| This is Brexit on 09:26 - Nov 17 with 1263 views | grumpy |
| This is Brexit on 08:59 - Nov 17 by saint901 |
The EU (as in the old Common Market) was originally intended to be a support mechanism for the various initiatives to keep the peace in Europe after the second war. After a stall (League of Nations) and a rebrand, it has been successful because it has brought the two European super powers (Germany and France) into alignment, most of the time.
Being part of the EU club meant that countries with a more volatile political makeup and where a populist party could achieve power for a time (Italy, Spain) would have less influence and not start marching armies over borders.
Again, largely successful.
The UK's error was in not joining from the beginning and thereby influencing the shape and policy of that beast. Instead the political parties in the UK were obsessed with the UK being a superpower in its own right. It wasn't in the 50's and 60's and probably never will be again.
The point and purpose of the EU has naturally shifted over the decades. As political stability was achieved, the EU began to believe its own publicity and growth became an objective rather than its core values. So eventually we end up with the German economic mammoth being expected to bale out the Greek economy which failed because of the actions of the Greek Gov't. We then have Eastern European states joining, not because they bring financial or technical or cultural benefits, but because they are a bulwark against Russia.
Trying to juggle the needs of 26(?) countries and thousands of ego driven politicians against the gains from acting together is hopeless.
The Tory Brexiteers had their own motives as well, many I think believing that the UK was still a super power but by the time they sent Cameron out to bring the EU into the UK line of thinking, it was too late. European leaders saw us as arrogant and ungrateful and hence we see our "punishment" continuing.
My view is that the EU was broken and that the benefits were being felt disproportionately by those countries that had in some manner failed or were members for political rather than economic reasons. The UK failed to act in time and got a bloody nose when we eventually did act. That UK action was also to satisfy the Tory party internal fighting rather than any objective pursuit of benefit to the UK.
In the end the error on both sides was to make the decision a simple "in/out" with no alternative such as a associate membership. That error was the fault of all sides. |
A very well balanced view, saint901. |  | |  |
| This is Brexit on 10:36 - Nov 17 with 1214 views | DorsetIan |
| This is Brexit on 08:59 - Nov 17 by saint901 |
The EU (as in the old Common Market) was originally intended to be a support mechanism for the various initiatives to keep the peace in Europe after the second war. After a stall (League of Nations) and a rebrand, it has been successful because it has brought the two European super powers (Germany and France) into alignment, most of the time.
Being part of the EU club meant that countries with a more volatile political makeup and where a populist party could achieve power for a time (Italy, Spain) would have less influence and not start marching armies over borders.
Again, largely successful.
The UK's error was in not joining from the beginning and thereby influencing the shape and policy of that beast. Instead the political parties in the UK were obsessed with the UK being a superpower in its own right. It wasn't in the 50's and 60's and probably never will be again.
The point and purpose of the EU has naturally shifted over the decades. As political stability was achieved, the EU began to believe its own publicity and growth became an objective rather than its core values. So eventually we end up with the German economic mammoth being expected to bale out the Greek economy which failed because of the actions of the Greek Gov't. We then have Eastern European states joining, not because they bring financial or technical or cultural benefits, but because they are a bulwark against Russia.
Trying to juggle the needs of 26(?) countries and thousands of ego driven politicians against the gains from acting together is hopeless.
The Tory Brexiteers had their own motives as well, many I think believing that the UK was still a super power but by the time they sent Cameron out to bring the EU into the UK line of thinking, it was too late. European leaders saw us as arrogant and ungrateful and hence we see our "punishment" continuing.
My view is that the EU was broken and that the benefits were being felt disproportionately by those countries that had in some manner failed or were members for political rather than economic reasons. The UK failed to act in time and got a bloody nose when we eventually did act. That UK action was also to satisfy the Tory party internal fighting rather than any objective pursuit of benefit to the UK.
