into withdrawing charity donations that were inspired by some random person whose still had those tweets from when they were sixteen and they and their friends used to crack each other up by sharing tweets that said Naughty Words.

        Like, if we want this to be how the game is played, fine, but part of that deal is you don’t get to say who is and isn’t a player.Report

        • My hope is that there will have to be a critical mass of people who view a president as qualitatively different so as to warrant this response. Or that people will just get exhausted by it all.

          If beither of those things happen, then yep this is the future for every president going forward. (Or at least every Republican one since DC and Baltimore are not exactly balanced.)Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Will Truman says:

            Remember that scene in Unforgiven?

            English Bob : [discussing the booing of President Garfield] Well there’s a dignity to royalty. A majesty that precludes the likelihood of booing. If you were to prepare to boo at a king or a queen your throat would seize as though paralysed.
            Barber : Oh I wouldn’t boo at nobody sir.
            English Bob : Well that’s a wise policy, as wise policy. But if you did. I can assure you, if you did, that the sight of royalty would cause you to dismiss all thoughts of booing and you would stand… how shall I put it? In awe. Now, a president… well I mean…
            English Bob : why not boo a president?


      • Aaron David in reply to Will Truman says:

        I think booing a President, any President is a fine expression of the first amendment. As are the Trump baby balloons, P-hats and all the other accouterments of political expression. We have a find and healthy history of hating the holder of that office in this country, and I see no reason it should stop.

        But, by the same token, do not be shocked that some rodeo clown will put a mask on of your favorite dude and then cavort around like a jackass.Report

      • George Turner in reply to Will Truman says:

        I wonder what percentage of non-aligned viewers finally went all in with “Go Stros!” just because of the chant. I was for the Nationals up to that point, since they hadn’t been in a Series since the 40’s and Charles Krauthammer was a huge fan. The chant brought it home that it’s District 12 versus Panem, astronauts, oil workers, and cowboys against corrupt self-serving bureaucrats and apparatchiks who have weak pitching and poor hitting.

        And then I thought, “No, the average Nationals fan is probably just a regular person. It’s just that only the corrupt officials taking bribes, rigging laws, and getting money from China, Russia, and Ukraine can spend $600 on a ticket.”

        The booing provided an unwelcome narrative that isn’t going to benefit anybody, especially the Nationals merchandising department. The remaining question is whether Trump will host the Astros in the White House and celebrate it as “A tremendous victory over this corrupt town!” or whether he’ll host the Nationals and celebrate it as a “A tremendous victory of incredible players saddled with the most corrupt fan base in baseball!” Trump does that when someone throws him a low-hanging pitch.

        As they say, we live in an era when everything is political, and politics ruins everything.Report

        • Philip H in reply to George Turner says:

          The average Nats fan constitutes a series of drinking buddies of mine. Most pay $30-$60 for tickets, or get them from company accounts. The upper deck ranges from $5-$30 and standing room out third base ran $5 day of during the season. SO most of the people in that stadium are not the people you want them to be. Plus everyone moans about the over priced cost of beer.

          And a lot of people who are now cheering the Nats as their team are from somewhere else and have tickets because they go to watch their team when it comes to town.

          bottom line – they are normal Americans. I know, it sucks for you. but at some point you might want to knock off the whataboutisms.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to Will Truman says:

        I pretty much share your opinion here, Will.

        I would add that when political struggles move outside of the narrowly prescribed arena of elections and courts of law where there are strict rules that everyone agrees to, to the wild battlefield of public pressure the results get really really messy and unpredictable.

        Such as, whether it is Tea Party protests or Occupy, people booing at a baseball game or confronting a Harvey Weinstein at a restaurant, its naive of anyone to expect a precisely targeted and invariably accurate administration of justice.

        There are always collateral damages, suffering inflicted on innocent bystanders, and a cloud of dust and smoke which makes it hard to see easy heroes and villains.

        None of which is to suggest these things stop; Instead, it just highlights why they shouldn’t be necessary in the first place.

        Women should feel safe in the workplace without having to resort to vigilante tactics; The people should be able to respect the Presidency, even when he is of a different party.

