To save Brexit deal, Theresa May dropped an assault rifle ban

boing
103

Well, I was on my school shooting team, and I spent a summer marking targets at Bisley, so technically I was employed by the NRA.

But anyway. The whole point is that this isn’t about gun enthusiasts. It’s about people getting shot and whether, by restricting some of the things gun enthusiasts like, we could have fewer shootings. Because if we could, then bluntly, there’s no amount of enjoyment you could be getting out of it that would swing the argument. I can’t imagine this point really needs belabouring.

I wouldn’t advise making the argument that the .50 ban didn’t go far enough, because you’re quite right: there is a stronger argument to be made for banning anything beyond a .22. You’d still have (slightly shorter-range) target shooting, and airsoft and paintball and archery, but one or two extra people would also have their lives.

The fact that you would prefer to have a gun does not mean this is an attack on you, any more than it’s an attack on you when the government sets speed limits or collects taxes. You are absolutely free to complain about those things, like everyone else does. It’s just that your preferences aren’t the only factor.

5 Likes
105

But May has said that she will be the leader who will preside over brexit. It doesn’t sound like it’s an option for her.

Either way, no brexit at all actually offends me a bit. We on the continent have had to put up with years of British exceptionalism and attacks on the EU. If after all this shit parliament decides “nope, sorry” then there have to be some consequences. To pretend nothing happened, that won’t work for me. Rebates will have to be lost, pride swallowed.

2 Likes
106

The question is open as to how much longer she’ll be leader, especially since so many of her colleagues have the knives out. If her government falls it might open up some opportunities.

In the remote case that there’s somehow a second referendum (I see increasing demands for a “people’s referendum” in the news, but Corbyn is still demurring), and if the decision is reversed I do agree that the EU will be justified in demanding consequences.

My hope is that the consequences will be mutually beneficial, even if a lot of Know-Nothings in the UK look at them as “punishments”. From what I’ve seen, though, the EU leadership looks like they’d handle the situation with a little more generosity than you might* and probably just go back the status quo ante (or at least wait til the smoke has cleared before making demands).

[* or I might, but I’m not in the EU]

3 Likes
107

In which case I will be writing a few MEPs and why not, the Dutch vice president of the commission. Actions should have consequences, we have wasted years and millions on this. To do nothing would be a big sign of weakness.

2 Likes
108

None of which came from me or my friends. The relationship between us and eurosceptics is antagonistic at best.

All of my comments on this subject have concluded that if this is what it takes, then this is what we need to do.

I voted remain. The area I live in voted remain by over a two thirds majority. The neighbouring areas to where I live voted remain. I could walk to the East, West and South coast from where I am without setting foot in an area with a majority leave vote. I do not consent to leave the EU and would rather see England (not just the UK) split apart than see Brexit go ahead. I am having my EU citizenship taken away from me by a bunch of reactionary fuckwits and I will fight that any way I can.

7 Likes
109

I’m not unsympathetic to the remain side, but the fact is you lost the referendum. We have to deal with the UK based on that, harsh as it is on Scotland and NI.

All in all I feel that brexit, despite appearances, has been good for the EU. Cohesion has not been better in many years, the unanimity during the negotiations was surprising and appreciated. Seeing how badly the UK is dealing with this has seen support for similar exits evaporate in the last two years. Every cloud has a silver lining.

1 Like
110

A non-binding, advisory referendum. There is no legal reason why the government can’t decide to stay in the EU.

4 Likes
111

The UK government certainly doesn’t seem to treat it as such.

Anyway, I’m not opposed to a remain scenario, I’m just not sure that Britain as a whole is willing or able to swallow its pride on this.

1 Like
112

The European Union Referendum Act 2015 does.

http://www.bailii.org/uk/legis/num_act/2015/ukpga_201536_en_1.html

2 Likes
113

A fundamental cultural difference is an understatement.

That is an interesting question. It would be unlikely to eliminate criminal or terrorist firearms violence, as those people will just turn to other sources. It might even have a negative effect, as it is just as easy to smuggle a Kalashnikov as it is to smuggle a bolt action rifle. Prior to the 2015 Paris attacks, I read a report from French authorities where they concluded that it would be impossible to prevent the importation of the small numbers of guns and ammunition that terrorists would need for a major attack. GB has the advantage of being a series of islands, but the IRA managed to circumvent that problem without much difficulty.

But I don’t think the quest to eliminate anything that could be used as a weapon is going to be successful. Nor do I think the willingness to do so is likely to make the British a more resilient people.

