Brexit

So are you suggesting that those who voted leave werent informed? Didn't understand the implications of their decision? Sounds like you are in a more subtle way echoing your good friend Jen and saying that those who voted leave were stupid, ill informed, easily lead, uneducated gammon.


Bollocks


Clearly you dont understand how the EU works.

Anyway, it doesnt matter that you can't understand how leaving the EU means that the people can hold those who MAKE the laws, regulations and policies fully accountable for their actions. All that matters is that the UK voters can see how leaving the EU (meaning leaving the customs union, single market etc) will restore accountability.


TM's government made a total pig's breakfast of negotiations because May was a weak leader and she had in key positions cabinet ministers who were dead set against Brexit. They were rightly condemned for failing to deliver what they promised they would.

In 2019 you had MPs representing seats that voted leave doing all they could to stop the UK from leaving. They werent representing their constituency but rather pushing their own agenda. They were rightly blamed for not doing what they promised in the lead up to the 2017 election. They were rightly blamed for thwarting the will of the people and most of them rightly lost their seats in 2019

The speaker of the House was rightly condemned for selectively breaking with tradition and convention in order to help those wishing to stop Brexit. Note - he has since got himself into a tiff claiming he should have already received his knighthood based on...wait for it...tradition and convention.

And yes the SC were rightly criticised for their judicial activism.


Of course it was. Understandably neither side were prepared to compromise. How could they? You are either in or you are out. No one wanted any so called middle ground. Remainers werent prepared to compromise. If they won it would have been EU business as usual. They wanted the UK fully in the EU. The leavers werent prepared to compromise. They wanted the UK fully out of the EU. You can't be both in and out. It's one or the other. Leave won and so FINALLY the UK is out...though whether or not they are truly out is still to be decided.


OMG. 'Using power'. It's called voting. It's a part of democracy. And you talk about alienating 'everybody else'. News flash, remain got smashed at the last GE. Your 'everybody else' is the MINORITY. Oh, and by the way, I think those who voted for BJ and Brexit are so far very happy to accept the consequences of their actions.

And yes, there are calls for unity. Would you rather they called for disunity? Most people in the UK, whether they voted for or against BJ/Brexit accept the result and want to get on with things. Those who refuse to accept the result of yet another political process are alienating themselves. Good for them. You want to refuse to accept 50p coins, shout how BJ isn't your PM and tell the EU how much you love them...you go for it.

By the way, I don't understand why those who claim that the UK is a horrible, racist, bigoted, fascist country don't move to the EU which they proclaim to be so wonderful. No ones stopping them from going.


My, my, you really do have a problem with democracy when the result isnt to your liking. The people were asked in 2016 whether they wanted the UK to remain in the EU or leave. The majority said leave. Apparently though the majority shouldn't get what they voted for. Apparently they should have to placate those on the losing side who won't accept the result. That's a curious argument. By the way, if remain had won would they have made compromises? Would they have agreed to any action that would agree to any of the demands from leave voters? hmm, i think we know the answer to that.


Wow, so the majority in a democratic vote wishing to have the results of said vote honoured is a 'brute force policy' is it? What a strange view of democracy you have. You are reminding me of Jen when she stated that DT wasn't elected in 2016.


Only it's not rolling in a big circle. Before his WA the UK was in the EU. They are now out. Where is the circle? Hopefully BJ remains true to his word and by the end of the year the UK will be truly free of the EU. If so that will be massive progress. There won't be a circle in sight.



They had a no deal option. Both sides stated that if you vote leave then the UK would leave WITHOUT a deal if one couldnt be agreed upon. It was stated in 2016, it was stated in 2017, it was stated in 2019. In each case people knew that no deal was a possible outcome and they voted accordingly.


Again, the EU stated that absolutely NO changes to the existing TM deal could or would be made. NO CHANGE. NONE. Only there were notable changes made. Why? It would appear that the prospect of a no deal Brexit wasnt to their liking.