        But in order to have all that happen, the proper channels of elections and legal system has to be trusted to deliver actual justice and conform to the norms of respect and fair play.

        And right now, its difficult for a lot of people to have faith in that.Report

    • LeeEsq in reply to Saul Degrawq says:

      The Patriots first identified Parliament as their big foe. They thought King George III would side with them and appealed to him directly.Report

  3. Marchmaine says:

    “He will now campaign for an election in the knowledge that he has failed in his signature policy which he campaigned for in the Conservative leadership election.”

    Where upon he will likely win an outright majority.

    I mean, the BBC take on Brexit is maybe the worst possible source… Better to grab both a pro and con take rather than the direct BBC willful misrepresentation take.Report

    • Saul Degraw in reply to Marchmaine says:

      I agree that the Tories will probably win an outright majority but more because of Corbyn than any appeal BoJo, Brexit, or the Tories have. Non-momentum Labour voters will defect to the LibDems , SNP, and some independent candidates. Those candidates will not win but will also cause Labour to lose safe seats to the Tories.Report

      • Marchmaine in reply to Saul Degraw says:

        Heh… other than BoJo, A No Backstop deal, Meeting the 10/31 deadline with EU, Flexit as mandated by a broken Parliament, and, well, Corbyn… what has he ever done for us?

        Brexit is broadly popular – across party lines…not super-majority popular, true… but if we don’t start with that, we’re not really interested in understanding what’s happening.

        I’m not a BoJo fanboi, but he’s playing the hand he’s been dealt better than I thought possible. More importantly, he’s playing his hand better than his opponents thought possible.Report

        • PD Shaw in reply to Marchmaine says:

          Brexit is arguably super-majority popular if you measure by referendum votes in the major party constituencies:

          Conservative Party constituencies: 74% majority leave
          Labour Party constituencies: 64% majority leave

          (Last week, I also heard a Labour MP claim that Labour holds the 20 seats that were the most pro-Brexit and the 20 seats that were the most anti-Brexit)

          Arguably Labour had a worse hand because they were more divided, but I think Corbyn is still the number one impediment for those against Brexit or the Conservatives.Report

          • Marchmaine in reply to PD Shaw says:

            Good point… the calculus changes a bit when you look at it by party and by seat. Which is just to say, my original comment about the BBC has a strange surreality to it.

            I bet the BBC has un-ironically said about the US impeachment: If you can win on the facts, you argue the facts… if not, you argue the procedure.Report

          • Saul Degraw in reply to PD Shaw says:

            Eh, I think that statistic is pretty meaningless for two reasons:

            1. Brexit passed with the smallest of margins in the referendum. Well within margins of error;

            2. It still can’t get an acceptable deal through parliamentReport

            • PD Shaw in reply to Saul Degraw says:

              It’s pretty important because Conservatives are likely to gain a majority of seats in the next election because most of the MPs will be seeking re-election in voting districts that were majority leave. Its a result of remain vote concentration in Greater London (albeit only a 60/40 split), as well as in Northern Ireland and Scotland where the national parties are either not players or act as spoilers.

              Labour minimized Brexit in the 2017 election by agreeing to honor the Brexit referendum results in its election manifesto and highlighting non-Brexit issues in the campaign.Report

          • Michael Cain in reply to PD Shaw says:

            When you say constituencies, do you mean party members or voters more generally? I could believe those percentages for party members — there are only 191,000 Tory members and 485,000 Labour members. Compared to the 32.2M people who voted in the 2017 general election.

            Back of the envelope calculations with those percentages and the share of the popular vote those two parties got in 2017 suggests that the referendum should have had on the close order of 57% for Leave.Report

            • PD Shaw in reply to Michael Cain says:

              Constituencies as in the voting districts that MPs are drawn from, analogous to House districts. Wikipedia has a summary onthis page under Constituency Results by Party.Report

              • PD Shaw in reply to PD Shaw says:

                Should have added, voting by constituency was not reported, so this is a model, which has been published. However, votes in Northern Ireland constituencies were reported, and Sinn Fein represents most of the Remain votes. Sinn Fein doesn’t sit in the UK Parliament as part of a longstanding protest against the occupation, something that has come under protest from rivals because its possible that Sinn Fein might represent an important vote on Brexit. That will be interesting to watch because this is an electoral commitment and a new election might put pressure on it.Report

  4. PD Shaw says:

    Doubt Boris would be punished for the extension. Politicians are judged by their intentions, and constitutional novelties were employed against him and by him.

