Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

CelticRambler wrote: »

How do you know?

Have you read any of my latest posts?

The Leave side and Remain side were consistent - both claimed that Leave wanted to leave the single market.

That's how I, and everyone else, knows.

Deleted User wrote: »

Furthermore, here is Nigel Farage talking about the Norway option in its full context and how it's perfect for what Norway has independently chosen to do, but it's not something that Farage wants for the UK (first 1min 45 seconds)

From 2 min 34 seconds, Nigel Farage declares that he does not want the UK to be a member of the single market.

This is what happens when the Remain side is exposed to facts they did not know existed. Inside their own bubble of propaganda, they've rechurned these canards about the single market without having done an iota of research beyond a silly YouTube collection of misquotes.

He clearly talks about having a "deal" with the EU and suggests it will be even better than the Norway one (3.50)

Strazdas wrote: »

He clearly talks about having a "deal" with the EU and suggests it will be even better than the Norway one (3.50)

Only a fool wouldn't want a deal with the EU, so what's your point?

The claim was that Nigel Farage wanted the UK to remain a member of the single market.

That video, and many others if Remainers take the time to research, shows that he did not.

Are any Remainers here willing to admit they got that wrong?

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

The Leave side and Remain side were consistent - both claimed that Leave wanted to leave the single market.

But you also believe that politicians lie for personal and party gain. Just because they both tell the same story doesn't make it true.

I think I counted six lies/untruths/disingenuous comments in that Farage video. Why should anyone trust him on the Single Market statement?

Once again: if "Leave" was such a simple concept to understand, why was Brexit been frustrated by Leave-leaning MPs five times during the last Parliament? Including three times by Boris Johnson.

Deleted User wrote: »

Only a fool wouldn't want a deal with the EU, so what's your point?

The claim was that Nigel Farage wanted the UK to remain a member of the single market.

That video, and many others if Remainers take the time to research, shows that he did not.

Are any Remainers here willing to admit they got that wrong?

'Member' of the Single Market is a technical detail. Leave voters were told that the UK could carry on trading tariff free with the SM as if nothing had even happened - just that Britain would be able to get rid of pesky EU rules and that horrible freedom of movement in the process.

There was no mention whatsoever of the economy taking a massive hit or the pound being permanently devalued.

PeadarCo

CelticRambler wrote:

Once again: if "Leave" was such a simple concept to understand, why was Brexit been frustrated by Leave-leaning MPs five times during the last Parliament? Including three times by Boris Johnson.

This point is very important. Leaving the EU can be very easy. Simply leave the EU but agree to follow all EU laws, regulations, European Court of Justice, tariffs, any budgetary contributions etc. All that would change is that a country would lose any direct influence over EU regulations and tariffs. It's a deal that could be done in days.

However anything else including a no deal brexit makes things infinitely more complicated. A no deal Brexit while a simple concept means getting rid of 40 plus years of laws overnight which anyone sensible including most Brexiters know would cause chaos. Hence the reason the UK have repeatedly asked for extensions.

And then you have everything in between the two positions above. Remain is a simple concept. Leave isn't because its proponents can't face up to the trade offs that leaving the EU entails. Trade offs that were dismissed as Project Fear. In hindsight the biggest issue was that even remainers didn't fully understand the weakness of the UK position. From memory(so open to correction) they never challenged the "take back control" slogan. Brexit is all about the UK losing control as the last 2 years had shown.

Deleted User wrote: »

If Remain had won by 52 to 48% and Cameron decided, for whatever reason, that the country should still Leave the EU because the result is non-binding, how would you have reacted? Imagine if terms such as Soft Remain and Hard Remain were manufactured, too; that because Remain only had a marginal win, Leave voters should be accommodated and the UK should leave in some capacity to appease them.

Or, put another way, imagine the UK in 2016 was voting to join the EU. Join won by a margin of 52:48, yet Cameron decides that it's a non-binding referendum and that the UK should be forced to stay outside the EU.

In both of these cases, Remainers would have been collectively psychotic.

Replace Remain with Leave above, and you can perhaps come close - just a little - to understanding the fury that Brexiteers have over what has, and continues to, transpire.

If Cameron wanted to leave the EU, he did not need a referendum to do it. All he needed to do was write a letter to trigger the A50 process. There is nothing in EU or UK ,aw requiring a referendum to be held. The only reason a referendum was held was a misguided atempt to shut up the Eurosceptics in the Tory party and cut the legs out from under UKIP.