Explain then if you will why, knowing what BJ can't give in on the EU are demanding that he give in on these exact things? Do they not want a FTA or do they think BJ can be forced to give in?


Well I have been saying for a while that the UK should tell the EU that they shall only accept a standard FTA (like the ones the EU have signed with Canada, Japan, South Korea etc), and that if this is not acceptable then there is nothing further to discuss. The UK should dedicate their time and resources to countries that do wish to pursue standard FTAs. So on the surface we seem to be in agreement on this one point.

LEAVE supporters werent debating a 'hard' or 'soft' Brexit. Leave basically wanted a 'hard' Brexit whilst more moderate REMAIN supporters pushed for an ever 'softer' Brexit.


Nope, just have to be prepared to leave your echo chamber and listen to people.

Funny how Labour backbenchers from the north, the midlands and Cymru were saying how going door to door people were telling them how deeply unpopular the party's stance on Brexit was. Only the party elite thought they could BS the voters. Turned out they couldn't. Turned out the backbenchers were right. Not because they could read minds but because they listened to what people were saying outside of their bubble. Because they didnt rely on twitter. Why do you think the Tories won such a huge majority? Do you think they are great mind readers or maybe, just maybe, they listened to the people. Tricky one.



ignorant: not having enough knowledge, understanding, or information about something

You do realise that 'ignorance' and 'intelligence' arent the same thing right.

Anyway, i think we have gone as far as we can re discussions on things like the 2016 people's vote, yellowsnow etc etc etc. When it comes to Brexit I am only really interested in discussing things that are happening NOW. So from here on end you can obviously post whatever you want but I intend to only post things concerning current events re Brexit.

If you really wish to go down this rabbit hole again, then I am more than happy to oblige. In fact if you really want to ramp up the tediousness, we can go over what each individual word means as well.

As a reminder, I simply asked where in the Tory manifesto it said that they would 'leave with or without a deal'. After you quoted the Tory Manifesto, I simply pointed out that what you quoted did not support that position. There was some back and forth and then you said something along the lines of 'I don't think that believing no deal is better than a bad deal means endlessly extending'. I simply pointed out in response that 'what you think they meant does not change what they said'. I have not been trying to 'twist, smudge, or blur' anything regarding their manifesto. YOU"RE the one who kept trying to inject your own meaning into what they had been saying. I've only been trying to keep in mind WHAT THEY ACTUALLY SAID, as opposed to WHAT I MIGHT THINK THEY HAD MEANT.

I'm sorry? Who's the one who got blindsided by the 'rebels'? Who's the one who got blindsided by Tory infighting? Who's the one who got blindsided by remainer backlash?

All of these were very real possibilities from the outset, and were definitely on full display when May lost her majority, and yet these people who claim to have been 'fully informed' of the consequences, feasibility, and chances for success have fallen into one pitfall after another. 'Oh, who could predict the 21 Tories rebelling?' Such a thing was threatening to happen for months, if not a full year before it actually happened. 'Oh who could predict that the remainers would object so much and fight so hard to stop or influence Brexit?' This entire campaign has been so completely polarizing that expecting everything to disappear after the vote would be something I would charitably call naive at best.

But sure let's suppose that the public fully knew the possible ramifications of their votes. In that case, I must ask why did they do nothing to prevent or mitigate it? In fact, it seems the leavers encouraged such reckless behavior.



Ah there's that brand of 'taking responsibility' that I've seen so often lately.



If that is what you wish to believe.



See, the fact that you attempt to justify it doesn't detract from my point that this blame game has been happening.



Typically, it depends on how we define 'in' and 'out'. If you wish to define 'in' and 'out' in such a manner that is incompatible with remainer thinking and refuse to reconsider it, then don't be surprised when they refuse to cooperate with you. That's all I'm saying here. There is a choice to make and consequences that follow.

The fact of the matter is that if you want change, then you have to have the votes to pass it. The status quo is easier to maintain because it requires no vote for 'business as usual' to continue. It's the way the system works, and we can call that unfair if you wish, but it doesn't change reality. If a subset of the remainers wished to 'change the EU from within' then they would face the exact same hurdles as the leavers. They would need the votes to pass it.

