• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

The Brexit Thread

Probably because if people were told the truth about what was really wanted it most likely would of been rejected, and most likely with a bigger majority of 52/48?

Would of meant Nigel wouldn’t of crawled back under his rock so quick sadly.
 
Matt N said:
The thing I find interesting is the hardness of Brexit we pursued. We’ve gone for a pretty hard Brexit.

However, only 52% of people voted to Leave. That means that nearly half still voted to Remain. With that in mind, surely a softer Brexit might have worked better and satisfied more people, what with how slim the majority was?

Had 52% voted to Remain, would we be seeking deeper integration with the EU and adopting the Euro, entering the Schengen Zone etc? Probably not. In fact, I’d wager that there may well have been a second referendum on the issue by now had Remain won, because the issue would never really have been solved in the first one had Remain won, and there would still have been sizeable discontent had we remained in the EU.
Click to expand...
This was the problem with the reffernedum, it was too open, Brexit means so ma y different things. The referendum should never have happened like that, its that simple.
 
pluk said:
Not so much what we've gone for, more like what European exit is by definition. Leaving and keeping the perks of membership was broadly not on the table, so to leave cannot really result any anything significantly different to what we have ended up with.
Click to expand...

Nope

Pretty much all of the leave campaigners said we would remain in the customs union and/ or the single market. Not a single one suggested a hard brexit during the campaign.

Hard brexit was only spoken about with any seriousness after the referendum. Lie after lie after lie.
 
Dave said:
Pretty much all of the leave campaigners said we would remain in the customs union and/ or the single market
Click to expand...

Yep.

Not at all talking at all about what was promised by either campaign before the vote, talking about what was pursued. To meaningfully leave the union didn't leave scope for a softer brexit, the concessions that would be considered softer were not available to us outside the union.

I see Matt later clarified that he was referring back to post vote vs pre vote, but that's not hownthe point I was responding to was being made at all.
 
Last edited:
pluk said:
Yep.

Not at all talking at all about what was promised by either campaign before the vote, talking about what was pursued. To meaningfully leave the union didn't leave scope for a softer brexit, the concessions that would be considered softer were not available to us outside the union.
Click to expand...

But as there was no democratic mandate for a hard brexit why was a hard brexit completed?
 
Dave said:
But as there was no democratic mandate for a hard brexit why was a hard brexit completed?
Click to expand...
There was no such nuance in the question, remain or leave. Not remain if this or leave if that. When we left the things we might want, the things which would have made the change softer, were not on the table. So it's not so much we pursued a hard brexit, we left the union and that's all that was available.
 
pluk said:
There was no such nuance in the question, remain or leave. Not remain if this or leave if that. When we left the things we might want, the things which would have made the change softer, were not on the table. So it's not so much we pursued a hard brexit, we left the union and that's all that was available.
Click to expand...

Hey I’m the first to criticise how the referendum was held but to say a hard brexit was all that was on the table is false. Leave made it clear there where options to be had, then took the options away when they won. The EU where willing to negotiate on all sorts of access to various parts of the single market but the disaster capitalists like Mogg had their prize and wanted their money.

Cameron really did a number on the country, and now Brexit is biting the population is beginning to see the pain it’s causing.
 
Dave said:
Hey I’m the first to criticise how the referendum was held but to say a hard brexit was all that was on the table is false. Leave made it clear there where options to be had, then took the options away when they won. The EU where willing to negotiate on all sorts of access to various parts of the single market but the disaster capitalists like Mogg had their prize and wanted their money.

Cameron really did a number on the country, and now Brexit is biting the population is beginning to see the pain it’s causing.
Click to expand...

What the leave campaigners did was suggest/insinuate we could keep certain things when we left, without any input from the EU on whether we could. Unsurprisingly it turned out when it came to it the EU said we couldn't do that.

The only way of negotiating single market access was to not meaningfully leave the diktat of the EU, so not really leaving the EU at all in anything other than name and voting rights. That surely would have been the worst of all worlds, in the long term especially?

*yes, we'll continue to comply with most EU policy to make trade as smooth as possible, but could also chose not to if we want. Yes, we could have not just left. No, I was not a Brexit supporter.
 
pluk said:
What the leave campaigners did was suggest/insinuate we could keep certain things when we left, without any input from the EU on whether we could. Unsurprisingly it turned out when it came to it the EU said we couldn't do that.

The only way of negotiating single market access was to not meaningfully leave the diktat of the EU, so not really leaving the EU at all in anything other than name and voting rights. That surely would have been the worst of all worlds, in the long term especially?

*yes, we'll continue to comply with most EU policy to make trade as smooth as possible, but could also chose not to if we want. Yes, we could have not just left. No, I was not a Brexit supporter.
Click to expand...

You mean like all trade deals?

There isn’t a trade deal in the world that doesn’t require both parties to subject themselves to each other’s rules and the larger party always dictates the rules. Sure the EU had those demands but so did Australia, Canada etc and America certainly will force us to do their bidding if they ever decide to do a deal with us.

Why do Brexiteers get huffy about the EU dictating terms but will literally drop their trousers and bend over for America and Australia?
 
Wonder how much of the EU reaction at the negotiation table was down to us sending dross and showing an incredibly aggressive and pompous attitude?

I mean most of the time we had a whole "You need us more than we need you!" thing going on, so they kinda just shrugged their shoulders and got their own house in order in preparation for whatever we decided to do.