If government policy was to leave the EU and a majority in parliament supported it then it is unlikely a referendum would have been held at all, they would have just passed an EU withdrawl act and moved on with it. Remainers would presumably have been upset by this, but so what? Government is not obliged to keep everyone happy.

CelticRambler wrote: »

But you also believe that politicians lie for personal and party gain. Just because they both tell the same story doesn't make it true.

I think I counted six lies/untruths/disingenuous comments in that Farage video. Why should anyone trust him on the Single Market statement?

Once again: if "Leave" was such a simple concept to understand, why was Brexit been frustrated by Leave-leaning MPs five times during the last Parliament? Including three times by Boris Johnson.

Well then you're trying to have your cake and eat it; condemning me for supporting liars, whilst you yourself have just endorsed the same point of view.

I don't think Leave is simple per se, it's a big question. But what May offered was a form of Remain, not Leave. To put it in a less-than-optimal way, if 1 is Leave and 10 is Remain, Mrs. May's EU treaty is probably around 7.5.

First Up

Strazdas wrote:

'Member' of the Single Market is a technical detail. Leave voters were told that the UK could carry on trading tariff free with the SM as if nothing had even happened - just that Britain would be able to get rid of pesky EU rules and that horrible freedom of movement in the process.

Correct. Some UK politicians (and some advisers who should have known better) were confident that the UK could could secure a "mutual recognition" agreement with the EU through which anything good enough for the UK would be accepted as good enough for the EU.

The saner UK officials - including former ambassador Ivan Rogers - did their best to explain why this was a non runner but it fell on deaf ears.

The nonsense that the UK could retain all the trade and economic benefits of SM membership while ditching any of the obligations they didn't like became a Brexit Mantra. Leaving the Single Market held no fear because they didn't understand the consequences.

They are starting to understand them now.

First Up wrote: »

Correct. Some UK politicians (and some advisers who should have known better) were confident that the UK could could secure a "mutual recognition" agreement with the EU through which anything good enough for the UK would be accepted as good enough for the EU.

The saner UK officials - including former ambassador Ivan Rogers - did their best to explain why this was a non runner but it fell on deaf ears.

The nonsense that the UK could retain all the trade and economic benefits of SM membership while ditching any of the obligations they didn't like became a Brexit Mantra. Leaving the Single Market held no fear because they didn't understand the consequences.

They are starting to understand them now.

Indeed, it would be like going to your local golf club or gym and saying "I want to use all of your facilities like a normal member, but I have no desire to be bound by any of your rules and regulations.....they won't apply to me".

First Up wrote: »

Correct. Some UK politicians (and some advisers who should have known better) were confident that the UK could could secure a "mutual recognition" agreement with the EU through which anything good enough for the UK would be accepted as good enough for the EU.

Mrs. May rejected a free trade option by the EU in favour of a "close and special relationship with the EU" (i.e. a form of Remain), according to Steve Baker.

In March 2018, DExEU Brexit ministers took a decision to go for an FTA-based Brexit – a free trade agreement-based Brexit. A few weeks later, the EU offered us that kind of exit.

"I was rejoicing but that wasn’t good enough for the Prime Minister. That is the ultimate source of all of these difficulties - she tried to keep us much more highly aligned to the EU.

Mrs. May turned out to become a dream for Remainers after the Brexit nightmare vote.

A sensible and reasonable Brexit deal was on offer; May - and her election catastrophe - is what spiralled us into this mess.

Deleted User wrote: »

Well then you're trying to have your cake and eat it; condemning me for supporting liars, whilst you yourself have just endorsed the same point of view.

I don't think Leave is simple per se, it's a big question. But what May offered was a form of Remain, not Leave. To put it in a less-than-optimal way, if 1 is Leave and 10 is Remain, Mrs. May's EU treaty is probably around 7.5.

I think this underlines the confused and ambigious nature of the meaning of Leave. Clearly May's deal would have seen the UK leave the EU. Many leave voters believed those promoters of leaving the EU who advocated a close relationship with the EU including Customs Union and Single Market membership after Brexit, and voted for leave on the understanding that it would look something akin to May's deal or even softer than May's deal. Others like yourself have such a vastly different idea of what leaving the EU is supposed to be that what one person would call leaving, you call remaining. Given this level of disagreement on what leave means, it is highly disengenious to suggest that everyone knew what they were voting for when they voted leave in 2016. Obviously many people had vastly different ideas of what leave would mean.