In the end the error on both sides was to make the decision a simple "in/out" with no alternative such as a associate membership. That error was the fault of all sides. |
You say that the error was to make the decision so binary and that that was the fault of both sides.
For me, the error allowing the decision to be so ambiguous, because it still left open the possibility of *how* we would leave. That I see as Cameron's fault.
There could be no ambiguity about what remaining 'in' meant, as we were already in, so we knew what that meant.
But the ambiguity about how we would leave allowed the 'leave' to campaign on all sorts of different promises, particularly they could tone down how extreme leaving would need to be (we wouldn't necessarily have to leave the Customs Union, Single Market etc). This must have won them votes on the margins from moderate leavers.
But then as soon as the result was in the narrative switched, leave meant leave, there could be no compromise, no second vote on how we might leave and we ended up with the most abrupt departure.
But, as you say, we are where we are. |  |
| |
| This is Brexit on 12:07 - Nov 17 with 1186 views | Bazza |
Some points on the above reasonable viewpoints;
De Gaulle delayed the UK joining the Common Market by several years possibly changing the later balance of power. the UK were always considered disruptive newbies.
The exchange rate fixes for the Euro introduction disadvantaged the southern European countries.
No comment has been made about the significant number of Labour voters and constituencies voting to leave.
Anything other than a binary vote decision would have inevitably caused a hung vote (i.e. to Remain) and there were also too many alternative proposals to enable a choice.
It was made very clear that a Leave vote would mean leaving the common market, ('you can't be a half pregnant') was quoted. | | | |
| This is Brexit on 13:39 - Nov 17 with 1151 views | Messysaints |
| This is Brexit on 10:36 - Nov 17 by DorsetIan |
You say that the error was to make the decision so binary and that that was the fault of both sides.
For me, the error allowing the decision to be so ambiguous, because it still left open the possibility of *how* we would leave. That I see as Cameron's fault.
There could be no ambiguity about what remaining 'in' meant, as we were already in, so we knew what that meant.
But the ambiguity about how we would leave allowed the 'leave' to campaign on all sorts of different promises, particularly they could tone down how extreme leaving would need to be (we wouldn't necessarily have to leave the Customs Union, Single Market etc). This must have won them votes on the margins from moderate leavers.
But then as soon as the result was in the narrative switched, leave meant leave, there could be no compromise, no second vote on how we might leave and we ended up with the most abrupt departure.
But, as you say, we are where we are. |
to me leave means leave. no ambiguity about it. was no option for deal. soft brexita mid way brexit and a hard. was just a stay or leave.. cant vote on a trade deals before we even knew if we was leaving or not.. and once no deal was off the table ( thanks to undemocratic remainers ) the goverments hands was pretty tied and gave all the power to the EU......
No way was france going to let us go with out fishing, Netherlands and its fresh food, Spain on its food and tourists italy..
Undemocratic people f us over........ | | | |
| This is Brexit on 13:52 - Nov 17 with 1141 views | DorsetIan |
| This is Brexit on 12:07 - Nov 17 by Bazza |
Some points on the above reasonable viewpoints;
De Gaulle delayed the UK joining the Common Market by several years possibly changing the later balance of power. the UK were always considered disruptive newbies.
The exchange rate fixes for the Euro introduction disadvantaged the southern European countries.
No comment has been made about the significant number of Labour voters and constituencies voting to leave.
Anything other than a binary vote decision would have inevitably caused a hung vote (i.e. to Remain) and there were also too many alternative proposals to enable a choice.
It was made very clear that a Leave vote would mean leaving the common market, ('you can't be a half pregnant') was quoted. |
I don't believe that it was made 'very clear' that we would leave the single market, and there is even less clarity over whether it would mean leaving the Customs Union. Ultimately, this is now a matter of historical analysis and people are always going to disagree about history, but this fact check appears pretty balanced to me and doesn't support the 'very clear' thesis:
https://fullfact.org/europe/what-was-promised-about-customs-union-referendum/
What is I think clearer is that as soon as the vote to leave was made, the key leave campaigners then became very very clear about about the only possible interpretation of what 'leave' meant - a hard brexit - and moreover going so far as to heap terrible scorn on anyone who wanted to explore what the possible options were - i.e. not hesitating to label them traitors etc.
