nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit discussion thread III

ancapailldorcha

This thread is for discussing the departure of the UK from the EU. I will move some posts over shortly.

New posters, please read the forum charter before posting.

Regards,

The Politics Mods.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Econ_

Skedaddle wrote: »

They're vastly underestimating how big a transition this will be. It's not like you can snap your fingers and become Australia, Canada or New Zealand over night and there are a whole load of huge differences between the UK and most of those economies.

I think you're looking at at least a decade or more of turmoil as the UK economy and society adjusts.

All I can say is it'll be an interesting decade as a highly networked trading hub decides to pull out the plugs into the world's largest trading bloc and all for no particular reason other than jingoism.

All the sense talked on this thread and elsewhere is really futile. None of it is being listened to by those making decisions in London.

I suppose at least in a few years time we'll be able to look back at these threads like an archive.

I think the UK will eventually fall into a Norway style position. There is no genuine appetite for them to set up new customs arrangements and fundamentally renegotiate dozens of new trade treaties and trade deals - all to be worse off.

The transport minister was on Question Time a few weeks ago and when asked about additional customs checks, Lorry queues, building new Lorry parks in Dover etc. he just said 'it won't happen and it can't happen' - apparently unaware that it would have to happen if the UK don't remain tied to the rules of the Customs Union and Single Market.

They will huff and puff until they run out of time to be able to implement new customs arrangements and will eventually have no choice but sign up to stay aligned with Europe. I reckon most inside the UK govt see this but think it's politically impossible to come out and state it.

They will however continue to do enormous damage to existing business and future investment by essentially making their government trade policy uncertain.

Amazing to type that but I believe that is the UK's current trade policy; uncertainty.

Skedaddle

They're vastly underestimating how big a transition this will be. It's not like you can snap your fingers and become Australia, Canada or New Zealand over night and there are a whole load of huge differences between the UK and most of those economies.

I think you're looking at at least a decade or more of turmoil as the UK economy and society adjusts.

All I can say is it'll be an interesting decade as a highly networked trading hub decides to pull out the plugs into the world's largest trading bloc and all for no particular reason other than jingoism.

All the sense talked on this thread and elsewhere is really futile. None of it is being listened to by those making decisions in London.

I suppose at least in a few years time we'll be able to look back at these threads like an archive.

Zubeneschamali

Econ_ wrote: »

To tackle this false narrative would involve criticising themselves and their own policy decisions. So they didn't tackle it - they just avoided the question and that was a fatal error.

I agree it was an error in the sense that Brexit as a whole is an error, but it is not really a fatal error if you are a politician at Westminster.

The UK will be poorer, more divided, more insular and more xenophobic after Brexit, but it will still elect the same jokers to Parliament, and they will have even more power.

Skedaddle

You can add to that a series of weak governments that have been actively following trends behaving more like marketeers than actually trying to provide any kind of leadership.

The UK tabloid press has always been into hyperbole and stirring the pot, often with an agenda similar to an internet troll that can sometimes have an agenda or may simply be basking in the attention.

I just see a whole era where the UK has allowed itself to be bounced along by the tabloids and now social media.

It's become government by tabloid rather than ballot-box.

I see very little big vision or aspirational politics being put forward. It's just a whole load of pushing people's fear buttons to attain political power.

I honestly don't see any possibility of this changing until it, inevitably causes major economic chaos and people snap out of it.

The parallels with Trump's America are very strong and that too will likely only self-correct when it reaches a major crisis and the wheels fall off.

My view of it at this stage is a chaotic UK exit from the EU is inevitable because there's no political leadership strong enough to steer the ship from the rocks. So it's going to just crash straight into them. All we can hope is that the damage is minimal.

It may well result in a major rethink of how things work afterwards, but you're not really dealing with a rational debate and trying to argue using rationality doesn't work.

The facts have been laid out over and over and I really think at this stage it's the UK's mistake to make and all we can really do is watch and attempt to dodge out of the way of as much of the chaos as we can avoid.

Econ_

Sand wrote: »

I think that's unfair.

He claimed that we can't declare that other people have been deceived or misinformed and that only them themselves can decide such a thing.