    Also, no-deal is not really taken off the table until 12/31/2020 which is the deadline for an agreement on the future relationship. Delaying the enactment of a withdrawal agreement, which is supposed to deal only with the past, is cutting into time to negotiate a future relationship which is where most of the concerns lie. The transition period in which most EU law still applies expires 12/31/2020 (or when the future relationship is entered), and arguably the time for that could be extended, but future extensions seem less and less likely.

    The Guardian coddles its readership: Don’t worry, we got the Tories right where we want them! Time is on our side! And mysteriously, opposition never forms a serious strategy, just delay. “Let’s Split Up, Gang!”Report

  5. George Turner says:

    Last week I saw a comment that went something like this:

    “It’s the year 2219 and crowds have gathered in Brussels to watch the British Prime Minister ask the EU for a Brexit extension. Nobody knows how the quaint ceremony got started, but every year tourists flock to see it.”Report

    • Chip Daniels in reply to George Turner says:

      “Meanwhile, incantations beseeching the appearance of a submarine made of cheese are made.”Report

    • JoeSal in reply to George Turner says:

      “There was a fish die-off around London last saturday. Estimates are in the hundreds of millions. They tracked a probable pollution source to foot prints on a beach leading back to an empty grave inscribed Karl Marx. Strangely a sense of peace has returned to the island.”Report

  6. Michael Cain says:

    After watching Parliament today, I am less convinced that an election will be called.

    Corbyn seemed to me to make it clear that “taking no-deal Brexit off the table” includes eliminating the possibility in the withdrawal agreement that the UK could crash out Dec 31, 2020 if no long-term relationship is negotiated. The EU extension will reportedly not allow for changes to the withdrawal agreement during the three months. The SNP said pretty bluntly that they would support the Lib-Dem bill, but only if it included allowing 16-year-olds and resident EU citizens to vote. Maybe that age group is different in the UK, but there’s no way I would support allowing 16-year-old me to vote. The Lib-Dems seem locked onto the Dec 9 date, which would make this the last week Parliament would meet before it is dissolved and cause a number of members’ pet bills to die rather than get considered in the frenzy to tidy up before dissolving.

    I don’t see where they’re going to get a majority for anything.Report

    • PD Shaw in reply to Michael Cain says:

      There are significant limitations on what the opposition can do along the lines of which it is complaining. Parliamentary supremacy means that whatever this parliament does, can be undone by a future parliament. The withdrawal agreement (and the future relationship agreement) are essentially treaties with a foreign power — a lot of things sound like, let’s force the Conservatives to make the EU agree to stuff.

      I think Macron is serious; he’s halfway through his term of office and is constantly promoting plans to improve the EU as a vehicle of domestic politics, and he’s stuck dealing with the UK. He’s laying a predicate.Report

      • Michael Cain in reply to PD Shaw says:

        I thought Macron was serious this time. Tomorrow or Wednesday we’ll see what the actual language in the extension offer says. Rumors are it’s (a) three months, (b) no changes to the withdrawal agreement, and (c) the UK functionally gives up its vote in the EU Council. There are also rumors that Tusk’s replacement, who takes office Dec 1, is inclined to be much less accommodating than Tusk.Report

        • PD Shaw in reply to Michael Cain says:

          The EU is somewhat in a similar position that it will find it difficult to bind itself or others. If the extension or the WA is “final,” what’s to prevent the UK coming back in a couple of months and seeking to renegotiate either and the EU agreeing if they think its in their best interest? Arguably the unanimous agreement of the EU membership poses a significant restraint, but they still want to act in consensus and don’t want to screw over Ireland. Some commentators worry that Macron will start making noise about the need to clarify/resolve the “Gibraltar question.”

          (The UK’s role in the EU council though seems like something that can be demanded and should be conceded)Report

          • Michael Cain in reply to PD Shaw says:

            Fascinating to speculate, isn’t it?