It was a brilliant tactic. Keep your proposition as flexible as possible to maximise your votes and then force through your true intentions by accusing everyone else of treachery. | |
| |
| This is Brexit on 16:07 - Nov 17 with 1104 views | grumpy |
The sad outcome would be if our own union breaks up.
The Scots are pushing very hard for another referendum and the Irish are not happy with the border. | | | |
| This is Brexit on 16:46 - Nov 17 with 1097 views | saint901 |
| This is Brexit on 16:07 - Nov 17 by grumpy |
The sad outcome would be if our own union breaks up.
The Scots are pushing very hard for another referendum and the Irish are not happy with the border. |
There seems to be little principled objection to allowing the Scots to have a vote and if they choose, to leave the Union, so be it.
If that happens it has to be matched by a withdrawal of the English subsidy to Scotland. The last figure I saw was something like £2,000 per annum per person in Scotland. By all means let them go their own way but it also means paying their own way. North Sea oil is not what it was and reliance upon that would be foolish.
The Irish problem, remains the Irish problem. It was the English who created the unionist enclaves in Ireland as a counter to the then militant parties seeking independence. Aside fromt he principle that a sovereign nation does not give up territory, my view is that we (the English) should not walk away from a promise made even if it was hundreds of years ago.
(That said Boris and crew seem to have no problem walking away from such promises). | | | |
| This is Brexit on 17:14 - Nov 17 with 1088 views | grumpy |
| This is Brexit on 16:46 - Nov 17 by saint901 |
There seems to be little principled objection to allowing the Scots to have a vote and if they choose, to leave the Union, so be it.
If that happens it has to be matched by a withdrawal of the English subsidy to Scotland. The last figure I saw was something like £2,000 per annum per person in Scotland. By all means let them go their own way but it also means paying their own way. North Sea oil is not what it was and reliance upon that would be foolish.
The Irish problem, remains the Irish problem. It was the English who created the unionist enclaves in Ireland as a counter to the then militant parties seeking independence. Aside fromt he principle that a sovereign nation does not give up territory, my view is that we (the English) should not walk away from a promise made even if it was hundreds of years ago.
(That said Boris and crew seem to have no problem walking away from such promises). |
' It was the English who created the unionist enclaves in Ireland'
The majority of immigration into Ulster came from Scotland.
Its a religious divide.
If this government is not careful there could be big trouble there again. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| This is Brexit on 17:26 - Nov 17 with 1075 views | saint68 |
| This is Brexit on 17:14 - Nov 17 by grumpy |
' It was the English who created the unionist enclaves in Ireland'
The majority of immigration into Ulster came from Scotland.
Its a religious divide.
If this government is not careful there could be big trouble there again. |
Indeed religious divides going forward will be very destabilising for the UK.
On this Grumps you are correct. | |
| |
| This is Brexit on 17:47 - Nov 17 with 1066 views | grumpy |
| This is Brexit on 17:26 - Nov 17 by saint68 |
Indeed religious divides going forward will be very destabilising for the UK.
On this Grumps you are correct. |
King James 1st kicked off 'The Plantation of Ulster' and he was a Scot.
Sadly its not immigration that always causes problems its all too often Religion.
Mind you I doubt that the Gaelic landowners would have been too happy being kicked off their land by the so called Plantation of Ulster.
But look through History, that has happened so many times.
