Really interesting thread guys, just read it from start to finish. I haven't been on the forum in years and was really surprised to find such an in-depth discussion.
If I get the time at a more reasonable hour I will give my reasons for voting leave.
Have to say the shambles the government is making of the negotiations has me questioning my choice.
Really interesting thread guys, just read it from start to finish. I haven't been on the forum in years and was really surprised to find such an in-depth discussion.
If I get the time at a more reasonable hour I will give my reasons for voting leave.
Have to say the shambles the government is making of the negotiations has me questioning my choice.
Assuming you do, then you will have succeeded where goldon has failed.
Most leave voters have ran out of reasons to stick by the decision.
It is obvious it is going to be incredibly damaging and anyone with any common sense wouldn't have any problem with having another vote on the final deal before it is signed.
Sadly, a majority of our MP's aren't looking like they're going to have the stones to jeopardise their careers by coming out in favour of another vote on the matter.
I'm very left wing and in many ways I am opposed to the EU but this has been so badly handled by the government ever since they invoked article 50 before they had even agreed an exit strategy among themselves, they have left us in a pretty dire situation.
They ether risk career suicide and back away from it, or they put the country in an impossible position, safe in the knowledge that they're never likely to personally need to use a foodbank and deliver a huge FU to those that do and the many that are likely to need them in future.
I have a very healthy dislike of people like Chuka Umunna but I sincerely hope that they're successful in changing Labour's position to one where they push for a people's vote, or whatever they end up calling it.
I am convinced that there would now be at least a 55% majority that would vote in favour of calling the whole thing off should we have another vote. It could be even higher if the polls coming out of the North of England are to be believed.
If we truly do live in a democracy, there shouldn't be any objections on having a vote to ratify or reject the final deal. We're a lot better informed now as to what a post Brexit Britain would look like than we were for the original vote and people should be given the opportunity to change their vote in the light of new information.
For a handful of people, this was never about politics. For a significant, probably vote swinging minority, it was about voting to stop EU immigration because they don't like Pakistani's/Indians/refugees/brown people in general.
Not all leave voters were racist. Probably not even 25% of them but I would guess nearly all racists voted leave. We shouldn't allow ourselves to be railroaded into a terrible outcome because it will upset some of the worst people in the country.
I would agree with a lot of what you have said. I think that many leave voters saw their vote as a means to protest about their situation. The problem is that our Government was responsible for the measures that they were unhappy with rather than the EU. I think that many thought that if they voted to leave, their situation was likely to improve after leaving. Unfortunately the opposite is likely to be true. Our Government is responsible for the austerity measures that have seen a public sector pay freeze, many peoples wages going backwards for the last 10 years, and an increasing number of people being forced to use food banks.
I am not sure that many that were against freedom of movement are aware of the fact that the Government has the right to send anyone that hasn't got a job within 3 months back to where they came from. The fact that they haven't done this is the fault of our Government.
The truth is that many immigrants take on the jobs that many Brits don't want. They involve hard work, long hours, and are poorly paid. These people are still needed, and when freedom of movement ends we will end up getting them from elsewhere. So leaving the EU will not by any means put a stop to immigration.
At the time of the referendum many people were unaware of the implications, many more were mistaken, and some didn't have a clue. Any one that has taken an interest in the negotiations since the referendum, has become much more informed. As there is clearly not a majority in Parliament for any deal, I am not sure there is any way out of this other than another vote.
The glaringly obvious point is that whatever deal we get, we must be worse off than when we were members. If this was not the case, then all the other countries would leave, and there would no longer be an EU. This would be turkeys voting for Christmas. It is not going to happen. The whole thing has made me fed up with the lying, conning, politicians that we have. David Davis said "We will have exactly the same benefits and will be no worse off when we leave". He should go to jail for that.
This is the biggest decision of our lifetimes, that will affect generations to come. The Labour Party should be ashamed of themselves, as they are supposed to be providing a credible opposition to the Government, and have clearly failed to do so.
British opinion still deeply divided by Brexit: poll
Polling showed 59 percent of voters would now vote to remain in the bloc, versus 41 percent who would vote to leave. The findings were published in an academic-led report on Wednesday by research bodies NatCen and The UK in a Changing Europe.
Maybe a way forward would be to complete negotiations and then decide not to leave the EU. The basis of the negotiations could then be used to get all other countries in the EU to sign up to a pro-rata pre/post nuptial agreement. All the countries involved would then have to take very seriously their own current and future positions rather than just penalise us.
It is not as simple as just deciding to rejoin. We have very publicly renounced our membership, insulted the aims of all the Governments of Mainland Europe, and demanded that the whole of Europe dance to our tune. The time has gone-we need to leave now (regardless of whether that decision was wise).