It was then pointed out that if people are espousing verifiably untrue information, then they are by definition either misinformed/deceived or they are lying.

'Agreeing to disagree' at the junction in the debate is a cop out.

The criticism I would have of the Remain campaign was that it was almost entirely economic/transactional based. There was no effort to communicate any concept of the UK being a European country, with a role to play in a wider European community as expressed however awkwardly by the EU. Zero. And UK politicians are largely incapable of doing so. For 40 years they have seen the EU as merely a vehicle for economic gain. GDP stats was the only argument they had.

The stronger together in Europe argument was never going to gain traction with voters, partly for reasons you then go on to mention. I think the remain campaign were right not to go down that road.

Their major problem was that they couldn't get to grip with the immigration topic. For too long they were happy to let the public believe that free movement of people was responsible for the strains on the NHS and other public services. To tackle this false narrative would involve criticising themselves and their own policy decisions. So they didn't tackle it - they just avoided the question and that was a fatal error.

What the Leave voters stated was they had non-economic priorities. This is why support for Brexit remains stubbornly high despite all the economic bad news. To paraphrase the Clinton/Blair mantra, it's not the economy.

The priorities of leave voters are mainly non-economical and nonsensical.

For instance many leave voters will talk about sovereignty and the ability to make their own laws. But when they are asked 'which law do you currently follow because of the EU, that you don't want to?' - they invariably cannot give one single example.

Leave voters are high on rhetoric and slogans but unfortunately facts and detail are not high on the agenda. People are fed up of 'experts' indeed.

Leroy42

Here is a case in point in terms of the way that things are being reported.

The Brexit Commons select committee, chaired by Benn, has released a report with a number of measures that they feel any Brexit deal should be valued against.

This committee is made up of a selection of elected MP's.

And the line in the Express comes from JRM

“The High Priests of Remain have pushed through another report that seeks to overturn the referendum result by stealth."

Not discussion of the reason why the 15 tests are not appropriate. No discussion of what other values should be used. Just a blanket "they is trying to rob us of our democratic rights".

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/940937/brexit-news-latest-eu-referendum-jacob-rees-mogg-commons-select-committee-report

Skedaddle

The global financial crisis and the near collapse of several UK banks, which remain largely nationalised, seems to have been successfully ignored in the UK media which tended to refer to it as "the Eurozone crisis" at all times.

There's an ability to induce collective amnesia and bury things in spin in the UK that is really second to none.

If you also track the rhetoric, it was UK media that coined extremely insulting phrases like PIGS / PIIGS and then others like "Club Med" in reference to the countries in the Eurozone that were facing fiscal problems after 2008.

There's some really bizzarely "let's paint national stereotypes" thing happens in the UK media far too much, even amongst pretty respected titles.

It seems to just be coupled with a default position of jingoistic bullying in the UK media and it's the same kind of mentality that seems to poison their relationship with the EU.

I genuinely haven't seen anything quite like it anywhere else in Europe.

Leroy42

The problem that the remain side had, was that they really only had the economic argument. They had, MPs and parties, spent the last 40 years complaining that the EU (in its various forms) was the cause of nearly every problem that the UK faced.

Cameron had just been on a mission to try to get additional allowances from the EU (which in did receive some, but below the fantasy that he had promised) so even he would have a difficult time telling people the UK was in control in the EU.

To run a campaign extolling the virtues (non economic) of the EU would have been to lay bare just how useless they all had been. Many (not all) of the improvements had come about because of the EU, the best the parties could argue is that they had helped forge those changes.

But even in economic terms the stats didn't ring true. Throughout the crash and following years, the picture was painted by Cameron and Osbourne, and by Brown, that the UK were holding everything together. That they, because they were outside the Euro, because they hadn't joined up totally with EU, had escaped the worst parts of the crash.

So suddenly having to paint the EU as some sort of benefit was always going to be difficult.

The Leave side knew the position that the remain side were in, that the remain side would not be able to fight back against anything they put out. They basically could determine the debating points. The remain side wanted to only talk about the economy (which they really didn't fully believe in anyway). As was pointed out earlier, it almost because a patriotic thing.

