June 2015: Parliament votes for EU referendum

[Alberto Balsam Rodriguez]

It seems that many remainers desperately want this to be true, and hope that if they keep repeating it it will come true, rather than using their energies to work out the best future outside the EU.

Let us put it another way. No leaver has actually come up with a path that actually leads to leaving being of genuine benefit.

[Ash]

Let us put it another way. No leaver has actually come up with a path that actually leads to leaving being of genuine benefit.

That is your opinion. though it sounds to me as if you are saying "Nah nah I'm not listening!"

[Alberto Balsam Rodriguez]

That is your opinion. though it sounds to me as if you are saying "Nah nah I'm not listening!"

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?

[Ash]

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. Which is why I get exasperated when I feel I am being asked to start from the very beginning when confronted with statements like:

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.

[Burney]

I have been suggesting things in detailed conversations here with many people for the last year and a half. 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.

[Alberto Balsam Rodriguez]

I have been suggesting things in detailed conversations here with many people for the last year and a half. 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 sorry, I haven't read every post on this subject. I dip in and out and often see nonsense like Monty's leading post in this thread so I choose not to participate.

I'm saying that I see lots of leavers telling everyone words to the effect of.....

It seems that many remainers desperately want this to be true, and hope that if they keep repeating it it will come true, rather than using their energies to work out the best future outside the EU.

and

Brexit means Brexit

Do you not see the irony here?

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.

Our government seem to be putting all the blame on the EU for their stance and the EU is doing visa versa. No surprises there but the opening positions are going to be unrealistic from both sides. The EU will want to protect the EU. We want a fair (preferential) deal but what is a fair deal?
- Is it a deal that is better than what we had when we were in the EU? That seems totally unrealistic from the EU perspective as that will probably be the beginning of the end of the EU. Not a bad position when you are leaving it, we would probably want it to fall apart.
- Is it a deal that is worse than the terms of WTO terms? Clearly we wouldn't take that deal and default to WTO terms.
- Is it a deal that is somewhere in between? What does this mean. I don't know this.

Then we move on to how will we be in a better position once we are out of it?
- Control of our borders? Apparently, and I have not done the research, we can already impose restrictions on immigration while within the EU. If this is the case, why have we not. Is it just cost of policing the borders?
- Sovereignty? Ok, there is that. One could argue that the EU makes laws designed to protect the likes of you and me from being exploited. I'm not saying it is perfect. Is this such a bad thing to lose? What is the cost of giving this up?

Then there is the financial impact. What do we have in our pockets at the end of the day. Who stands to gain most from this and who will be worse off?