We were prevented from joining until 1969, due to the rest of Europe (particularly France) not trusting us. We joined in 1973. We had the UK's first ever referendum as to whether we should join in 1975, 2 years after we had. We then decided to leave without anyone having the first clue as to the merits of leaving (or staying for that matter), and signalled that intention without giving business the first clue as to the way forward.
Why have another vote? We are not going to be allowed back in. It will only let a whole load of politicians tell us a pack of lies again (on both sides), and politicians be led purely by self-interest (as examples, everyone knows that Corbyn campaigned for Remain while wanting to Leave, Boris campaigned to leave purely in the hope of becoming PM, and Cameron was too scared to even speak).
I do not believe we should have left. However, we need to be concentrating on trying to find the best way forward. It will be worse than the right-wing Little Englanders believe, and better than the doomsayers. I'd like politicians to be trying to actually run the country with as little damage as possible.
A good start would be politicians actually setting out the arguments for and against adopting a similar position to Switzerland or Norway, rather than just sitting in entrenched positions lobbing hand grenades.
Maybe a way forward would be to complete negotiations and then decide not to leave the EU. The basis of the negotiations could then be used to get all other countries in the EU to sign up to a pro-rata pre/post nuptial agreement. All the countries involved would then have to take very seriously their own current and future positions rather than just penalise us.
Our current position really shows how stupid the referendum was. The Prime Minister claims that her Chequers plan, is a means to honour the terms of the referendum, as we will be leaving the EU, but maintaining enough ties that will mean as little damage as possible to the economy. She has little support for this plan in her own party.
Others in her party prefer a Canada style deal.
Some prefer a Norway style deal.
These are all Conservatives.
All the above options have in common the fact that all involve leaving the EU. The problem is that they are supported by varying numbers of leave voters.
Some leave voters will support none of the above proposals, as they would prefer to leave without a deal.
I don't believe it is therefore possible to gauge what anyone that voted leave was actually voting for.
Who knew what all the options were prior to the referendum.
We still have no idea of the deal we will get, assuming we get a deal. So leave voters still have no idea what they really voted for.
What if the deal we get involves some access to the Single Market, we have to stay in the Customs Union in order to avoid an Irish border, but will no longer be members. Some leave voters may then prefer to remain members, to get a say in the running of it all, rather than having no say, and just having to accept all the rules that will be made in Brussels.
The only sensible way out of this is a vote on either accepting the deal we get, or staying in.
It is not as simple as just deciding to rejoin. We have very publicly renounced our membership, insulted the aims of all the Governments of Mainland Europe, and demanded that the whole of Europe dance to our tune. The time has gone-we need to leave now (regardless of whether that decision was wise).
We were prevented from joining until 1969, due to the rest of Europe (particularly France) not trusting us. We joined in 1973. We had the UK's first ever referendum as to whether we should join in 1975, 2 years after we had. We then decided to leave without anyone having the first clue as to the merits of leaving (or staying for that matter), and signalled that intention without giving business the first clue as to the way forward.
Why have another vote? We are not going to be allowed back in. It will only let a whole load of politicians tell us a pack of lies again (on both sides), and politicians be led purely by self-interest (as examples, everyone knows that Corbyn campaigned for Remain while wanting to Leave, Boris campaigned to leave purely in the hope of becoming PM, and Cameron was too scared to even speak).
I do not believe we should have left. However, we need to be concentrating on trying to find the best way forward. It will be worse than the right-wing Little Englanders believe, and better than the doomsayers. I'd like politicians to be trying to actually run the country with as little damage as possible.
A good start would be politicians actually setting out the arguments for and against adopting a similar position to Switzerland or Norway, rather than just sitting in entrenched positions lobbing hand grenades.
There have been claims that we could revoke article 50 prior to March next year.
The vote Justine Greening was proposing had 3 choices, accepting the deal, leaving without a deal, or remaining.
It is not as simple as just deciding to rejoin. We have very publicly renounced our membership, insulted the aims of all the Governments of Mainland Europe, and demanded that the whole of Europe dance to our tune. The time has gone-we need to leave now (regardless of whether that decision was wise).
We were prevented from joining until 1969, due to the rest of Europe (particularly France) not trusting us. We joined in 1973. We had the UK's first ever referendum as to whether we should join in 1975, 2 years after we had. We then decided to leave without anyone having the first clue as to the merits of leaving (or staying for that matter), and signalled that intention without giving business the first clue as to the way forward.