Anyone who tried to extol the virtues of the EU, who tried to point out how much greater Great Britain was because of membership of the EU was met with calls of talking the country down and on more than one occasion I heard people reply that "why don't you think the UK is good enough".

It was a poor decision to hold the ref, a poor decision to make the ref so binary, a poor decision on the question asked, a poor decision to simply go into it with no plan, a poor decision not to get some sort of cross party support, a poorly ran campaign, lack of leadership from Cameron who basically left ot to Osbourne to make the case, a poor decision to let Osbourne make the case and a poor decision not to attempt to engage the youth vote.

Sand

Econ_ wrote: »

'Let's agree to disagree' is a cop out.

The reality is that you are ‘agreeing to disagree’ because you are unable to defend your position any further with any degree of coherent logic.

I think that's unfair. The criticism I would have of the Remain campaign was that it was almost entirely economic/transactional based. There was no effort to communicate any concept of the UK being a European country, with a role to play in a wider European community as expressed however awkwardly by the EU. Zero. And UK politicians are largely incapable of doing so. For 40 years they have seen the EU as merely a vehicle for economic gain. GDP stats was the only argument they had.

What the Leave voters stated was they had non-economic priorities. This is why support for Brexit remains stubbornly high despite all the economic bad news. To paraphrase the Clinton/Blair mantra, it's not the economy.

Capt'n Midnight

oscarBravo wrote: »

He then goes on to say that the UK won't be able to afford to have a more moral trade policy than the EU, and possibly even less so.

Moral ?

Britain’s defence exports are worth £35bn a year.

Figures seen by i show that the Government cleared export licences worth £2.9bn in the 12 months after June 2016 to 35 countries considered “not free” by Freedom House, a respected international think-tank. The figure represents a 28 per cent increase on the 12 months before the Brexit vote.

There's also the UK Overseas Territories or Crown Dependencies that act as tax havens.

9 of the 10 poorest areas in North West Europe are in the UK.

J Mysterio

I also think the uninformed saw two options:

1) Be patriotic and vote leave - 'why wouldnt UK do well outside EU'

2) Be unpatriotic and vote remain - basically saying 'UK needs the EU', so 'talking down the UK'

Professor Moriarty

Frito wrote: »

Again, we'll agree to differ. What people choose to believe, or disregard, or prioritise, is up to them. The electorate had access to the same resources. Leave voters could look up the same things that I did. That they came to a different conclusion doesn't mean they were less informed. I won't let them off that easy. Every disappointment they complain about is what they voted for, as they should be reminded.
I can disagree with Pete North, Sam Hooper et al, they are politically conservative, but I wouldn't insist they were ill-informed.

I didn't bother reading North but I did read the other two you mentioned and gave my opinion. But they aren't important. What is important is that, whether people tried to inform themselves or not, the voters were misinformed. And they continue to be misinformed.

Johnson and Farage lied their way through the Brexit campaign and research has shown that it was their charisma that swung the vote for Leave. Both continue to lie about Brexit. Plus the Telegraph/Mail/Express/Sun lied and also continue to lie. If you take Farage, Johnson and the Tory press out of the equation, Brexit would just have been a silly idea.

Econ_

'Let's agree to disagree' is a cop out.

The reality is that you are ‘agreeing to disagree’ because you are unable to defend your position any further with any degree of coherent logic.

Frito

Again, we'll agree to differ. What people choose to believe, or disregard, or prioritise, is up to them. The electorate had access to the same resources. Leave voters could look up the same things that I did. That they came to a different conclusion doesn't mean they were less informed. I won't let them off that easy. Every disappointment they complain about is what they voted for, as they should be reminded.
I can disagree with Pete North, Sam Hooper et al, they are politically conservative, but I wouldn't insist they were ill-informed.

Professor Moriarty

oscarBravo wrote: »

Of course you can. If they advance reasons for leaving that are untrue, then they're ill-informed or deceived.

I've had a skim through Pete North's most recent blog post, and I'm unimpressed. He talks about the EU's protectionist trade policies, then admits that the UK leaving won't affect those policies, except to possibly make them worse. He then goes on to say that the UK won't be able to afford to have a more moral trade policy than the EU, and possibly even less so.

