Brexit
- Thread starter britbox
- Start date
Federberg
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2013
- Messages
- 15,597
- Reactions
- 5,693
- Points
- 113
yup I agree. The fact that the EU still isn't focussing on addressing the immigration issue yet is stunning to me. I mean...if they had aggressively sought to resolve that over the last year there's every chance that a significant enough number of Leavers would have changed their minds
I'm disgusted by the agreement. It's not what we voted for at all & if I'd have known what was going to happen I wouldn't have voted because I see it as a pointless agreement. We wanted out. What we're actually getting is our government just going through the motions. We're still going to be told what to do & what not to do by the E.U. We're still going to have to pay ridiculous amounts of money to the E.U. We're not going to get value for our money. We wanted change & that's not what we're going to get. I know a lot of people who voted remain where I live voted remain just for the certainty.
Well, there will be change - that's for sure. Some of the "bill" is being incorrectly reported though. There would always be some "bill" as the UK had signed up to commitments spanning many years. But I would agree with the general principle that this isn't the Brexit that was voted on.
The question is whether any changes made will be positive or not. Then I guess another question could be if the changes are positive who are they positive for or if they're negative who they're negative for. We didn't know that our government had committed itself to the E.U. for that many years without telling us & paying the extortionate fees which were charged to stay in. We only knew what the government wanted us to. I believe that people should do what they say so understand why the E.U. were in an uproar when we said we wanted to leave. Given that information I don't think we should have been given the vote when we had it. I think we should either have had the vote before the commitments were made or later on.
Where I am some working people were having to rely on food banks, some white British workers over the age of 21 were unable to get jobs as companies were only employing foreign workers or under 21's because they could get away with paying foreign workers less & people under 21 don't have to be paid as much, (this is illegal but I've heard managers say that this was what they were doing as they couldn't afford white British workers over the age of 21), a lot of disabled people were wrongfully being told they were able to work & committed suicide because of it, in fact I knew a man with no legs who was in that position & he was a lovely guy, a lot of people were made homeless or forced to rely on food banks because of the spare bedroom tax, there were that many terrorist attacks at the time & we had to let people who could pose a threat into our country & couldn't deport foreign criminals who posed a threat because the E.U. said we couldn't & a lot of British farmers were struggling because they couldn't grow & sell what they wanted only what the E.U. said they could, we couldn't buy British onions from the shops as British farmers weren't allowed to grow them as shops were forced to sell Spanish ones, fisherman were told what they could & couldn't catch & we were paying the E.U. for the privilege of being told what to do & we were paying extortionate amounts which we could have put to better use in our own country especially when we were struggling like I've just explained. I'm not racist or selfish but believe that sometimes you have to look after yourself & your own before you can look after others.
We'll just have to wait & see. Last week the agreement sounded different than it was reported to be yesterday.
Last edited:
^ Heh heh. That's pretty much it... didn't have to have been that way though.
May survives... closer than it looks on paper... if as Rees-Mogg suggests - that the “payroll vote” of ministers, parliamentary aides, and trade envoys are likely to have backed May, a majority of the remaining 160-170 backbenchers voted no confidence.
Who would have confidence? She keeps saying she's listened... (that was her excuse for postponing the vote), yet she's had more resignations from people involved in the process than King Solomon had wives. Now she's boxed into a corner.
Will be interesting to see if Corbyn backs a potential no-confidence vote in the house. The SNP are clamouring for it.
May survives... closer than it looks on paper... if as Rees-Mogg suggests - that the “payroll vote” of ministers, parliamentary aides, and trade envoys are likely to have backed May, a majority of the remaining 160-170 backbenchers voted no confidence.
Who would have confidence? She keeps saying she's listened... (that was her excuse for postponing the vote), yet she's had more resignations from people involved in the process than King Solomon had wives. Now she's boxed into a corner.
Will be interesting to see if Corbyn backs a potential no-confidence vote in the house. The SNP are clamouring for it.
