June 2015: Parliament votes for EU referendum

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

No, it is a politician's answer designed to do nothing but avoid the question.

It is not a question of precise extrication, it is a question of fundamentals- the single market, freedom of movement, trade agreements. And I did point out, before the referendum, that it was a little unfair that leavers were being asked to take a leap in the dark- a tiny bit of detail would have made for a more balanced debate. In the end it didn’t matter and people took the gamble anyway.

Either way…. You can make all the excuses you like. The fact is that the statement Brexit means Brexit says precisely nothing and is precisely designed to do so. It is an answer to a question that wants to know what Brexit means- at this stage, the government still don’t really have a clue. So how can it possibly mean anything?

---

As Monty said, Brexit means leaving the European institutions that comprise the EU. Pro-remain politicians (which is most of them) and pro-remain media (which is most of it) are muddying the water by pretending that it might mean something else (fakebrexit, basically), which encourages others to follow their lead.

As to the difficulties and complexities of this, well yes, it is both of those things but then radical political change like revolution and extraction from supranational entities is never easy. The difficulty of a task should not preclude the option of persuing it even if it is a challenging obstacle. Indeed, the 'technical' argument against attempting it which you are making is cut from the very cloth of the unassailable EU technocracy, where government is seen as a machine that humble voters can never attempt to understand, and can only be operated by the high priests of the machinery who should not be accountable to the odious masses (which the current, left-of-centre ruling class despise as much as their right-wing predecessors).

:music: Welcome to the machine! :music:

This thread sucks it's too much to follow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alberto Balsam Rodriguez

Of course it's my opinion. I'm more than happy to be proved wrong. It is our future FFS. It is clear that we are going to leave so how can we make it a success. I've seen nothing to suggest that it will be for the foreseeable future.

If you have something to suggest, please do enlighten rather than just coming up with a nonsensical response?

---

I have been suggesting things in detailed conversations here with many people for the last year and a half. :shrug: Which is why I get exasperated when I feel I am being asked to start from the very beginning when confronted with statements like:

Quote:

---

No leaver has actually come up with a path that actually leads to leaving being of genuine benefit.

---

Are you saying that no leaver has come up with any advantages of being independent from the EU? Or is it that there is no path to achieve those benefits?

If it is the latter, then for a start see my reply to Peter about the technical challenges, to which I would add that if the difficulty of that path is partly seen as the reluctance of the EU and/or some of its constituents elements to give us a fair deal then that only reinforces the critique of the institition in the first place. Put bluntly, if they are being cùnts then that is why we wanted to leave in the first place.

Ultimately we put more money into the EU than we get out, and we buy more stuff from it than we sell. If those countries who we are subsidising, while our own people go short of services we cannot afford, want to play hardball, then ultimately they will have to seek their free monies from elsewhere while Britain can continue to trade with the EU like every other country under WTO rules. Is China in the EU? Nope.

The worst possible path is the 'soft' (fake) brexit that sees Britain still paying in about the same amount, still have no control over its borders and laws and courts, but has no say in the EU either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pat Vegas

This thread sucks it's too much to follow.

---

Thanks. :thumbup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ash

Thanks. :thumbup:

---

Perhaps you have it in picture form?

also on your recommendation I now own a Tokai.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ash

I have been suggesting things in detailed conversations here with many people for the last year and a half. :shrug: Which is why I get exasperated when I feel I am being asked to start from the very beginning when confronted with statements like:

---

I'm just thoroughly sick of the 'it's too complicated' argument (which is pathetic); the 'It was too binary'/'Leavers didn't know what they were voting for' (which is disingenuous - they were voting to Leave the EU because they don't like it - everything else is just detail).

The fact is that, in 40 years of membership, the political class has utterly failed to convince the wider British public of the merits of EU membership - as evidenced by the fact that those who voted In in 1975 overwhelmingly voted Leave in 2016.

Ultimately, if you take away the minority of us with specific ideological reasons for voting either way, the split actually came down to a very simple dichotomy between those who feel they have benefited from the EU and those who feel they both have not and have actually suffered as a result of membership.
That's it. Nothing more complex than that. The ascribing of base motives to either side is both incorrect and unhelpful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luis Anaconda

Should be forced to repeat it until it make some sense though, which it will never do. It doesn't - or does only as much as frankfurter means frankfurter. It is an absolutely ludicrous position to hold - leave should have meant something, people should have been given more to vote on than just a rejection of an idea. People essentially voted for a vacuum at the heart of our government and yet you still nonchalantly dismiss people who say this might have been bad idea as "Project Fear" - another utterly stupid concept. Anyway - enjoy the match, a. Chat Monday :)

---

Why does it not make sense to be an independent country outside of a supranational entity? National sovereignty has been the standard unit of geopolitical organisation for hundreds of years. Self-determination was considered the key element of post-imperial Europe after WW1 and more globally after WW2 when Britain's own empire was disbanded, along with others.

Was the concept of self-rule for Ireland merely the 'rejection of an idea' or was it the rejection of a specific supranational entity - the British Empire? Likewise, the rejection of the EU is not the rejection of an 'idea' of Europe, but an actual powerful political contruct. There was probably far less confusion in the minds of thise who voted to leave than of those who are desperately trying to avoid leaving while making it look as if they are.

As for the concerted campaign by pretty much the entire ruling class to persuade voters that the sky would fall on our heads the moment we voted leave, let alone after we actually left, well, call it what you like. Project Fear is not such a bad description imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty92

Brexit means and always meant leaving the single market, customs union and ECJ and ending freedom of movement. And, of course, negotiating the best trade deal possible with the EU.

What more did you want?

---

So leaving the EU and remaining in the EEA is not Brexit then? Despite the leaving the EU bit? And this was absolutely clear to everyone who voted leave, was it?

As Peter said, no one was looking for all the details but something like 'we will leave the single market, customs union and have complete control of our borders with no qualifications' wouldn't have been that difficult to communicate and voting for it without any supporting proposal of any kind baffles me. Unless, like Burney, you voted Leave for ideological reasons and let the consequences be damned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ash

As Monty said, Brexit means leaving the European institutions that comprise the EU. Pro-remain politicians (which is most of them) and pro-remain media (which is most of it) are muddying the water by pretending that it might mean something else (fakebrexit, basically), which encourages others to follow their lead.

As to the difficulties and complexities of this, well yes, it is both of those things but then radical political change like revolution and extraction from supranational entities is never easy. The difficulty of a task should not preclude the option of persuing it even if it is a challenging obstacle. Indeed, the 'technical' argument against attempting it which you are making is cut from the very cloth of the unassailable EU technocracy, where government is seen as a machine that humble voters can never attempt to understand, and can only be operated by the high priests of the machinery who should not be accountable to the odious masses (which the current, left-of-centre ruling class despise as much as their right-wing predecessors).

:music: Welcome to the machine! :music:

---

I am not making any argument against attempting anything. I just said that 'brexit means brexit' means nothing. Which is undeniably true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

I am not making any argument against attempting anything. I just said that 'brexit means brexit' means nothing. Which is undeniably true.

---

It doesn't mean nothing. It means leaving the EU.

It has also been regularly qualified by the key Leave players, including May herself.

“Brexit does not mean partial membership of the European Union, associate membership of the European Union, or anything that leaves us half-in, half-out. We do not seek to adopt a model already enjoyed by other countries. We do not seek to hold on to bits of membership as we leave.

“The United Kingdom is leaving the European Union."

Theresa May, January 2017