In reading UK press to learn more about the offensive weapons ban, I came across the following:

“Luton Crown Court Judge Nic Madge spoke of his concern that carrying a knife had become routine in some circles and called on the Government to ban the sale of large pointed kitchen knives…But why we do need eight-inch or ten-inch kitchen knives with points? Butchers and fishmongers do, but how often, if at all, does a domestic chef use the point of an eight-inch or ten-inch knife? Rarely, if at all."

114

There’ll certainly always be ways to get guns into the UK. After all, 100% of cocaine and most heroin comes from overseas, and no part of that process could be made any more illegal. (Incidentally, Great Britain is not a series of islands, though the United Kingdom is).

But the availability of other ways to get guns does not mean that closing off the route we’re talking about wouldn’t help. For instance, there may be criminal gun-wanters with connections to thieves but not to smugglers; reducing the legal gun population would thwart such people, and those thwartings could translate to averted deaths. This isn’t like the “war on drugs”; the market for illegal guns in the UK is small, and gets smaller as guns become rarer (and there is literally no one who doesn’t want to see that happen), so it’s not entirely futile to try aim for zero.

Further restricting civilian guns might not prevent any gun deaths. But if it prevents one every ten years, in this country, that’s a noticeable difference.

Your concerns about the resilience of our gunless population are, how shall I put it, noted.

4 Likes
115

They’ve already invoked article 50, starting the formal processes for leaving the EU. As I understand it based on current EU rules that can’t be reversed. If you want back in you have to complete the exit process, then go to the back of the line to qualify/join all over again. So the vote itself was non-binding, but May went ahead and started the withdrawal process based on that referendum. The Queen could wake up tomorrow and order no Brexit, they could hold ten more votes. And they’re still locked in unless they convince Europe to allow it.

@anon62577920

So basically what’s happening now is the UK government is negotiating terms on what leaving will mean. May has been fighting for some format of “Soft-Brexit”, essentially staying in the EU without being in the EU. Keeping an open border in Ireland, staying in the common market, keeping peace and trade deals in place. But ending free transit/open borders, and removing all EU authority over the UK.

Europe as you may imagine is not on board with that. And the UK’s various proposals on that haven’t exactly advanced. May even took the step of warning that “We’re headed for a hard Brexit”, even as her government is still attempting to negotiate something else.

The latest pitch I heard was keeping Northern Ireland in the common market, and its border with The Republic of Ireland open. And Putting the hard border between NI and the rest of the UK.

Which doesn’t seem to be flying particularly well. UK citizens don’t seem to like the idea of a customs and travel border inside their country. The NI don’t quite like the idea of basically getting foisted outside the UK, while still losing all the EU support they’ve gotten in the past. The Scottish seem pissed that exceptions might be made for NI, but no allotments are in discussion for Scotland. And the EU still isn’t willing to play ball on some sort of special UK only arrangement. Though much of the UK press seems to be talking like staying in the common market is a possibility, noone else in Europe seems to take that seriously.

The EU did recently float the idea of a rule change to allow the UK to revoke its article 50 status, there doesn’t seem to a be formal offer on the table. But the rumor/ signalling seems to be you can take a hard Brexit or we can negotiate a way for there to be no Brexit, on the EU’s terms. May has preemptively dismissed that, repeatedly insisting Brexit is happening. As has, near as I can tell, every likely replacement for her should her government fail. So basically the deal being sought is absolutely anything that will soften the blow on the UK, except calling the whole thing off.

So far as I know it isn’t. Unless the EU decides it is. The UK at this point can not unilaterally decide not to go through with it. Their stuck. Kind of the irony of the whole thing. The “Euroskeptic” line on the EU was that they took sovereignty from the UK, and exercised too much control over UK internal actions and its interactions with the world. But as a result of Brexit, the UK is pretty much powerless in these negotiations. Brexit is going to happen or not happen as dictated by the rest of Europe.

2 Likes
116

That’s a very important observation about the UK: despite the decreasing supply of firearms the demand shrinks. I wonder how much of this is due to regulation, how much is due to culture, and how much is due to poor people even now having a social safety net.

Hey, now, the civilian population of London famously braved the Blitz and came through it with their “every man for himself” rugged individualism, shooting each-other with all manner of firearms to get a place in the bomb shelters. /s

4 Likes
117

Or maybe if you’re fairly confident your opponent doesn’t have a gun you don’t need one when a group of guys with bats/knives will get the job done without attracting undue attention to your criminal enterprise?

2 Likes
118

Sort of a reverse network effect. Maybe there’s a hint in there toward destroying Facebook.