GameSetAndMath
The GOAT
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2013
- Messages
- 21,141
- Reactions
- 3,398
- Points
- 113
Moxie
Multiple Major Winner
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 43,761
- Reactions
- 14,926
- Points
- 113
What are the chances of another referendum vote? Will they really just press forward with something that is clearly such a mess, just because the people voted for it, even if now so many seem to be regretting the deal, including here? It seems, in retrospect, to have been such a complex thing to get just an up or down vote on by the population, at large. It wasn't really presented in all of its complications for a vote, at the time.
I'd put the chances of a second referendum at around 25% right now. If there is a second referendum then both major parties will have broken their post-Brexit election manifesto pledges.
I don't think you can regret any deal yet - because one hasn't been agreed. Theresa May (a remainer) has agreed a deal with the EU but nobody in the House likes it. She basically canceled (postponed) a vote on it because she has no chance of it getting through Parliament.
May didn't listen to much advice from her own team. The Office for Brexit ministers (who were "leavers") resigned and she basically ended up bypassing this office (one that she herself set up) in the negotiations as it all unfolded. Other ministers resigned after the Chequers meeting when they decided what she had negotiated wasn't actually Brexit.
The complications arise largely because:
1) The Bigger Pro-Brexit party - The Conservatives are led by a remainer (Theresa May). The Conservatives aren't all Pro-Brexit by the way - it's split, but I'd suggest 60/40 are probably pro.
2) The Opposition Party - Labour are probably 85/15 in favour of remaining. However, a lot of the constituencies (particularly in the North) that these MPs represent are in favour of leaving. Jeremy Corbyn, the leader who despite saying he voted remain, has been pretty much anti-EU for his entire political career. Other members of the old "Hard-left" such as Dennis Skinner are also for leaving.
Then we have the question "What is Brexit?"
Before the vote, the general consensus was that Brexit meant leaving the EU altogether - including the Customs Union. Both sides made this crystal clear...
Now since the vote... we now have terms like "Hard Brexit", "Soft Brexit" floating around... Different flavours of what it means to leave. But if you go strictly by what was said before the referendum, then you're basically looking at a Hard Brexit as your starting point in any negotiation with the EU... yet, it seems to have been done the other way around... which is why the whole thing is a clusterfuck... and for that, you can only blame Theresa May.
Second referendum? I wouldn't be so sure of the result being reversed at all. Before the first one the Brexit Leave poll was 49%... now it's 46%. They were 3% wrong the first time, so it might be 49% rather than 46% going on that basis. That's not a huge shift given what's transpired and months of bad publicity. Once the campaigners are out again in full force, it's certainly not out of the realms of possibility that it goes through a second time. I know people who voted Remain but would actually vote Leave the second time around because they are so sick of the way this has been handled and lots of people won't like the fact they were asked twice.
I don't think you can regret any deal yet - because one hasn't been agreed. Theresa May (a remainer) has agreed a deal with the EU but nobody in the House likes it. She basically canceled (postponed) a vote on it because she has no chance of it getting through Parliament.
May didn't listen to much advice from her own team. The Office for Brexit ministers (who were "leavers") resigned and she basically ended up bypassing this office (one that she herself set up) in the negotiations as it all unfolded. Other ministers resigned after the Chequers meeting when they decided what she had negotiated wasn't actually Brexit.
The complications arise largely because:
1) The Bigger Pro-Brexit party - The Conservatives are led by a remainer (Theresa May). The Conservatives aren't all Pro-Brexit by the way - it's split, but I'd suggest 60/40 are probably pro.
2) The Opposition Party - Labour are probably 85/15 in favour of remaining. However, a lot of the constituencies (particularly in the North) that these MPs represent are in favour of leaving. Jeremy Corbyn, the leader who despite saying he voted remain, has been pretty much anti-EU for his entire political career. Other members of the old "Hard-left" such as Dennis Skinner are also for leaving.
Then we have the question "What is Brexit?"
Before the vote, the general consensus was that Brexit meant leaving the EU altogether - including the Customs Union. Both sides made this crystal clear...
Now since the vote... we now have terms like "Hard Brexit", "Soft Brexit" floating around... Different flavours of what it means to leave. But if you go strictly by what was said before the referendum, then you're basically looking at a Hard Brexit as your starting point in any negotiation with the EU... yet, it seems to have been done the other way around... which is why the whole thing is a clusterfuck... and for that, you can only blame Theresa May.