The Leave Alliance site seems to full of reasons why Britain shouldn't leave the EU. Really strange 'Leave' site.

Sam Hooper seems to be obsessed with "University Professors". If he's not ranting about them, he's doing a 'nothing to see here folks, move along' on Cambridge Analytica. That's when he's not making personalised attacks on "Liberalists". Actually, his ramblings are just full of pseudointellectual bullsh1t. More heat than light.

oscarBravo

Frito wrote: »

We'll agree to differ. I used to think the same, then realised I can't determine whether people are ill-informed or deceived, they can only determine that for themselves.

Of course you can. If they advance reasons for leaving that are untrue, then they're ill-informed or deceived.

I've probably not articulated leave well, so I'd suggest Leave Alliance, Pete North, Sam Hooper blogs if you're interested in leave voter opinions.

I've had a skim through Pete North's most recent blog post, and I'm unimpressed. He talks about the EU's protectionist trade policies, then admits that the UK leaving won't affect those policies, except to possibly make them worse. He then goes on to say that the UK won't be able to afford to have a more moral trade policy than the EU, and possibly even less so.

Frito

Leroy42 wrote: »

Frito wrote: »

To clarify for another poster, I voted to remain, and would vote the same way again. But I do understand leave voters better now. Just after the vote, I was shocked and had a touch of sore loser about me, so I thought they were all ignorant. But I was wrong to think that.

Yet it appears that all the reasons that leavers have given to you are based on ignorance of reality.

I can understand the reasons why people voted to leave, doesn't mean that they were not ignorant, or to put it more politiley, ill-informed,

That doesn't mean, btw, that they were wrong. As I said, based on what they understood they were correct to vote for the UK to leave. Unfortunately, the information that they based their decision on (£350m per week for NHS, EU migrants being a massive drain on resources which only leaving could fix, UK having little to no say in the EU, EU to blame for holding up trade with 3rd Party countries etc) is almost entirely incorrect or only part of the full story.

We'll agree to differ. I used to think the same, then realised I can't determine whether people are ill-informed or deceived, they can only determine that for themselves. But even if they were, it wouldn't invalidate the vote, only a second referendum could do that. There is no appetite for a second referendum outside of remain circles.
The media plays up the bus and Cambridge Analytica/Facebook. I've probably not articulated leave well, so I'd suggest Leave Alliance, Pete North, Sam Hooper blogs if you're interested in leave voter opinions.

VonZan

I see the Guardian has moved on from Corbyn to being anti-Jewish to now telling the world that he meets in the wrong Jewish groups.

Any critism of Israel is perceived as anti-Semitism and as such the word has become largely meaningless.

I don't doubt there are some levels of anti-Semitism within grassroots labour but the outrage over this has been absolutely embarrassing for all involved.

There is a huge vaccum of critical reporting in the media in the UK.

Sam Russell

Frito wrote: »

You're right, it is. I was thinking of the commissioners.

Although Commissioners are not voted in by direct elections, that is a decision that each member state can make. Not a single state does appoint a Commissioner by either direct popular vote or by a free vote by their parliament. However, each Commissioner takes an oath to act in support of the EU as a whole and not to be partisan towards their own state.

However, it is the Council of Ministers that actually has the power of legislation, ratified by the directly elected European Parliament. Now there is a democratic deficit wrt the Parliament because the groups in the parliament are not diectly related to the national political party.

All in all, I think the EU is in better shape than the UK as regards democracy. FPTP distorts so much of voter intention and representation.

Leroy42

Frito wrote: »

To clarify for another poster, I voted to remain, and would vote the same way again. But I do understand leave voters better now. Just after the vote, I was shocked and had a touch of sore loser about me, so I thought they were all ignorant. But I was wrong to think that.

Yet it appears that all the reasons that leavers have given to you are based on ignorance of reality.

I can understand the reasons why people voted to leave, doesn't mean that they were not ignorant, or to put it more politiley, ill-informed,

That doesn't mean, btw, that they were wrong. As I said, based on what they understood they were correct to vote for the UK to leave. Unfortunately, the information that they based their decision on (£350m per week for NHS, EU migrants being a massive drain on resources which only leaving could fix, UK having little to no say in the EU, EU to blame for holding up trade with 3rd Party countries etc) is almost entirely incorrect or only part of the full story.