3 Likes
119

It’s not exactly a “swallow it’s pride” situation. The EU is in the driver’s seat. And to be perfectly frank the UK doesn’t really have a lot leverage.

It’s very much in Europe’s interested to press as strict a separation as possible , regardless of the consequences on the UK, as a demonstration of how dumb it is to leave. To deter others from pulling back. And to make it harder for a certain Eastern dictator to make them look weak. The more the UK struggles after it leaves, and the less it gets in the process. The stronger the EU looks.

The UK just doesn’t have much leverage, they aren’t the biggest ecconomy in Europe anymore. They’re not a particularly large consumer market all on their own. And they’re dwarfed in both regards by the EU as a whole, even if they’re still in the top for individual countries. They need access to Europe more than Europe needs access to them. The one bit of leverage they have is Ireland. Brexit could be nearly as bad for The Republic of Ireland as for the UK, given how closely tied their ecconomies are (and how fragile IRL’s has turned out to be). And the EU has real interest in mitigating negative impacts on member states.

But the UK has precious little control over that, the EU is in the wheel house on that one. They could straight up screw the UK and throw every subsidy in the would at Ireland if they needed to. So we’re seeing the Northern Ireland situation become primary. The EU has REALLY real interest in keeping the peace there, preventing a hard border in Ireland, and finding some solution to all the other ways Brexit just doesn’t work there. And the UK has significant control over that situation.

But that’s not a ton to work with. I don’t believe for a minute the UK is gonna get a no harm no foul chance to call off Brexit. If this doesn’t happen. If Europe allows them to stay. It’s gonna come with serious concessions of some sort from the UK. They got their level of infuence, and a significant amount of separation from the EU back when it formed because they were the richest and most ecconomicly powerful European country, and the whole concept would have failed without their participation. But now the EU will probably be fine without them if they handle this correctly (which would be harshly).

That’s probably why not to many in UK leadership seem to be seriously following up, pushing or even acknowledging the possibility of calling it off. Cancelling Brexit would probably be a popular move. But not if it comes with giving up the pound and other major concessions.

1 Like
120

It is in the EU’s (not Europe’s) interest to ensure that no one thinks they can get a better deal by leaving. But no one ever did think that (including anyone in the UK who was paying attention), and the Brexit project certainly isn’t looking like changing anyone’s mind so far.

But both the EU and its member states have a great deal to lose from Brexit, and would prefer it not to happen. The UK is the third-largest contributor to the EU budget (even with its specially-negotiated rebate), and a consistent net contributor like all the larger economies. It has Europe’s biggest city, one eighth of its population, a large chunk of its finance and media industries, half its permanent UN Security Council seats, Kate Bush, etc. Even its intransigence within the EU is considered an asset in some quarters; for many smaller states the EU can look like a Franco-German hegemony at times, and often light on the Franco, which is a culturally sensitive issue, particularly in the East.

From the point of view of member states (which is all that actually matters (which is why Brexiteers’ “sovereignty” bullshit is so dumb)), no individual state has more to lose than the UK, but they all have something to lose, and nothing to gain.

If the UK demonstrated a clear will to forget about Brexit (which would probably have to involve another motherfucking referendum at this stage), there is little question that the EU would accept that; they’ve said as much. The question is whether the UK would have to give up its (semi-fictional) veto and its special budget rebate, or just one of the two. In theory the EU could demand a commitment to currency union but that would amount to saying “no”.

The UK wasn’t a founding member of the EC; it joined in 1973, and its principal special concession, the budget rebate, was negotiated by Mag the Hag in 1985 (on not-unreasonable grounds to do with how contributions are calculated). France was dead set against the UK joining for the first decade.

If that were true there wouldn’t be any problem.

3 Likes
121

Well, that’s rather sliding over a whole lot of legal argument…

It’s certainly what the Treaty seems to envisage. But there are (fairly cogent) arguments to be made to the contrary.

Basically though no one wants to have that argument.

It really wouldn’t.

The people who wanted to leave still want to leave and are even more rabid about it than they were before.

This is not even wrong. :slight_smile:

Ah, beaten to it by @bobtato.

2 Likes
122

It would be as divisive as carrying on as we are. The polling is showing that if there is a second referendum that remain would win by a larger majority than the one that voted to leave, but there is still about 40% of the population who would vote leave.

5 Likes
123

Yes.

Yes, and if it did, the Brexiters would just carry on demanding to leave in exactly the same way they accuse Remainers of ‘not accepting the vote’.

Essentially everything from here on in will be divisive.

At this point I’m just hoping we manage to avoid rampaging mobs looking for Remainers to purge. :frowning:

2 Likes