[Post edited 17 Nov 2021 17:56]
| | | |
| This is Brexit on 19:06 - Nov 17 with 1023 views | Bazza |
| This is Brexit on 13:52 - Nov 17 by DorsetIan |
I don't believe that it was made 'very clear' that we would leave the single market, and there is even less clarity over whether it would mean leaving the Customs Union. Ultimately, this is now a matter of historical analysis and people are always going to disagree about history, but this fact check appears pretty balanced to me and doesn't support the 'very clear' thesis:
https://fullfact.org/europe/what-was-promised-about-customs-union-referendum/
What is I think clearer is that as soon as the vote to leave was made, the key leave campaigners then became very very clear about about the only possible interpretation of what 'leave' meant - a hard brexit - and moreover going so far as to heap terrible scorn on anyone who wanted to explore what the possible options were - i.e. not hesitating to label them traitors etc.
It was a brilliant tactic. Keep your proposition as flexible as possible to maximise your votes and then force through your true intentions by accusing everyone else of treachery. |
Of course it was clear that Leave meant single market and customs union, you are just in denial. | | | |
| This is Brexit on 20:03 - Nov 17 with 1001 views | DorsetIan |
| This is Brexit on 19:06 - Nov 17 by Bazza |
Of course it was clear that Leave meant single market and customs union, you are just in denial. |
The evidence doesn't support what you are saying. | |
| |
| This is Brexit on 20:22 - Nov 17 with 992 views | Saintsforeverj |
Why would anyone vote to leave the EU with the intention of staying in the customs union and single market. If you wanted that, you would have voted remain surely? There was no benefit to leaving, if it meant staying in both of those things, as staying in those things would mean free movement and all the things that leave voters didn't want . If you voted leave, it's logical you wanted out of the single market and customs union. [Post edited 17 Nov 2021 20:23]
| |
| |
| This is Brexit on 20:37 - Nov 17 with 974 views | Sadoldgit |
| This is Brexit on 20:22 - Nov 17 by Saintsforeverj |
Why would anyone vote to leave the EU with the intention of staying in the customs union and single market. If you wanted that, you would have voted remain surely? There was no benefit to leaving, if it meant staying in both of those things, as staying in those things would mean free movement and all the things that leave voters didn't want . If you voted leave, it's logical you wanted out of the single market and customs union. [Post edited 17 Nov 2021 20:23]
|
There is a big difference between hard and soft Brexits. I’m sure there are plenty of people who wanted out because they wanted their country back but that doesn’t mean that they were also happy to bail out of trading with god terms with our nearest neighbours. The reason it took so long to “get Brexit done”(and it still isn’t done) was because Parliament was struggling between a hard and soft Brexit. |  | | |
| This is Brexit on 20:54 - Nov 17 with 961 views | DorsetIan |
| This is Brexit on 20:22 - Nov 17 by Saintsforeverj |
Why would anyone vote to leave the EU with the intention of staying in the customs union and single market. If you wanted that, you would have voted remain surely? There was no benefit to leaving, if it meant staying in both of those things, as staying in those things would mean free movement and all the things that leave voters didn't want . If you voted leave, it's logical you wanted out of the single market and customs union. [Post edited 17 Nov 2021 20:23]
|
If it was 'illogical' Iceland, Leichenstein, Norway and Switzerland wouldn't all participate in the single market while not being in the EU.
Likewise, Turkey are in the Customs Union but not in the EU.
And anyway my point is that it was not made 'very clear' during the campaign that leaving the EU necessarily implied leaving the other two, whereas this became such absolute 'gospel' after the vote that it was treachery to deny it. | |
| |
| This is Brexit on 21:13 - Nov 17 with 948 views | Saintsforeverj |
| This is Brexit on 20:54 - Nov 17 by DorsetIan |
If it was 'illogical' Iceland, Leichenstein, Norway and Switzerland wouldn't all participate in the single market while not being in the EU.
Likewise, Turkey are in the Customs Union but not in the EU.