Second referendum? I wouldn't be so sure of the result being reversed at all. Before the first one the Brexit Leave poll was 49%... now it's 46%. They were 3% wrong the first time, so it might be 49% rather than 46% going on that basis. That's not a huge shift given what's transpired and months of bad publicity. Once the campaigners are out again in full force, it's certainly not out of the realms of possibility that it goes through a second time. I know people who voted Remain but would actually vote Leave the second time around because they are so sick of the way this has been handled and lots of people won't like the fact they were asked twice.
Last edited:
Moxie
Multiple Major Winner
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 43,761
- Reactions
- 14,926
- Points
- 113
I really appreciate your taking the time with that. What I wonder is why Cameron didn't make a better effort at negotiating with the EU before he rather hubristically put his career on the line, based on...basically...no advance deal. And then the EU left him out to dry, as it seems to me. That seemed very poorly played, politically.
The other bit I don't really get is how the British people were asked to vote on such a vague referendum. Often, a referendum or a proposition (as we vote on in the US,) is based on considered and discussed policy/proposed legislation. It seems, from the outside perspective, that Brexit was very vague, as a notion, and left to be rather an emotional vote. Now that the rubber is hitting the road, it turns out to be a rather complicated divorce, and no one is happy with the terms. I don't really understand why the terms couldn't have been laid out before they were voted upon. Or, if Britain was unhappy with France and Germany seeming to hold all of the terms, why Britain didn't keep her ace card in reserve, to be played later. Or build a coalition with other important EU countries. This seems to have been the worst possible play in terms of keeping British strength in the EU marketplace. I don't know how Britain gets around this mess now, but it's astonishing how poorly they've managed it.
The other bit I don't really get is how the British people were asked to vote on such a vague referendum. Often, a referendum or a proposition (as we vote on in the US,) is based on considered and discussed policy/proposed legislation. It seems, from the outside perspective, that Brexit was very vague, as a notion, and left to be rather an emotional vote. Now that the rubber is hitting the road, it turns out to be a rather complicated divorce, and no one is happy with the terms. I don't really understand why the terms couldn't have been laid out before they were voted upon. Or, if Britain was unhappy with France and Germany seeming to hold all of the terms, why Britain didn't keep her ace card in reserve, to be played later. Or build a coalition with other important EU countries. This seems to have been the worst possible play in terms of keeping British strength in the EU marketplace. I don't know how Britain gets around this mess now, but it's astonishing how poorly they've managed it.
Cameron was foolish to promise a referendum before he knew what he was getting involved with.
What happened with Cameron was that he made a "Cast Iron" guarantee to hold a referendum prior to the coalition with the Lib Dems. He didn't keep his word and was regularly called out on it... To give him some benefit of the doubt, you could say it was because he was in a coalition with the Pro-EU LibDems and probably couldn't carry it.
Prior to the next election, he guaranteed a referendum again... this was to attract the anti-EU vote and a large segment of traditional Conservatives who had drifted to parties like UKIP. I guess he thought... We'll get these voters back, win power and then I'll worry about the referendum later... Cameron himself was a "remainer" in any event.
Cameron was now boxed into a corner... he couldn't really renege on the referendum guarantee again (he had a partial Get out clause because of the Coalition first time around). A large number in his own party wouldn't allow him to get away with it... and he would also basically kill UKIP by having one... they all suspected they'd win a remain vote anyway... even if it was close.
Cameron wanted to go the EU first to get concessions... basically to ensure the Remain vote carried and to show the Electorate that the UK had a voice at the top table... he came back with virtually nothing... other than a few vague words about further integration and some very minor concessions on bailouts... Nothing on any of the issues that were causing concern across the UK. This was a really stupid move by the EU who could have nipped the whole thing in the bud there and then by offering some tangible concessions... or at least given lip service to doing so...
The Referendum was vague but not vague if this makes sense. Both sides were clear it meant leaving the customs union, the Single market, giving the British supreme control back of lawmaking and justice, making Parliament wholly sovereign again and controlling borders.