Frito

oscarBravo wrote: »

Frito wrote: »

...there is a sizeable Eurosceptic population that could not tolerate the loss of sovereignty or the nation state.

Parliament is, and always has been, sovereign. The "loss of sovereignty" mantra is, and always has been, a red herring. I'm not sure what the nation state issue is, apart from a fear of federalism, which was never going to happen anyway as long as the EU has member states that don't want it.

It's directly elected.

Are you sure you understand the issues better?

You're right, it is. I was thinking of the commissioners.

The sovereignty discussions I've had with leave voters are as follows:-
EUParl does not sufficiently debate all legislation due to legislation volume and speed of vote. They're little more than voting rituals.

They have little/no respect for ECHR, that any rights should be determined by individual nations.

They object to ECJ. I haven't received much of an answer when I've asked when/whom they voted for election to an WTO arbitration panel, except that ECJ is further-reaching than arbitration. They accept some sovereignty will be negotiated away during trade deals, and certainly, regulatory aspects will be lost even if we revert to WTO.

The conversations usually move on to their dissatisfaction with representative democracy (Blairite govt ratifying Lisbon without consulting electorate), and with FPTP system and centralised decision-making.
To clarify for another poster, I voted to remain, and would vote the same way again. But I do understand leave voters better now. Just after the vote, I was shocked and had a touch of sore loser about me, so I thought they were all ignorant. But I was wrong to think that.

wes

Memnoch wrote: »

There are a couple of issues that arise for me from consideration of your post.

Firstly, I am forced to ask the question whether a life-long, or decades long opposition to the behaviour of the state of Israel towards the people of Palestine can result in a creeping or normalisation of anti-semetic attitudes. I think the answer to this is yes, and so it is extremely important that we are doubly vigilant. The Israeli state, their military and their politicians must be held to account for their behaviour and their actions should be called out for what they are. But never, ever, should this be allowed to morph into any kind of negative view of Jewish people or lead to any kind of prejudgement. Those of us who are on the left must be especially vigilant with regards to this as this is where the primary opposition to the actions of the government of Israel comes from.

I would say the same also applies to Muslims. We must condemn Saudi Arabia, and other muslim states and their behaviour in equally strenuous terms, but if we start blaming Muslims in general or judging individuals then obviously this is racism.

In terms of the specifics with regards to Corbyn, so far I have seen only ONE instance of where he has actually misstepped with regards to genuine anti-semitism i.e. the graffiti. And it seems he has accepted this error and apologised.

I do not see any evidence of this pattern of behaviour that you seem to be outlining, and to me, that is where there is a clear campaign to smear by innuendo and association. By simply piling on circumstantial items without context in the hope that the sheer burden of numbers will have the desired effect. This is consistent with the pattern of smearing that the political and news establishment have engaged against him since the day he became leader of the labour party.

If you have other clear examples where he has acted as you suggest could you please provide links to the same? Otherwise I would ask you to kindly re-examine your assumptions and conclusions on this issue.

The attacks on Corbyn are really taking the cake. I am not fan of him, due to his position on Brexit, but the stuff being said is some nonsense. Apparently he is an anti-Semite for attending a Jewish event now, but apparently the people behind the event aren't really Jewish or something (because they criticized Israel apparently, what next people aren't Muslim if they criticize Saudi Arabia for the Yemen slaughter?). The whole thing is a farce, and doubly so when you have far right racist nutters like Guido Fawkes thinking they get to decide who is and isn't Jewish.

Memnoch

Peregrinus wrote: »

But this is the problem, really.

The accusation against Corbyn, as far as I can see, is not that he's an antisemite. It's that he's culpably blind to antisemitism, and therefore an enabler of antisemitism.

And that accusation is reinforced, not rebutted, by explaining Corbyn's support for this artist by saying that Corbyn failed to see the (fairly blatant, it has to be said) antisemitic nature of the artwork concerned, a picture of which was included in the tweet to which Corbyn replied. Corbyn's failure to see such things is precisely the problem.