And anyway my point is that it was not made 'very clear' during the campaign that leaving the EU necessarily implied leaving the other two, whereas this became such absolute 'gospel' after the vote that it was treachery to deny it. |
Those countries never were in the EU under this same agreements as we were. People voted to leave for reasons that were only going to happen if we had a clean break. All leave voters knew what leaving meant. Some may have underestimated how difficult getting a good trade agreement was, but leave voters wanted out. What would be the reason to leave the EU but still stay in the customs union and single market? No seat around the table but still following EU rules with free movement of people. Why would a leave voter have voted for that? They didn't, they wanted a clean break (a hard Brexit). Some perhaps expected a clean break with a trade deal, but I do not know any leave voters who wanted to leave but wanted to stay in single market and customs union because that wouldn't have been leaving at all. [Post edited 17 Nov 2021 21:17]
| |
| |
| This is Brexit on 21:22 - Nov 17 with 939 views | DorsetIan |
| This is Brexit on 21:13 - Nov 17 by Saintsforeverj |
Those countries never were in the EU under this same agreements as we were. People voted to leave for reasons that were only going to happen if we had a clean break. All leave voters knew what leaving meant. Some may have underestimated how difficult getting a good trade agreement was, but leave voters wanted out. What would be the reason to leave the EU but still stay in the customs union and single market? No seat around the table but still following EU rules with free movement of people. Why would a leave voter have voted for that? They didn't, they wanted a clean break (a hard Brexit). Some perhaps expected a clean break with a trade deal, but I do not know any leave voters who wanted to leave but wanted to stay in single market and customs union because that wouldn't have been leaving at all. [Post edited 17 Nov 2021 21:17]
|
We're arguing over old news. Sure there are advantages to being 100% in or 100% out, but there were other options too. And it's easy to say after the event what people 'must' have been voting for.
Maybe we all experienced the campaign in different ways but I noticed a massive narrowing of the leavers' position once the vote was in. And I saw a sign on a bus stating very clearly that the NHS would get loads more money and great big posters saying that there would be queues of Turks coming in, but I don't remember one saying that leaving the EU would definitely mean leaving the single market or the customs union. | |
| |
| This is Brexit on 21:29 - Nov 17 with 935 views | Saintsforeverj |
| This is Brexit on 21:22 - Nov 17 by DorsetIan |
We're arguing over old news. Sure there are advantages to being 100% in or 100% out, but there were other options too. And it's easy to say after the event what people 'must' have been voting for.
Maybe we all experienced the campaign in different ways but I noticed a massive narrowing of the leavers' position once the vote was in. And I saw a sign on a bus stating very clearly that the NHS would get loads more money and great big posters saying that there would be queues of Turks coming in, but I don't remember one saying that leaving the EU would definitely mean leaving the single market or the customs union. |
However, there was lots of talk about controlling immigration and making our own laws, which was only possible if we left the single market and customs union. So it follows that's what leave voters wanted. Anyone not wanting to control immigration and not wanting to make our own laws would surely have voted remain, rather than lose our seat around the table for the same conditions as remain. | |
| |
| This is Brexit on 22:13 - Nov 17 with 911 views | grumpy |
| This is Brexit on 21:29 - Nov 17 by Saintsforeverj |
However, there was lots of talk about controlling immigration and making our own laws, which was only possible if we left the single market and customs union. So it follows that's what leave voters wanted. Anyone not wanting to control immigration and not wanting to make our own laws would surely have voted remain, rather than lose our seat around the table for the same conditions as remain. |
Did someone mention 'control immigration'?
That's going well.... | | | |
| This is Brexit on 07:12 - Nov 18 with 886 views | DorsetIan |
| This is Brexit on 21:29 - Nov 17 by Saintsforeverj |
However, there was lots of talk about controlling immigration and making our own laws, which was only possible if we left the single market and customs union. So it follows that's what leave voters wanted. Anyone not wanting to control immigration and not wanting to make our own laws would surely have voted remain, rather than lose our seat around the table for the same conditions as remain. |
You’re putting forward arguments why certain things must be implied in the decision.