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I think this underlines the confused and ambigious nature of the meaning of Leave. Clearly May's deal would have seen the UK leave the EU. Many leave voters believed those promoters of leaving the EU who advocated a close relationship with the EU including Customs Union and Single Market membership after Brexit, and voted for leave on the understanding that it would look something akin to May's deal or even softer than May's deal. Others like yourself have such a vastly different idea of what leaving the EU is supposed to be that what one person would call leaving, you call remaining. Given this level of disagreement on what leave means, it is highly disengenious to suggest that everyone knew what they were voting for when they voted leave in 2016. Obviously many people had vastly different ideas of what leave would mean.

Opinion polls have shown that large numbers of people didn't even know what the Single Market was or how it worked. They only had an extremely vague notion about its role (which is how many millions of people were conned into thinking a vote to leave the EU would have few negative consequences.....most of them thought things would carry on as before and the exit from the EU would be simple and straightforward).

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I think this underlines the confused and ambigious nature of the meaning of Leave. Clearly May's deal would have seen the UK leave the EU. Many leave voters believed those promoters of leaving the EU who advocated a close relationship with the EU including Customs Union and Single Market membership after Brexit, and voted for leave on the understanding that it would look something akin to May's deal or even softer than May's deal. Others like yourself have such a vastly different idea of what leaving the EU is supposed to be that what one person would call leaving, you call remaining. Given this level of disagreement on what leave means, it is highly disengenious to suggest that everyone knew what they were voting for when they voted leave in 2016. Obviously many people had vastly different ideas of what leave would mean.

And the same is true for Remain.

One person's Remain may involve a predilection for federalisation, whereas another Remainer may not.

One Remainer may wish to join the Euro, another not.

According to a YouGov poll today, 20% of Remainers disapprove of freedom of movement.

I imagine the attitude against the European Defence Pact would stir up similar figures.

The idea that Remain is a static, concrete bloc of support is simply not true.

One of Nick Clegg's lies during the campaign was to rubbish the idea of a European Defence Pact (or "European Army", as some call it). He knew perfectly well he was lying to the people. Brussels has made no attempt to quieten the fact that a common European defence should be formed by 2025 to "show the strength" of the EU on the world stage. But he gets a free pass by almost everyone, but Johnson's tepid relationship with the truth is bordering obsessional.

I doubt many Remainers in the UK support that horrible idea (Edit: I found one poll, which suggests 36% of Brits support the idea).

McGiver

Deleted User wrote: »

And the same is true for Remain.

One person's Remain may involve a predilection for federalisation, whereas another Remainer may not.

One Remainer may wish to join the Euro, another not.

According to a YouGov poll today, 20% of Remainers disapprove of freedom of movement.

I imagine the attitude against the European Defence Pact would stir up similar figures.

The idea that Remain is a static, concrete bloc of support is simply not true.

One of Nick Clegg's lies during the campaign was to rubbish the idea of a European Defence Pact (or "European Army", as some call it). He knew perfectly well he was lying to the people. Brussels has made no attempt to quieten the fact that a common European defence should be formed by 2025 to "show the strength" of the EU on the world stage. But he gets a free pass by almost everyone, but Johnson's tepid relationship with the truth is bordering obsessional.

I doubt many Remainers in the UK support that horrible idea.

No. Remain = status quo.

Further evolution of the EU is irrelevant, especially given that UK would have a veto for any from its point of view undesirable evolution.

Deleted User wrote: »

And the same is true for Remain.

One person's Remain may involve a predilection for federalisation, whereas another Remainer may not.

One Remainer may wish to join the Euro, another not.

According to a YouGov poll today, 20% of Remainers disapprove of freedom of movement.

I imagine the attitude against the European Defence Pact would stir up similar figures.

The idea that Remain is a static, concrete bloc of support is simply not true.

One of Nick Clegg's lies during the campaign was to rubbish the idea of a European Defence Pact (or "European Army", as some call it). He knew perfectly well he was lying to the people. Brussels has made no attempt to quieten the fact that a common European defence should be formed by 2025 to "show the strength" of the EU on the world stage. But he gets a free pass by almost everyone, but Johnson's tepid relationship with the truth is bordering obsessional.

I doubt many Remainers in the UK support that horrible idea (Edit: I found one poll, which suggests 36% of Brits support the idea).

I highly doubt it, indeed this atempt to suggest that there was an equilivence of ambiguity on what remain would mean is hardly credible. People know what remain ment as they had plenty of experience of it. Remain was the status quo option.

Some people who supported remain may not have liked FOM, but they were surely aware that remaining within the EU ment keeping FOM and their support for remain was despite the existance of FOM.