There are a couple of issues that arise for me from consideration of your post.

Firstly, I am forced to ask the question whether a life-long, or decades long opposition to the behaviour of the state of Israel towards the people of Palestine can result in a creeping or normalisation of anti-semetic attitudes. I think the answer to this is yes, and so it is extremely important that we are doubly vigilant. The Israeli state, their military and their politicians must be held to account for their behaviour and their actions should be called out for what they are. But never, ever, should this be allowed to morph into any kind of negative view of Jewish people or lead to any kind of prejudgement. Those of us who are on the left must be especially vigilant with regards to this as this is where the primary opposition to the actions of the government of Israel comes from.

I would say the same also applies to Muslims. We must condemn Saudi Arabia, and other muslim states and their behaviour in equally strenuous terms, but if we start blaming Muslims in general or judging individuals then obviously this is racism.

In terms of the specifics with regards to Corbyn, so far I have seen only ONE instance of where he has actually misstepped with regards to genuine anti-semitism i.e. the graffiti. And it seems he has accepted this error and apologised.

I do not see any evidence of this pattern of behaviour that you seem to be outlining, and to me, that is where there is a clear campaign to smear by innuendo and association. By simply piling on circumstantial items without context in the hope that the sheer burden of numbers will have the desired effect. This is consistent with the pattern of smearing that the political and news establishment have engaged against him since the day he became leader of the labour party.

If you have other clear examples where he has acted as you suggest could you please provide links to the same? Otherwise I would ask you to kindly re-examine your assumptions and conclusions on this issue.

flatty

Leroy42 wrote: »

Frito wrote: »

I think a lot of people are better informed now than at the referendum - I'm one of them. But I wouldn't change my vote, nor do I think the vote is delegitimised.
For all the stereotypes of gammon-faced racists screeching about foreigners, there is a sizeable Eurosceptic population that could not tolerate the loss of sovereignty or the nation state. So the economic impact in the short-to-medium-term doesn't bother them, they think it will sufficiently recover long-term. If it doesn't, they might complain and moan about the drop in living standards, but I doubt they would regret their Leave vote.

What are you better informed about?

What were the things that led you to vote the way you did and does the new information not have any impact on that?

It is curious that despite nearly everything that the leave said said during the campaign, including but not limited to the £350m per week, the mis-selling of the extent on EU migration and the power that UK still retained in this regard, the power that the UK would have in the split, the ease of international trade etc, despite all this an more being shown to be at best wishful thinking, that based on the polls the vote would remain pretty much the same as before.

They do, but this is because the vast swathe of the mainstream media, controlled a small coterie of grey men, are enthusiastically behind brexit. The BBC has abrogated responsibility, and is choosing to ignore the issues.
So, whilst those who have gone looking have managed to uncover more of the truth, the majority of the population remain relatively unaware, trusting, in my opinion foolishly, that teresa may is acting in the best interests of the country.

oscarBravo

Frito wrote: »

...there is a sizeable Eurosceptic population that could not tolerate the loss of sovereignty or the nation state.

Parliament is, and always has been, sovereign. The "loss of sovereignty" mantra is, and always has been, a red herring. I'm not sure what the nation state issue is, apart from a fear of federalism, which was never going to happen anyway as long as the EU has member states that don't want it.

Frito wrote: »

I understand better the complaints Leave voters had about the European parliament being antidemocratic. I don't mean the unelected part, because it is indirectly elected...

It's directly elected.

Are you sure you understand the issues better?

Leroy42

The issue I have with the leave side, and the sovereignty claim, is that no-one seems to be able to articulate what that actually is.

So on one hand we have clear costs to leaving. Even the act of leaving itself is already budgeted to cost £4bn, and that doesn't take into account the ongoing costs of additional administration of customs, extra border checks, the economic cost (in terms of the price of good) of the additional customs queue etc etc.

On the other we have this, at least to me, vague notion of 'taking back control'. "Free to make our own laws" etc. Yet even a cursory look will see that this notion that the UK is somehow controlled by Brussels as wrong. How come the UK are not using the Euro? Why are they not in Schengen? Why do they still use miles and lbs? Why is abortion still illegal in NI? Why are tax rates different in different countries? WHy do the UK still drive on the left?