What was completely vague was what this meant... how money and economics would work, what would be negotiated with the EU, how the Irish border would work... and plenty more stuff... this referendum was not run on party lines - you had Conservatives and Labour on both sides of the divide and other UK parties like UKIP, SNP, Plaid Cymru, DUP and others with their own interests one way or another.
So, a manifesto is impossible in this situation... all we heard were wishlists from the Leave Campaign on what it might mean.
Of course, Leave won the night, sending shockwaves around the UK .
So what's transpired is that the basics that nearly everybody thought they were voting on have been betrayed and also some of the Leave wishlists have also shown to be farcical. In a nutshell, the UK Parliament has become a laughing stock.
What happened with Cameron was that he made a "Cast Iron" guarantee to hold a referendum prior to the coalition with the Lib Dems. He didn't keep his word and was regularly called out on it... To give him some benefit of the doubt, you could say it was because he was in a coalition with the Pro-EU LibDems and probably couldn't carry it.
Prior to the next election, he guaranteed a referendum again... this was to attract the anti-EU vote and a large segment of traditional Conservatives who had drifted to parties like UKIP. I guess he thought... We'll get these voters back, win power and then I'll worry about the referendum later... Cameron himself was a "remainer" in any event.
Cameron was now boxed into a corner... he couldn't really renege on the referendum guarantee again (he had a partial Get out clause because of the Coalition first time around). A large number in his own party wouldn't allow him to get away with it... and he would also basically kill UKIP by having one... they all suspected they'd win a remain vote anyway... even if it was close.
Cameron wanted to go the EU first to get concessions... basically to ensure the Remain vote carried and to show the Electorate that the UK had a voice at the top table... he came back with virtually nothing... other than a few vague words about further integration and some very minor concessions on bailouts... Nothing on any of the issues that were causing concern across the UK. This was a really stupid move by the EU who could have nipped the whole thing in the bud there and then by offering some tangible concessions... or at least given lip service to doing so...
The Referendum was vague but not vague if this makes sense. Both sides were clear it meant leaving the customs union, the Single market, giving the British supreme control back of lawmaking and justice, making Parliament wholly sovereign again and controlling borders.
What was completely vague was what this meant... how money and economics would work, what would be negotiated with the EU, how the Irish border would work... and plenty more stuff... this referendum was not run on party lines - you had Conservatives and Labour on both sides of the divide and other UK parties like UKIP, SNP, Plaid Cymru, DUP and others with their own interests one way or another.
So, a manifesto is impossible in this situation... all we heard were wishlists from the Leave Campaign on what it might mean.
Of course, Leave won the night, sending shockwaves around the UK .
So what's transpired is that the basics that nearly everybody thought they were voting on have been betrayed and also some of the Leave wishlists have also shown to be farcical. In a nutshell, the UK Parliament has become a laughing stock.
The agreement that Theresa May can get from the E.U. tells us that all this uncertainty was for nothing & even us who voted to leave think that we'll be worse off out under those terms than in as we're still going to pay the E.U. ridiculous amounts of money & get no value for it & have to abide by all their rules but we get no say in anything whereas if we stay in we get some say. I think either completely in or completely out are the best options so if we can't get out completely I'll do something which I normally disagree with & become a turn-coat & say I'd rather be in completely than where we'll be under this agreement. There would be uncertainty initially if we left completely until we all pulled together & got our country back on it's feet & we'd be worse off while this was happening. I know this sounds strong especially as lots of women fought for my rights in the past some to the last extremities but to tell you the truth I'll never vote again because I don't think the majority of people's wishes are listened to. British democracy is a shambles. We have no proper government. Most of our government leave when things get hard rather than complete the job in question. At the last election we didn't have a proper candidate & I just hope Jeremy Corbyn never gets into power because of his support for the I.R.A. in the past.