One remainer may support joining the Euro and another not, but there was no serious concepton that voting for remain would result in the UK joining the Euro. Again, people had a clear idea of what voting for remain would mean becasue voting for remain ment keeping already existing and known conditions.

Unlike leave, which no-one could outline in detail and indeed still no-one can tell you what it will look like with any certainty, remain was a clearly defined option.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

Well then you're trying to have your cake and eat it; condemning me for supporting liars, whilst you yourself have just endorsed the same point of view.

I endorse it to the extent of treating any politician's pronouncement as part of their next election campaign, then subject it to critical analysis based on real-world parameters. A case in point: Corbyn's plan to renationalise broadband is (imo) completely bonkers.

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think Leave is simple per se, it's a big question. But what May offered was a form of Remain, not Leave. To put it in a less-than-optimal way, if 1 is Leave and 10 is Remain, Mrs. May's EU treaty is probably around 7.5.

OK, so we agree on the "not simple" side; but I think your scale is wrong. Remain is 0, i.e. no change to the status quo (but potential to be 1,2, 3, 4 in the future) and Leave is <0. On that scale, I'd accept that May's WA would be -0.75 (compared to Johnson's WA at -0.7)

May's WA - like Johnson's - would have resulted in the UK leaving the EU, so there is no question that it was a Leave deal.

Deleted User wrote: »

One person's Remain may involve a predilection for federalisation, whereas another Remainer may not.

One Remainer may wish to join the Euro, another not.

According to a YouGov poll today, 20% of Remainers disapprove of freedom of movement.

I imagine the attitude against the European Defence Pact would stir up similar figures.

The idea that Remain is a static, concrete bloc of support is simply not true.

No-one ever said it was, but as a member, the UK had the option of influencing the future development of the EU; as a member, the UK was already exercising several opt-outs (keeping the GBP, enjoying an annual rebate, being outside the Schengen Area ...); the UK voluntarily opted out of imposing EU rules on Freedom-of-Movement migration; and the UK voluntarily chose to import all relevant EU legislation to the UK statute books prior to leaving the bloc.

So back to the present/immediate future. Assuming you get your wish, that Johnson (despite his lies and unlawful activities) is returned the HoC as Prime Minster of a Conservative majority and he manages to "get Brexit done" early in 2020, what the first three laws, controls or economic improvements you want to see enacted once GB is free from the shackles of the EU?

fash

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think Leave is simple per se, it's a big question. But what May offered was a form of Remain, not Leave. .

In the sense that war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength you are absolutely correct.
Otherwise, ist es nicht nur richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch.

PeadarCo

eskimohunt wrote:

I don't think Leave is simple per se, it's a big question. But what May offered was a form of Remain, not Leave. To put it in a less-than-optimal way, if 1 is Leave and 10 is Remain, Mrs. May's EU treaty is probably around 7.5.

May's deal and BJ versio of that deal is a hard Brexit deal It meant ultimately leaving the single market and customs union. This is best exemplified by the issues around the backstop. The border only becomes an issue if the UK leaves either the SM and or CU. A soft Brexit would see the UK staying in at least one of these key areas. A soft Brexit along the lines of what are taking about with your score of 7.5 means staying in both and that would mean no need for border controls.

Both May and Johnson have had deals have been about leaving both. The only Brexit deal that is a harder Brexit is a no deal brexit.

briany

PeadarCo wrote: »

May's deal and BJ versio of that deal is a hard Brexit deal It meant ultimately leaving the single market and customs union. This is best exemplified by the issues around the backstop. The border only becomes an issue if the UK leaves either the SM and or CU. A soft Brexit would see the UK staying in at least one of these key areas. A soft Brexit along the lines of what are taking about with your score of 7.5 means staying in both and that would mean no need for border controls.

Both May and Johnson have had deals have been about leaving both. The only Brexit deal that is a harder Brexit is a no deal brexit.

You really have to be wary of no-deal advocates. When they say they want no deal, that's just what they mean. It's disguised as a temporary bargaining chip to get the EU to capitulate in an FTA, but that's never realistically going to happen. The EU is not going to turn around and give the UK unfettered access to the Single Market without having to play by its rules. So, no-deal is less of a chip and more of a wedge. One that would ensure lasting and deepening division between the UK and EU.

Danzy

briany wrote: »

You really have to be wary of no-deal advocates. When they say they want no deal, that's just what they mean. It's disguised as a temporary bargaining chip to get the EU to capitulate in an FTA, but that's never realistically going to happen. The EU is not going to turn around and give the UK unfettered access to the Single Market without having to play by its rules. So, no-deal is less of a chip and more of a wedge. One that would ensure lasting and deepening division between the UK and EU.