The leavers wanted change so they needed the votes to pass it, and they failed to get it for years. The remainers wanted, or more accurately were asked by the referendum, the status quo over an unknown change.



Voting is a power play. It attempts to use the weight of the majority to push through policy without consideration for the side that lost. That's how a majority vote works. Consequentially, it alienates the minority 'everyone else' by virtue of sweeping aside their power to meaningfully affect the process. It's the way the system works. You don't have to like it but it's the way the system works.



I just think that calling for unity after spending the last 3+ years pushing each other into corners and doing their best to ignore or belittle each other is naive at best and arrogant at worst.



My liking? Which way is my liking again? I feel like I've said this more than five times already but I don't give a rat's arse what the UK decides to do regarding Brexit. It's their decision, and they're free to make it.

Literally the only reason that the minority remainer opinion has become relevant at all is because the leavers couldn't get their own act together and pass something when they held majority.

Honestly, I have no problem with sheer voting power deciding the fate of a nation if that's what people want to do. That's how Democracy works after all and everyone bought into the system and agreed to its rules. The only thing, THE ONLY THING, I take issue with is this asinine idea that the majority power can blame their failings on the minority power. THEY are the majority power and the majority power is the leader. The leader takes responsibility for the body they lead. The leader doesn't make excuses and whine about 'how everything is so hard and why can't everyone just shut up and follow me', THEY are in the driver's seat which means THEY have to take responsibility for whatever happens during their tenure.



It is what it is. Personally I don't really have an issue with the way it is, but pretending that it's something else is a disservice. Majority opinion drowns out minority opinion in Democracy by sheer volume and scale. It's just the way it is. If you refuse to compromise and instead rely on the amount of power you have (i.e. the volume and scale of your voting power) in order to get something over the line, then it is a brute force tactic. US Women's Sufferage for instance, completely ignored the part of the population that didn't want women to vote when it drafted the laws. It is what it is.



The 'circle' is the border issue which hasn't been permanently resolved yet. Whatever you think about the importance of that issue doesn't detract from the fact that it is still not completely resolved.



So then what's the difference between both sides saying something in speeches and discussions, and me putting it in writing?



I mean I've given multiple possible scenarios but you've repeatedly rejected them all with no explanation so..



I don't know what they hope to accomplish, honestly. I only thought that what they asked for in transition was going to be very similar to what they asked for in an FTA, and that seems to be what happened. It's still young so there's still time to see where this goes, but if, for instance, fishing rights get discussed, there might be quotas or tariffs introduced in order for the UK to get 'exclusive rights' back. It's all a back and forth and no one will give anything up for free here, and 'market access' alone is not usually considered 'worth it' in most cases.



Even 'standard FTA's' as you call them involve the closer aligning of regulations and a means by which to settle disputes. Canada's, for instance, had to more closely align regulations between the EU and Canada in order to get their deal. This of course means, inevitably, at least some ECJ influence in UK affairs, since they will at least indirectly have some say in regulatory matters.

Of course, Boris doesn't seem to be shooting for a 'standard FTA' to begin with, since he's apparently been talking about things like security, airline regulation, and cooperation on social security in addition to trade so...

And we know this how? Do we know how they voted and consequentially what they were discussing?



Which is an entirely different point to the one I was making regarding the politicians stances BEFORE the second GE.



Yes, I do. Why did you bring up the definition for ignorance when we were discussing you accusing me for lacking intelligence when we both know those are two different things?



You're the one who restarted all of this in the first place. I even warned you that this would happen, but you wanted to go ahead anyway.

You do realize that saying why you think 'the establishment' 'betrayed' the public does not in any way make trusting them to 'do right this time' any less ridiculous, right? If you wish to trust BJ based on some personal feelings then that's your own prerogative, but it doesn't make it less irrational. Especially considering that BJ is not a king, he still has to pass stuff through Parliament for things to work.