Why have another vote? We are not going to be allowed back in. It will only let a whole load of politicians tell us a pack of lies again (on both sides), and politicians be led purely by self-interest (as examples, everyone knows that Corbyn campaigned for Remain while wanting to Leave, Boris campaigned to leave purely in the hope of becoming PM, and Cameron was too scared to even speak).
I do not believe we should have left. However, we need to be concentrating on trying to find the best way forward. It will be worse than the right-wing Little Englanders believe, and better than the doomsayers. I'd like politicians to be trying to actually run the country with as little damage as possible.
A good start would be politicians actually setting out the arguments for and against adopting a similar position to Switzerland or Norway, rather than just sitting in entrenched positions lobbing hand grenades.
There have been claims that we could revoke article 50 prior to March next year.
Boris had a speech prepared in support of both sides, and chose the one that suited Boris best.
A good start would be politicians actually setting out the arguments for and against adopting a similar position to Switzerland or Norway, rather than just sitting in entrenched positions lobbing hand grenades.
Talk about flogging a dead horse. Why would the Government wish to continue to pursue the Chequers plan, which cant get through Parliament, and Michel Barnier has described as dead.
Philip Hammond: No deal Brexit could mean deeper austerity cuts to public sector .
Chancellor Philip Hammond has signalled that a no deal Brexit could trigger a fresh round of austerity measures because of the impact to the British economy.
Honda could stop car production in Britain post-Brexit.
Carmaker Honda (HMC) has delivered a fresh warning that thousands of British jobs could be lost if the UK leaves the EU’s customs union. British MEPs met representatives of the Japanese car market in Ghent, Belgium on Thursday to discuss the potential impact of Brexit on businesses. They were told that the government’s plan to leave the customs union could hit their profits so substantially they could be forced into leaving the UK.
It is not as simple as just deciding to rejoin. We have very publicly renounced our membership, insulted the aims of all the Governments of Mainland Europe, and demanded that the whole of Europe dance to our tune. The time has gone-we need to leave now (regardless of whether that decision was wise).
We were prevented from joining until 1969, due to the rest of Europe (particularly France) not trusting us. We joined in 1973. We had the UK's first ever referendum as to whether we should join in 1975, 2 years after we had. We then decided to leave without anyone having the first clue as to the merits of leaving (or staying for that matter), and signalled that intention without giving business the first clue as to the way forward.
Why have another vote? We are not going to be allowed back in. It will only let a whole load of politicians tell us a pack of lies again (on both sides), and politicians be led purely by self-interest (as examples, everyone knows that Corbyn campaigned for Remain while wanting to Leave, Boris campaigned to leave purely in the hope of becoming PM, and Cameron was too scared to even speak).
I do not believe we should have left. However, we need to be concentrating on trying to find the best way forward. It will be worse than the right-wing Little Englanders believe, and better than the doomsayers. I'd like politicians to be trying to actually run the country with as little damage as possible.
A good start would be politicians actually setting out the arguments for and against adopting a similar position to Switzerland or Norway, rather than just sitting in entrenched positions lobbing hand grenades.
EU leaked document: Britain can reverse Article 50
LONDON — The European Union's official response to Prime Minister Theresa May triggering Brexit states that Article 50 can be reversed, meaning Britain could, in theory, change its mind at some point in the two-year negotiation process.
We can indeed reverse Article 50. They may not like us but they will no doubt respect us if the final decision is made with logic and understanding of the issues involved.
We can indeed reverse Article 50. They may not like us but they will no doubt respect us if the final decision is made with logic and understanding of the issues involved.
That would seem to be the case. The EU have been accused of intransigence by the more rabid Brexiteers. This criticism is based on their refusal to abandon their fundamental principles. These are rules that we helped to create. We will not get a deal that only includes some of the four freedoms.
The same people are inferring that if we leave without a deal we wont have to pay them any money. Yet my understanding was that we are not "giving" them any money. We have agreed a figure that we owe them. This is the amount of money that we had already committed to pay them, and future pension obligations etc. So, presumably whether we get a deal or not, we will still have to pay what we owe, and this figure will remain unaffected by the deal we get, or don't get.
I am absolutely flabbergasted that we find ourselves in the current position, more than 2 years after the referendum. Nobody could argue with the fact that both sides want a deal. So to end up in this position, with so little time left, would not seem possible.
I blame our side for the lack of progress. I think that the number of red lines that Theresa May set out from the word go, made it almost impossible to get a deal.
Both Scotland and Northern Ireland voted heavily in favour of remaining in the EU.
There was a piece on Newsnight last night saying the polls are showing increasing numbers of people in favour of a United Ireland.