Which is why you couldn't fill a minibus with Mps who would back a No Deal Brexit.

BonnieSituation

I had a busy day, and in my own stupidity I waded through that mind-numbing back and forth on the bus home.

I still haven't seen one tangible benefit mentioned.

Just one tangible and quantifiable benefit, if I get that from our resident Leavers I'll rest easy.

I mean, there must be one benefit to the upheaval of nearly half a century of integration and prosperity.

You'd swear that the UK that joined the EEC was some paragon of wealth and sense and stability.

looksee

Deleted User wrote: »

And the same is true for Remain.

One person's Remain may involve a predilection for federalisation, whereas another Remainer may not.

One Remainer may wish to join the Euro, another not.

According to a YouGov poll today, 20% of Remainers disapprove of freedom of movement.

I imagine the attitude against the European Defence Pact would stir up similar figures.

The idea that Remain is a static, concrete bloc of support is simply not true.

One of Nick Clegg's lies during the campaign was to rubbish the idea of a European Defence Pact (or "European Army", as some call it). He knew perfectly well he was lying to the people. Brussels has made no attempt to quieten the fact that a common European defence should be formed by 2025 to "show the strength" of the EU on the world stage. But he gets a free pass by almost everyone, but Johnson's tepid relationship with the truth is bordering obsessional.

I doubt many Remainers in the UK support that horrible idea (Edit: I found one poll, which suggests 36% of Brits support the idea).

This is patently rubbish. Remain meant very simply - nothing happens, tomorrow will be the same as today, life continues unchanged in terms of belonging to the EU.

All the stuff you have listed is whatiffery. It has not happened, why go through all the disturbance and distress caused by leaving just to not be involved in something that probably will not happen, and if it were proposed, the UK as a member could vote down. It does not make any sense.

Leave, on the other hand, is uncharted waters. There could be - and in fact are - numerous possibilities and alternatives that were not accounted for in that non-binding, ill considered referendum.

Remain = everything stays the same
Leave = everything changes, but to what?

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I mean, there must be one benefit to the upheaval of nearly half a century of integration and prosperity.

You'd swear that the UK that joined the EEC was some paragon of wealth and sense and stability.

It's far, far more likely that you are so wedded to your views that you cannot possibly see any benefit, none whatsoever, of a proper Brexit.

The UK must always remain in the EU, and that must never change. That is your view and you're entitled to that.

But there's also the question of dogmatism, almost religious in nature. Many here, throughout the many pages I've discussed this question, have brought up issues such as lies around the single market by Farage and others, yet all the evidence I adduced shows that there was almost unanimity on the question that the UK should leave the single market.

Rather than admit they were wrong, they ignore the evidence I adduce and move onto another problem with leaving the single market.

That's not objective accuracy; that's the blind adherence to dogma.

It's quite funny to witness, too, because many others here will accuse me of blind adherence to Brexit (even though I have infinitely admitted weaknesses within its leaders, the campaign, and the actual delivery of Brexit), but, from the other side, they are so arrogantly confident that they are absolutely right about absolutely everything - now, in the past, and eternal to the future - that no possible sense of perspective is sought.

First Up

eskimohunt wrote:

It's quite funny to witness, too, because many others here will accuse me of blind adherence to Brexit (even though I have infinitely admitted weaknesses within its leaders, the campaign, and the actual delivery of Brexit), but, from the other side, they are so arrogantly confident that they are absolutely right about absolutely everything - now, in the past, and eternal to the future - that no possible sense of perspective is sought.

What's really funny to witness is you inventing an unreality (the EU might become a federal state) as your best argument against the undeniable reality of the UK walking out of the market where it does almost half its business.

Deleted User wrote: »

It's far, far more likely that you are so wedded to your views that you cannot possibly see any benefit, none whatsoever, of a proper Brexit.

Far from being able to argue that Brexit is a good idea for the UK in the round, Brexit supporters struggles to suggest any positives at all. There is a reason that Blue Passports get brought up so often as shorthand for the benefits of Brexit. There is little other than meaningless symbolism to show for the damage Brexit will cause the UK.

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Far from being able to argue that Brexit is a good idea for the UK in the round, Brexit supporters struggles to suggest any positives at all. There is a reason that Blue Passports get brought up so often as shorthand for the benefits of Brexit. There is little other than meaningless symbolism to show for the damage Brexit will cause the UK.

So for purely clarificative purposes, are you willing to admit that there are no benefits, no positives - nothing worth considering - when it comes to leaving the European Union?