Moxie
Multiple Major Winner
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 43,761
- Reactions
- 14,926
- Points
- 113
As to bolded above, particularly, I agree that the EU could have "helped out" David Cameron by showing some solidarity and giving him something to go home with to show that the EU wanted them to remain. At the risk of being simplistic, it seemed like a "spurned lover" reaction, and I have no idea why the EU leadership couldn't have been more collegial. So much water under the bridge. Anyway, I do appreciate your laying it out so well for me @britbox and also @Horsa's candor on the subject. And, btw, I do understand that Leave/Remain is not a strictly party-line position. It seems like everyone would like a do-over for a lot of reasons. It also seemed to me that the UK had had a previously sweet deal with the EU, keeping its currency and a fair amount of autonomy, and a decent pride-of-place status. But then they trashed it, with the help of the EU, and a lot of political miscalculation, even before Theresa May began driving this train-towards-wreck. I really do wonder how it gets resolved.
The thing is although we kept our currency & were in quite a high position E.U. rules were restricting us too much in some areas & charging us so much for the purpose of telling us what to do & we weren't getting much value for our money. Farmer's were being told what they could or couldn't grow & sell to British shops. Did you know a lot of British orchards were left because British apples couldn't be sold as our shops had to sell French ones instead & that our farmers haven't been able to grow & sell onions because we had to buy & sell Spanish ones instead? I'm not against buying & selling foreign goods if we can't grow or produce our own but I think that free trade should mean exactly that like it used to do. (I mean we've traded with other countries for centuries even before the E.U. came into being. We traded with the Phoenicians for a start. We also traded with the East India Company.) Our fishermen were also told what fish they could catch, keep & sell. There had been so many terrorist attacks going on yet we had to let everyone in our country because the E.U. said so. I'm hoping that the agreement on the table isn't going to be signed & we either get out completely or stay in because staying in would be more beneficial to our country than leaving with that agreement. If people pulled together & got something done instead of being at each other we could solve this problem & get out of this uncertainty a lot quicker which would be better for people. They say "necessity is the Mother of invention" & we could build everything back up from nothing. We've done it before so we can do it again though it would be expensive to start with. Look at the industrial revolution. machinery was just being invented & factories moved from being completely manual to having machinery although there was some opposition from Luddites which is why the Luddite attacks took place. Britbox did explain all the politics. I've told you all the things I could see on the ground in the North. Southerners saw things differently because life up North & life down South is different. There is a lot more to it than that but I've already done it to death before + some of what I said is emotional. Obviously everyone has a mind of their own so see things differently according to their experiences etc. Everyone just saw everything the other way so I just decided to put things the Northern way & state why Northerners saw things the way they did.
Mostly my own opinion with some information about Phoenician trading & some information about British social & economic history between the 18th & 20th centuries.
Last edited:
Interesting Yougov polls on various ways this could play out... if a general election was called (not a second referendum)
Standard vote:
Conservative 40%
Labour 36%
LibDem 10%
Other 14%
"Imagine Conservatives backed delivering Brexit, Lab/LD backed public vote"
Con 44%
Lab 36%
LD 11%
Other 8%
"Imagine Cons AND Lab backed Brexit, LD backed public vote"
Con 42%
LD 26%
Lab 22%
Other 10%
The question that wasn't asked was if the Cons didn't back delivering Brexit and went for a second referendum... which I think would decimate the party for a generation...
One thing that did stand out was that Labour's numbers fluctuated the most wildly.
Of course, the flavour of Brexit wasn't determined... that would of course, have a huge impact.
Standard vote:
Conservative 40%
Labour 36%
LibDem 10%
Other 14%
"Imagine Conservatives backed delivering Brexit, Lab/LD backed public vote"
Con 44%
Lab 36%
LD 11%
Other 8%
"Imagine Cons AND Lab backed Brexit, LD backed public vote"
Con 42%
LD 26%
Lab 22%
Other 10%
The question that wasn't asked was if the Cons didn't back delivering Brexit and went for a second referendum... which I think would decimate the party for a generation...
One thing that did stand out was that Labour's numbers fluctuated the most wildly.
Of course, the flavour of Brexit wasn't determined... that would of course, have a huge impact.
Here are the arguments that brexit means cuts to eu-funded conservation projects (e.g. penguin) in uk-owned territories:
https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-penguins-climate-change-peril/
What do you think of that, especially if you support leavers?
https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-penguins-climate-change-peril/
What do you think of that, especially if you support leavers?