            Boris will love the EU Council role thing if it’s real. Imagine if Parliament should consider a bill to force him to exercise the UK’s veto, and he gets to point out if he does so, it violates the extension terms and the UK crashes out.

            Boris has been useful to those worried about screwing Ireland by getting Parliament to pass to second reading a withdrawal agreement bill that screws Northern Ireland instead. IIRC, when the Brexit negotiations with the EU started, the EU’s position was that the hard border should be in the Irish Sea.

            Maybe just me, but I can easily see Macron saying “My problem is the Chunnel, my pseudo-land border with the UK. Gibraltar is Spain’s problem.”

            I never thought I’d write this, given his reputation: Boris has played the hand he was dealt better than anyone else. Except possibly the SNP, but they’re playing a different game.Report

  7. Saul Degraw says:

    Some more thoughts on the booing crit:

    1. A lot of pundits suffer from Upton Sinclair’s paycheck problem. They see their jobs as being kind of cheerleaders for a vague and inchoate national unity and Americans coming together to solve a narrow set of problems that don’t make their bosses scared. They get paid very well to do this. So any admission that the ideological divides in this country are deep and not at the margins might as well have them quitting;

    2. Some partisan pundits are either really dumb or really shameless and can’t recall stating that violence should be committed against center-left voices. Hi Megan McArdle and Iraq War protestors!!

    3. Related to number 1. One of the impossibilities of the President in the Constitution is that it wraps up ceremonial and political roles into one office. Other nations solve this problem by having the nice ceremonial role being handled by a figurehead monarch (The UK, Spain, Sweden) or figurehead President (Czech Republic and Israel). When people get underwear in a bunch, it is possibly about wanting the President to be a unifying figure he or she cannot be.

    4. Lots of well-paid people rose to the top by being lickspittle lackeys.Report

  8. Saul Degraw says:

    For PD:

    1. I don’t think it matters if most of the remain votes were in the Greater London area. Those are British people with votes and thoughts on the issue to. Unless you want to start arguing that some votes should count more than others based on where those votes come from.

    2. I agree Corbyn is a disaster for Labour and BoJo will win a majority in the next election probably (especially if it happens soon) but can we get rid of arguments like number 1. It is a sleight of hand, not real evidence that Brexit is more popular than it is.Report

  9. Michael Cain says:

    So much for Jeremy Corbyn’s wonderful rant yesterday. Today he announced that Labour won’t oppose election bill(s) on general principle but may oppose to specifics. The government has introduced its bill. Rumors that Labour will oppose the government’s plan for how to proceed on the bill, with the possibility of a repeat of last week’s oddity, a bill that is neither dead nor alive.Report

    • And… general elections on Dec 12. No expansions of the franchise. Final vote was was 435-20. Parliament dissolves at 12:01 am next Wednesday. Politico’s latest moving average on opinion polls has Conservatives 37%, Labour 24%, Lib Dems 17%, and the Brexit Party 11%. Plus the little guys. So far as I could tell from the speeches today, the Conservatives will run on passing Boris’s Brexit deal, the Lib Dems on revoking the Article 50 notice, and Labour on unicorns. As the debate was winding down, a number of MPs congratulated the SNP for the consistency of their position. I think it was congratulations — but it might have been an inside joke instead.Report

      • PD Shaw in reply to Michael Cain says:

        What I didn’t know until this morning was that the Speaker scrutinizes proposed amendments to see if they were of the same subject as the bill, so the franchise rules were disallowed. I’m thinking that the difference btw/ Dec. 9 and 12 was illusory; almost all universities are in session that week, which is more than can be said about the last election in June, and voting by mail is allowed. I think the LibDems perceived some need to introduce a proposal different from Boris’, around which other parties could join.

        This site utilizes a model to project seat counts based upon an average of different polls:

        It is currently predicting a 58 seat Conservative majority with Labour losing 25% of its seats, while the LibDems seat count increasing 150% and SNP seats increase about 40%. No seats to the Brexit Party. And the site seems pretty sluggish.