There are so many examples of UK laws not having to align with the EU that one can only consider that the UK do indeed have the ability to make their own laws.

Even the recent argument over fishing rights. In appears that many of the fishing rights have been sold by the UK companies to EU companies. So the ire really belongs to the companies that sold out the UK, not the EU.

So whilst I can appreciate the argument that economic forecasts are just that, they are not proof of anything (although the absence of any positive reports is a telling sign), even if we take the view that over the long term the economy will be roughly the same, I fail to see, beyond some vague notion, of what the outcome of Brexit is supposed to be.

When taking such a serious decision, I would have thought that most people would have considered what it is they are going to get.

I also find it ironic that in country such as the UK, with an electoral system such as FPTP, which is not giving the representation to the people, and which continues on with an unelected Lords as the final sign-off, that they turned their ire towards the EU rather than looking to fix their own house first.

demfad

Frito wrote: »

I am better informed about EEA/EFTA, I understand that the Customs Union is not the same as checks at borders.

I understand better the complaints Leave voters had about the European parliament being antidemocratic. I don't mean the unelected part, because it is indirectly elected, more specifically the idea that voting rituals don't equal democracy. That said, those Leave voters consider the UK govt to be in need of reform, because decision-making is centralised and should be devolved.

I voted to remain for economic reasons. If we had the same binary referendum again, I would still vote to remain.
If we had different options, where there was a realistic possibility of EEA/EFTA membership, then I would vote for that. Not because I particularly want to leave, but because the Eurosceptics are never going to go away, and that seems like a good compromise.

This is a problem in all EU countries to varying degrees but the issue is with local parties IMO.
They campaign as local parties without addressing European issues at the doorstep. This completely severs the connection between voter and policy and weakens democracy.
This suits local parties as they are less accountable, but this should have only been a transition in the evolution of the parliament.
If the electorate are ill-informed about policy then it allows parties like UKIP to thrive based on this ignorance.
"The EU makes policies for you that you don't know about and can't really influence" is technically true but the reason lies in the dishonesty and lack of integrity of local parties who could sort this easily.

listermint

Frito wrote: »

There aren't, but that's beside the point for them.
People who voted Leave for sovereignty reasons are prepared to take an economic hit. Some of them who sincerely believe we can recover don't give much credit to economic forecasts...the 'experts' problem. I think they're in cloud cuckoo land, but, economics was the deciding factor for my remain vote.

Sovereignty.

Let's stick with.

Discuss with us what particular sovereignty you will get back and how that will impact you or others in Britain. Specifics please . Because you did indicate you were well versed in the subject matter

Frito

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Frito wrote: »

There aren't, but that's beside the point for them.

But you said:

So the economic impact in the short-to-medium-term doesn't bother them, they think it will sufficiently recover long-term.

If you mean that they know it will cost them long term and still think it will somehow be worth it for intangible reasons like patriotism and St. George, well fine, but you seem to be saying that these well informed Leavers think that that it will not cost them long term, which is just the same as saying they are still ignorant.

My reason for this is because I understand that the economic argument is a remain argument, not a leave one.
Sovereignty is the leave issue.

I'm not going to patronise Leave voters as ignorant or deceived. If those who say they knew what they were voting for, don't trust economic forecasts, but still think we will have as good if not better economic situation than EU membership, then I'll take them at face value and say their expectations are unrealistic.

Frito

I am better informed about EEA/EFTA, I understand that the Customs Union is not the same as checks at borders.

I understand better the complaints Leave voters had about the European parliament being antidemocratic. I don't mean the unelected part, because it is indirectly elected, more specifically the idea that voting rituals don't equal democracy. That said, those Leave voters consider the UK govt to be in need of reform, because decision-making is centralised and should be devolved.

I voted to remain for economic reasons. If we had the same binary referendum again, I would still vote to remain.
If we had different options, where there was a realistic possibility of EEA/EFTA membership, then I would vote for that. Not because I particularly want to leave, but because the Eurosceptics are never going to go away, and that seems like a good compromise.