We were the ones making the decision to leave, and they had their red lines set out practically immediately. Not their fault we treated it like a playground stomping around complaining about our choices.
 
Dave said:
You mean like all trade deals?
Click to expand...

Yes, and we do have a trade deal with the EU.

Continued single market access, which is what 'soft brexit' amounts to, would not have been give and take but acceptance of what's given in perpetuity. A deal is a deal, not submissions to another's rules or ideology

Dave said:
Why do Brexiteers get huffy about the EU dictating terms but will literally drop their trousers and bend over for America and Australia?
Click to expand...

Again and again and, not a Brexiteer or supporter of Brexit, but also not a doom-mongerer. I just have the ability to look at things from points of view that differ from my own ideals. Radical, I know.
 
To counter the point I made yesterday; in fairness, I think a lot of Brexit supporters weren’t really concerned about how we got out of the EU as long as we got out, so I guess our method has pleased people who voted for Brexit.

For instance, my grandad voted Leave, and when discussing the government the other day, he just seemed happy that “Boris got Brexit done” rather than caught up with any of the specifics of how we left.
 
I would say the best outcome from Brexit would’ve been EFTA membership, so that we could control our own fishing and things like that (would’ve satisfied those sorts of people who voted for Brexit). Seems like a fair compromise and I think that’s the best solution going forward. You’d sort of get the best of both worlds.
 
pluk said:
Yes, and we do have a trade deal with the EU.

Continued single market access, which is what 'soft brexit' amounts to, would not have been give and take but acceptance of what's given in perpetuity. A deal is a deal, not submissions to another's rules or ideology



Again and again and, not a Brexiteer or supporter of Brexit, but also not a doom-mongerer. I just have the ability to look at things from points of view that differ from my own ideals. Radical, I know.
Click to expand...

We have a compromised trade deal because hard brexiteers wouldn’t have agri and veterinary standards alignment with the EU (despite them being the same as ours) which has completely crippled UK agri production and exports. Instead we are seeking trade with markets that can’t possibly fulfil our needs due to their geography and submitting to their every whim.

A deal unfortunately does require submission to another’s rules, for example to get a deal with Australia we have had to accept their antibiotic and GM usage in animal feed, we couldn’t say no to that stipulation as they required it for the deal. We also had to accept their lower animal welfare standards that allow intensive farming whilst expecting UK farmers to maintain existing standards. That is unfortunately submission, otherwise why drop our standards?

You don’t seem to offer much evidence of looking at points of view other than your own, just that which feeds your view of “democracy” and international trade which doesn’t align with both the economic and legal realities of the situation. It was however a suitably dramatic and condescending ending to your post, not exactly intellectually stimulating as you haven’t demonstrated evidence of this “independent thought”, but the comment was appropriately aggravating for the internet, at least we haven’t invoked Godwin’s law yet.
 
Dave said:
at least we haven’t invoked Godwin’s law yet
Click to expand...
Wind it in, Hitler.

Dave said:
We have a compromised trade deal because hard brexiteers wouldn’t have agri and veterinary standards alignment with the EU (despite them being the same as ours) which has completely crippled UK agri production and exports. Instead we are seeking trade with markets that can’t possibly fulfil our needs due to their geography and submitting to their every whim.

A deal unfortunately does require submission to another’s rules, for example to get a deal with Australia we have had to accept their antibiotic and GM usage in animal feed, we couldn’t say no to that stipulation as they required it for the deal. We also had to accept their lower animal welfare standards that allow intensive farming whilst expecting UK farmers to maintain existing standards. That is unfortunately submission, otherwise why drop our standards?

You don’t seem to offer much evidence of looking at points of view other than your own, just that which feeds your view of “democracy” and international trade which doesn’t align with both the economic and legal realities of the situation. It was however a suitably dramatic and condescending ending to your post, not exactly intellectually stimulating as you haven’t demonstrated evidence of this “independent thought”, but the comment was appropriately aggravating
Click to expand...

I suppose if you want an argument on the Internet you can turn anything into one. I'm not arguing for any brexit, for the brexit we've got, for an alternative brexit, or for no brexit.

Sumbision is a hugely loaded word, but we seem to agree that for any trade deal there will be compromise (submission, if you like) on both sides, and I think we agree that for EU single market access there would have to be acceptance of every relevant EU law or restriction on their terms now and in the future without any input to those laws and restrictions (for it is so and you haven't argued against it). For other deals, including the ones you mention, there is give and take. We accept x, they accept y. For the single market access there is not that to and fro.

Im sure you are clever enough to know these things you omit to make your point, but let's argue anyway? What is gained?

Right now, we'd be financially better off as a nation still in the EU. In the future you can't know whether that will remain the case. Although we can make educated guesses these points are pretty irrefutable.
 
It is funny how every one of the Tory party candidates for leader is now a 'Brexiteer'. Talking about issues/negative/problems around Brexit seems to be taboo - the Labour leader can't do it either for fear of losing votes in those red wall leave seats. It really has divided the country, with no signs of any bringing together of the two sides.

Cameron - what a ledge,
 
David Cameron called the referendum to fix the split in the Conservative party. The result wasn't what he expected and it split the country instead.
 
Alsty said:
David Cameron called the referendum to fix the split in the Conservative party. The result wasn't what he expected and it split the country instead.
Click to expand...
And rather than help clear up the mess when it didn’t go the way he expected, ran off and hid under the nearest rock (that wasn’t hosting Nigel Farage), and let others fight over who will clean up after him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top