        And the Tories have to win a majority, cause I don’t see any other coalition partner. If they can’t form a government, then Labour would need to join with SNP (because LibDems refuse to join with Corbin), who presumably will want an independence referendum.Report

  10. Jaybird says:

    Part of the problem is that Britain joining the EU was never, really, put up for a vote. Sure, there was that trade thing in the 70’s, but, after that, it was the legislature passing laws and one entangling alliance turns into another and, next thing you know, you’re a member of the EU.

    So they *FINALLY* put membership up for a vote and The People vote against it… and maybe this could have been avoided if the other stuff was put up for a vote too.

    You take away the peoples’ ability to vote for stuff, you really shouldn’t give it back intermittently.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Jaybird says:

      They voted against because of . . . non-linear . . . representations of what Brexit would mean. Its analogous to the notion here that we can have a defense industry that spends 8 times what the next 6 nearest countries combined do (but is perpetually unready for anything) , massive business tax breaks, social security, and effective environmental protection. Brexit will have significant costs to the British economy – and may well drive Scotland to full independence. Framed with those truths, its support may well wain. Continue to evade on the impacts, and sure, you can get a referendum to be won.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

        I have no doubt that if everybody had accurate information, they’d vote the way I want them to.

        That said, I think that Brexit was a lot more likely to be a populist pushback (as opposed to “revolt” or something like that) against disconnected technocratic elites.Report

        • Philip H in reply to Jaybird says:

          Maybe – its still built on the lie that things would be better out then in, and that the open borders would remain in place and market share would be stable. No such outcomes would occur, regardless of where the technocrats were located after.Report

        • InMD in reply to Jaybird says:

          Whatever the merits of the case for or against the EU its been lacking in popular legitimacy for decades. It never does well when put to a referendum (just ask the Irish, Dutch, and French) yet the project marches on. That’s what keeps me skeptical the UK will actually leave in anything more than a symbolic way, even now.Report

  11. Chip Daniels says:

    The best explanation I’ve heard for Brexit is the “submarine made of cheese” thing, where the entire project is some bizarrely irrational venture.

    It’s been what, 3 years or more, since it passed? And I’ve yet to hear anyone lay out a clear and simple explanation for “Brexit will make things better in Britain because___”.

    Some of the stated rationales are flat our lies (like the NHS funding) while the rest just sort of meander into a diffuse cloud of platitudes about national soveriegnty and blue passports that really don’t stand up to scrutiny.

    It seems like the antipathy to the EU, even among the Labor folks is grounded more in some vague, inchoate but deeply sensed cultural grievance, that they just well, flat out don’t like those folks across the channel.

    I could be wrong. Maybe there is some clear and logical explanation for why Brexit is a good thing.

    But its weird that they spend 3 years hemming and hawing and shifting from one foot to the next desperately trying to avoid answering the simplest of questions like, “hey, what happens with Ireland?”Report

    • JS in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      Eh, I like the “going out to eat”. 5 people wanted to go out to eat. 2 people wanted Italian. Three people said “not Italian”. Of the remaining three, one wanted Greek, one wanted fish and chips, and the last wanted to eat at this place down the road famous for making people sick.

      4 people are adamantly against going to the “place that makes people sick”, but that’s somehow become the default destination if 3 of the 5 can’t agree on someplace.

      And no one is budging.

      Worse yet, it seems quite likely that ranking choices would lead to a consensus fairly quickly (probably Italian, as that already has two votes).

      So far, all that’s happened is 4 of the 5 agree they don’t want to get sick, but they can’t budge that from being “where we’ll eat if we can’t decide by 5:00 PM”.

      I mean it gets a little more intricate, as in this analogy the Italian place exists, the place that makes you sick exists, but the Greek and the Fish & Chips places are quite nebulous — so in analogy it’s like the guy wanting Greek wants Greek food, but any Greek restaurant suggested he keeps rejecting and the F&C guy is the same.

      So literally 3/5 have concrete outcomes they want, and two of the five have general genres of food but can’t even settle on a restaurant for their preference. They like the idea of Greek food more than any actual Greek restaurant.

      Which, having actually experienced 5 people trying to choose a restaurant, it does generally end with everyone eating someplace no one wanted and everyone hates, so I’m leaning heavily towards hard Brexit just on human behavior.Report