I suppose that depends on how we define 'seriously' now doesn't it?



And yet you've never been able to explain why.



So actuaries must travel to places they assess in person, or personally send someone there in order to do their work. Gotcha.



Saying everything's fine has no substantial impact on their own actual preparedness, so in that respect it doesn't really matter whether they are 'really prepared' or not. The only thing that matters is that saying they're good to go is more advantageous than saying that they aren't, for the exact reason you just outlined, that other Ports wish to steal their business.



Yes, as I have reiterated many, many times, I don't dispute those facts. I'm just saying that your requirements for evidence and proof are extremely dissimilar to my own. Good for you that those facts are enough to buy your trust, but I'm not you and they aren't for me.



You're free to trust whomever you want for whatever reason you wish, but that doesn't make what they say fact. Yes it is a fact that Calais said there would be no difference, but whether or not that statement should carry weight is an opinion, and how much weight that statement should carry is also an opinion.



I just think that doing such things is an exercise in futility that requires mind reading to make work. We don't KNOW what biases anyone may have had when making the report, and we cannot ASSUME that we know them, or ASSUME that they mattered.

But yes, ultimately we differ on how much weight can be put on certain things. Of course such a judgement call is an OPINION and not a fact, so...



Oh so you don't actually contest my comments then?

Bollocks.

Apart from everything else you simply ignore what TM and others said about leaving without a deal if necessary in the lead up to the 2017 election. It was very clear what they said they meant when they said that leaving with no deal would be better than leaving with a bad deal. As it turned out most didnt really mean what they said. They were just telling the public what they wanted to hear. But anyway, the public look like they will get what they wanted under BJ.

So politicians lying to their electorate on key issues during an election campaign, politicians going back on their word and betraying their party and those who voted for them. These are things that were REAL possibilities were they?

I can't ever recall a UK parliament acting in the way that it did last year. Can you? I can't recall a UK speaker acting as he did last year. Can you? As a voter you listen to a wide range of sources, you evaluate the information you are able to gather and you make a decision. You can only make decisions on what is known. You however seem to think they should have been making decisions on things that were unknown.


Only TM lost her majority AFTER the 2017 election. And the people who voted leave were fully informed, or at least as informed as they could reasonably be. They knew that leave meant leaving the customs union, the single market etc. They knew that there were possible economic risks and they accepted this. They knew what they wanted and they voted for MPs who told them they would deliver what they wanted. Many of these MPs were exposed as liars and most lost their seats in 2019.

Those voting in 2019 had a better idea as to what parties and MPs really stood for and they voted accordingly. It was a case of fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Only the people didnt allow themselves to be fooled twice.


Proof. And more importantly proof that this was the case BEFORE the 2017 GE for that's what relevant.



In the lead up to the 2017 GE the Labour party had promised to respect the results of the 2016 people's vote. Labour supporters believed them. They didnt think the party would lie to them on such an important issue. They were wrong, but they rectified things in 2019.


So all of the parties (even the Lib Dems) said in the lead up to the 2016 vote that they would respect the outcome, but voters were naive to expect them to keep their word. Hmmm.

The results of previous national referendums had been respected but voters were naive for not thinking this time it would be different. They were naive for thinking that Parliament would respect the will of the people. They were naive to think that there would be losers consent. In short they were naive to think that MPs would respect the democratic process. Interesting.



They voted out those who betrayed their trust in 2019. They could do no more.


Utter bollocks.



So are you suggesting that remainers didnt want the UK to remain aligned with the EU? Are you suggesting they didnt want the UK to remain in the customs union, in the single market etc etc etc. Is that what you are seriously suggesting???

As stated previously, it was a clear cut choice. Those who wanted to leave wanted a Brexit that restored the UKs sovereignty. Those who voted remain wanted the UK to remain within the EU meaning that the country had only limited sovereignty. There was no acceptable middle ground and the MAJORITY voted (three bloody times) to leave.

The majority look to have finally got their way.