I’m saying that those things were still deliberately downplayed during the campaign and yet no one was allowed to question them after the vote.
It is a tough argument to make that every single voter understood how the EU worked and what every ‘logical’ consequence of the decision was. Was it a logical consequence that the NHS would get all that money, or that millions of Turks were coming? No, it was bollox, but those things still motivated plenty of people to vote to leave. | |
| |
| This is Brexit on 08:35 - Nov 18 with 863 views | Bazza |
| This is Brexit on 07:12 - Nov 18 by DorsetIan |
You’re putting forward arguments why certain things must be implied in the decision.
I’m saying that those things were still deliberately downplayed during the campaign and yet no one was allowed to question them after the vote.
It is a tough argument to make that every single voter understood how the EU worked and what every ‘logical’ consequence of the decision was. Was it a logical consequence that the NHS would get all that money, or that millions of Turks were coming? No, it was bollox, but those things still motivated plenty of people to vote to leave. |
You are rewriting history. You’re entitled to your opinion but that was not the reality. Remainers tried to bend the Leave agenda to super soft leave. That was never in the Leave option. Just get over it. | | | |
| This is Brexit on 08:44 - Nov 18 with 849 views | DorsetIan |
| This is Brexit on 08:35 - Nov 18 by Bazza |
You are rewriting history. You’re entitled to your opinion but that was not the reality. Remainers tried to bend the Leave agenda to super soft leave. That was never in the Leave option. Just get over it. |
Other way around. You are re-writing history to make an a marginal, ambiguous vote more definite in its consequences than, in reality, it was.
We ain't going to agree, but I'd appreciate not being called a traitor or in denial for having a different opinion on this. It's just how I genuinely see it. | |
| |
| This is Brexit on 11:05 - Nov 18 with 810 views | Sadoldgit |
| This is Brexit on 08:35 - Nov 18 by Bazza |
You are rewriting history. You’re entitled to your opinion but that was not the reality. Remainers tried to bend the Leave agenda to super soft leave. That was never in the Leave option. Just get over it. |
Do you think that Brexiteers would have just gotten over it Bazza? Farage himself said that he would have continued to campaign to leave it he had lost. This isn’t going away as long as half the country want to be part of the EU. | | | |
| This is Brexit on 11:41 - Nov 18 with 796 views | Bison |
We have remain voters telling everyone what they thought leave meant when they had no intention of voting leave so what they are saying is that the leave voters dis not know what they voted for.
I did not vote but i knew what leave meant , you leave the EU and all its clubs and stuff. There was not soft / hard talk as leave meant leave. the aftermath fair enough when you gad a government too scared too leave totally but Ian please do not try and say the leave voters did not know what they voted for , I was more amazed that we were trying to hang on in there with the negotiations , that was not what leave voters voted for whatever you may think. |  |
| |
| This is Brexit on 11:55 - Nov 18 with 774 views | DorsetIan |
| This is Brexit on 11:41 - Nov 18 by Bison |
We have remain voters telling everyone what they thought leave meant when they had no intention of voting leave so what they are saying is that the leave voters dis not know what they voted for.
I did not vote but i knew what leave meant , you leave the EU and all its clubs and stuff. There was not soft / hard talk as leave meant leave. the aftermath fair enough when you gad a government too scared too leave totally but Ian please do not try and say the leave voters did not know what they voted for , I was more amazed that we were trying to hang on in there with the negotiations , that was not what leave voters voted for whatever you may think. |
The idea that every single leave voter believed that they were voting for a hard Brexit is, frankly, ridiculous.
The idea that you can even characterise every single leave voter as having a uniform mindset is also ridiculous.
There will have been a range of views and some people would have been voting for softer versions of Brexit than eventually transpired.
Some people. Not all people. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