It also wouldn't be a massive surprise if the Scots voted for Independence at some point no too far in the future.
Maybe a majority in both countries will prefer EU membership to staying part of the UK.
Unbelievably a majority voted to leave in Wales. This was despite the fact the we were getting £650 million per year off them, which is likely to be missed.
Key parts of May’s Chequers plan for Brexit are ‘unworkable’, says Barnier
However, the transcript shows Barnier did deliver a killer blow to the prime minister’s plans for post-Brexit trade, declaring them “unworkable.” Chequers sets out the government’s desire to maintain frictionless trade with the continent through a “free trade area” for goods – a proposal which would effectively see Britain remain in the single market but only for goods and not services, capital or labour. “Our customs union, our customs system, as it works, is a fully integrated system that cannot be undermined and we cannot split up the four freedoms of the single market … Your proposal does not seem workable to us, basically.” He added: “When it comes to those two proposals, there is a real problem of substance for us, because they would weaken and would lead to the unravelling of the single market. “That is why they are not acceptable, so you cannot ask us to make concessions on the very foundations of the European Union.”
Comments
If I get the time at a more reasonable hour I will give my reasons for voting leave.
Have to say the shambles the government is making of the negotiations has me questioning my choice.
Assuming you do, then you will have succeeded where goldon has failed.
I don't do "Serious" ........... YOU still here.
I think that many leave voters saw their vote as a means to protest about their situation. The problem is that our Government was responsible for the measures that they were unhappy with rather than the EU. I think that many thought that if they voted to leave, their situation was likely to improve after leaving. Unfortunately the opposite is likely to be true. Our Government is responsible for the austerity measures that have seen a public sector pay freeze, many peoples wages going backwards for the last 10 years, and an increasing number of people being forced to use food banks.
I am not sure that many that were against freedom of movement are aware of the fact that the Government has the right to send anyone that hasn't got a job within 3 months back to where they came from. The fact that they haven't done this is the fault of our Government.
The truth is that many immigrants take on the jobs that many Brits don't want. They involve hard work, long hours, and are poorly paid. These people are still needed, and when freedom of movement ends we will end up getting them from elsewhere. So leaving the EU will not by any means put a stop to immigration.
At the time of the referendum many people were unaware of the implications, many more were mistaken, and some didn't have a clue. Any one that has taken an interest in the negotiations since the referendum, has become much more informed. As there is clearly not a majority in Parliament for any deal, I am not sure there is any way out of this other than another vote.
The glaringly obvious point is that whatever deal we get, we must be worse off than when we were members. If this was not the case, then all the other countries would leave, and there would no longer be an EU. This would be turkeys voting for Christmas. It is not going to happen. The whole thing has made me fed up with the lying, conning, politicians that we have. David Davis said "We will have exactly the same benefits and will be no worse off when we leave". He should go to jail for that.
This is the biggest decision of our lifetimes, that will affect generations to come.
The Labour Party should be ashamed of themselves, as they are supposed to be providing a credible opposition to the Government, and have clearly failed to do so.
Our politicians just constantly let us down.
Well maybe you should. Continually writing nonsense may damage your health. You could end up going bonkers.
Polling showed 59 percent of voters would now vote to remain in the bloc, versus 41 percent who would vote to leave. The findings were published in an academic-led report on Wednesday by research bodies NatCen and The UK in a Changing Europe.
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/british-opinion-still-deeply-divided-230703797.html
All the countries involved would then have to take very seriously their own current and future positions rather than just penalise us.
We were prevented from joining until 1969, due to the rest of Europe (particularly France) not trusting us. We joined in 1973. We had the UK's first ever referendum as to whether we should join in 1975, 2 years after we had. We then decided to leave without anyone having the first clue as to the merits of leaving (or staying for that matter), and signalled that intention without giving business the first clue as to the way forward.
Why have another vote? We are not going to be allowed back in. It will only let a whole load of politicians tell us a pack of lies again (on both sides), and politicians be led purely by self-interest (as examples, everyone knows that Corbyn campaigned for Remain while wanting to Leave, Boris campaigned to leave purely in the hope of becoming PM, and Cameron was too scared to even speak).
I do not believe we should have left. However, we need to be concentrating on trying to find the best way forward. It will be worse than the right-wing Little Englanders believe, and better than the doomsayers. I'd like politicians to be trying to actually run the country with as little damage as possible.
A good start would be politicians actually setting out the arguments for and against adopting a similar position to Switzerland or Norway, rather than just sitting in entrenched positions lobbing hand grenades.
The Prime Minister claims that her Chequers plan, is a means to honour the terms of the referendum, as we will be leaving the EU, but maintaining enough ties that will mean as little damage as possible to the economy. She has little support for this plan in her own party.