Nope. Firstly the status quo was unknown in that the relationship btw member states and the EU bureaucratic executive is constantly changing, so the only status quo is being in the organisation rather than the nature of the relationship itself. As for an unknown change, that's also wrong. BOTH the leave and remain side were pretty explicit as to what a vote for leave meant. And it meant what is now (at last) happening.

Yes we do.

Only BJ fought hard AGAINST the establishment. For Brexit supporters he is not seen as a part of the establishment but rather as someone who is prepared to fight against it to give the people what they want. The people have now given him the power he needs to enforce his will upon the establishment on their behalf. Over to you Boris.

The UK government have announced a new points based immigration system. Something they could never have done whilst they were in the EU.

It's interesting that Labour are up in arms about this as this type of system is exactly what their traditional supporters have been calling for. It is a system that will provide benefits for the 'working class' whilst reducing benefits for big companies. Something you might have thought that Labour would be in favour of.

The BoE for example released a report that showed a 10% increase in 'unskilled' workers through immigration lead to a 2% drop in wages for 'unskilled' workers. This is a key reason why many people in 'working class' areas wanted to see changes to the immigration laws. But the university educated professionals claim these 'working class' people want to reduce immigration as they are racists and fascists etc.

The ability to control who enters your country is a key right of a sovereign nation, Now that the UK is finally out of the EU they can once again control who enters their country...just like the great majority of countries around the world.

I liked DF's speech in Brussels. Again, the Tories are saying all of the right things.

Fishing rights, as i have mentioned before, will most likely be the first real big test. Hoping BJ stays true to his word.

So when we were talking about the Tory Manifesto of 2017 specifically, what we were ACTUALLY talking about was the entire 2017 Tory campaign? But I'm the one moving the goalposts around, eh?

From what I've seen, most politicians use very carefully measured words all the time all over the world. A large subset of those also just straight up end up not fulfilling their promises for one reason or another. An even smaller subset may choose to temporarily ally with their political opponents for a time for any number of reasons. So, to answer your question, yes, these things were real possibilities and hardly unknown.



Proof? This was apparent as a possibility from the outset and only became more probable after the 2017 snap election.

As soon as prominent leavers started talking about 'Canada+' deals and 'being like Norway' it became clear that different prominent leavers held different, sometimes irreconcilable, views regarding what everything should like at the end. If they all agreed and were united on one vision of the future, then why float all of these other ideas instead of detailing their one true vision?



They were naive to assume that Labour and the Tories held the same views as you and them regarding what 'respecting the vote' actually meant. This is why you don't rely on soundbites to inform yourself.



So politically weakening the Tories grasp on power and encouraging them to burn bridges was not a reckless move?



I'm simply saying that by boiling all of the very complicated issues surrounding Brexit into a question about 'sovereignty' makes both positions practically untenable. Remember that 'leavers' and 'remainers' have largely different priorities when it comes to this issue, so forcing the entire issue to revolve around leaver priorities will result in remainer alienation. That's simply how it goes. If you wish to accept that consequence then that's fine by me, but alienating remainers then insisting on their co-operation is selfish at best.

You like to talk about how if things were reversed and remain had won, how they wouldn't have given leave the time of day on anything. Now imagine, if that were true, would leavers co-operate with the remainers agenda when asked?



For the status quo what's your point? The people didn't know what, nor vote on, what their relationship with the EU would be in the future nor did they vote on the nature of that relationship in the slightest in the referendum. It was a 'simple question' of 'in and out', remember? Neither leavers nor remainers voted on the nature of the relationship in question, just whether or not it should continue.

As for the unknown, that's not what I'm talking about. We DON'T KNOW how many and what kinds of 'wonderful trade deals' the UK can get hold of, and we certainly DIDN'T KNOW back then. We DIDN'T know what the ultimate state of UK-EU relations would be, and we could arguably say that we still don't. We DON'T KNOW what everything will look like 'when the dust settles', and we definitely DIDN'T KNOW back then.

And this is something I'm just supposed to accept without evidence?