Others in her party prefer a Canada style deal.
Some prefer a Norway style deal.
These are all Conservatives.
All the above options have in common the fact that all involve leaving the EU. The problem is that they are supported by varying numbers of leave voters.
Some leave voters will support none of the above proposals, as they would prefer to leave without a deal.
I don't believe it is therefore possible to gauge what anyone that voted leave was actually voting for.
Who knew what all the options were prior to the referendum.
We still have no idea of the deal we will get, assuming we get a deal. So leave voters still have no idea what they really voted for.
What if the deal we get involves some access to the Single Market, we have to stay in the Customs Union in order to avoid an Irish border, but will no longer be members. Some leave voters may then prefer to remain members, to get a say in the running of it all, rather than having no say, and just having to accept all the rules that will be made in Brussels.
The only sensible way out of this is a vote on either accepting the deal we get, or staying in.
The vote Justine Greening was proposing had 3 choices, accepting the deal, leaving without a deal, or remaining.
Talk about flogging a dead horse.
Why would the Government wish to continue to pursue the Chequers plan, which cant get through Parliament, and Michel Barnier has described as dead.
Chancellor Philip Hammond has signalled that a no deal Brexit could trigger a fresh round of austerity measures because of the impact to the British economy.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/philip-hammond-no-deal-brexit-could-mean-deeper-austerity-cuts-to-public-sector/ar-BBMY8xo?ocid=spartandhp
Carmaker Honda (HMC) has delivered a fresh warning that thousands of British jobs could be lost if the UK leaves the EU’s customs union.
British MEPs met representatives of the Japanese car market in Ghent, Belgium on Thursday to discuss the potential impact of Brexit on businesses.
They were told that the government’s plan to leave the customs union could hit their profits so substantially they could be forced into leaving the UK.
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/honda-stop-car-production-britain-post-brexit-164022614.html
However I am not sure whether both things are compatible.
She’s highly intelligent and very pro-Brexit.”
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/boris-johnson-splits-from-long-suffering-wife-after-she-accused-him-of-cheating/ar-BBMYt7z?ocid=spartandhp
LONDON — The European Union's official response to Prime Minister Theresa May triggering Brexit states that Article 50 can be reversed, meaning Britain could, in theory, change its mind at some point in the two-year negotiation process.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/eu-brexit-resolution-article-50-can-be-revoked-2017-3
The EU have been accused of intransigence by the more rabid Brexiteers. This criticism is based on their refusal to abandon their fundamental principles. These are rules that we helped to create. We will not get a deal that only includes some of the four freedoms.
The same people are inferring that if we leave without a deal we wont have to pay them any money. Yet my understanding was that we are not "giving" them any money. We have agreed a figure that we owe them. This is the amount of money that we had already committed to pay them, and future pension obligations etc. So, presumably whether we get a deal or not, we will still have to pay what we owe, and this figure will remain unaffected by the deal we get, or don't get.
I am absolutely flabbergasted that we find ourselves in the current position, more than 2 years after the referendum.
Nobody could argue with the fact that both sides want a deal. So to end up in this position, with so little time left, would not seem possible.
I blame our side for the lack of progress. I think that the number of red lines that Theresa May set out from the word go, made it almost impossible to get a deal.
Both Scotland and Northern Ireland voted heavily in favour of remaining in the EU.
There was a piece on Newsnight last night saying the polls are showing increasing numbers of people in favour of a United Ireland.
It also wouldn't be a massive surprise if the Scots voted for Independence at some point no too far in the future.
Maybe a majority in both countries will prefer EU membership to staying part of the UK.
Unbelievably a majority voted to leave in Wales. This was despite the fact the we were getting £650 million per year off them, which is likely to be missed.
However, the transcript shows Barnier did deliver a killer blow to the prime minister’s plans for post-Brexit trade, declaring them “unworkable.”
Chequers sets out the government’s desire to maintain frictionless trade with the continent through a “free trade area” for goods – a proposal which would effectively see Britain remain in the single market but only for goods and not services, capital or labour.
“Our customs union, our customs system, as it works, is a fully integrated system that cannot be undermined and we cannot split up the four freedoms of the single market … Your proposal does not seem workable to us, basically.”
He added: “When it comes to those two proposals, there is a real problem of substance for us, because they would weaken and would lead to the unravelling of the single market.
“That is why they are not acceptable, so you cannot ask us to make concessions on the very foundations of the European Union.”
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/key-parts-mays-chequers-plan-brexit-unworkable-says-barnier-142958683.html